From nobody Sun Dec 8 07:43:12 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Starting Weight, Current Weight, Goal References: Date: 08 Dec 2002 07:43:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "John Cassidy" writes: > When lurking around this newsgroup, I see most people have lost some > weight, as have I. However, almost everyone is much closer to their > starting weight than they are to their goal weight. > Is this because goal weights are unrealistic, or do people "give up" > and therefore stop posting? Most people probably stop following the group once they lose the weight. Also, once you've hung out in this group for a few months, you've been through all the basic discussions a few times, and there's not as much to learn as there is when you're a newbie. Also, this is a very busy group. I was subscribed last year, while I dropped from 280 to 250, and there were hundreds of messages some days. I leveled off at Thanksgiving 2001, because I went hog wild at family dinners, which around here are like "How many ways can you prepare potatoes?" contests. However, by simply keeping my carbs reasonable, I've maintained right at 250 lbs, rather than putting that weight back on. Now I'm getting started again, to lose the other 50 lbs or so, so I'll be hanging around again. Anyway, back to the point: When I was active in this group last year, I probably spent a couple hours a day on it, 'cause I posted quite a bit, and I tend to ramble. Even if you just lurk and don't post, it probably takes an hour/day to read every message. Most people aren't going to spend that much time in one newsgroup, at least not long-term. -- From nobody Sun Dec 8 07:51:03 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Friend on Low Carb diet coming to stay References: <1039348457.10409.0@dyke.uk.clara.net> Date: 08 Dec 2002 07:51:02 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Lines: 31 "G3=A3Wh\)zZ@" writes: > I'm not on a diet etc(but will soon be) > Anyway a friend is coming to stay (here in the uk) for 2 weeks over > the Xmas Holidays She told me she is on a Low Carb diet. (Which i > have no probs with etc) > Is there anywhere i can get a list of uk food with carb properties > etc, so i don`t buy all the wrong type of food in for her, any help > suggestions appreciated. It's easy. Just buy: meat -- any kind of fresh/frozen, but not breaded eggs cheese, sour cream, heavy cream (I think you call it 'double cream') green vegetables, radishes, turnips, peppers, herbs, spices nuts (I buy them in the shell this time of year, so I won't eat them so fast) no bread, corn, potatoes, pasta, pastries, rice, etc. That'll get you started. Even better, wait until your friend arrives and then go shopping, and let her help. That way you'll get some tips for when you start you own diet. --=20 From nobody Mon Dec 9 07:35:13 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie advice.. References: Date: 09 Dec 2002 07:35:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "turkeylady" writes: > To all newbies: Read the low carb book of you choice I'd amend that just slightly to 'bookS.' My local library has Atkins, Protein Power, Schwarzbein, Sugar Busters, Bernstein, Fran McCullough's excellent _Low-Carb Cookbook_, and more. I've read most of them, and intend to get through them all. They all provide different perspectives and strategies, as well as recipes. I haven't found any one book that explains it all perfectly yet. If I had to recommend just one book, it'd be _Protein Power_. It covers all the bases pretty well: the biology and nutrition behind LC, the methods for calculating your LBM and what to eat, food lists and meal suggestions, and some recipes. If you don't care about the biology and background, and just want a how-to book, Atkins is probably your best bet. But be prepared to come back here for advice when you stall eating SF-Jello every day. :-) -- From nobody Tue Dec 10 06:33:42 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What should I weigh ? References: <3DF3F82D.46C599E7@tyenet.com> <3DF3FA33.167562B9@tyenet.com> <3DF42136.272C80E1@tyenet.com> <3DF4B3C6.76743E3F@none.com> <37p9vuobo5t8ra11u6jltqfuaicq2d18me@4ax.com> <3DF54B53.239B6FA1@none.com> Date: 10 Dec 2002 06:33:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 John writes: > I'm not at all certain.All I can say is that given the way I've been > eating over the last few weeks (good quantities of beef, > chicken,eggs,sausage,etc...and no junk or carbs),I almost never feel > hungry between meals.And when I do feel hungry,it's a type of hunger > that is surprisingly easy for me to "ignore".As vague as it > is,that's the best explanation I can give. That's exactly how it works for me. When I'm eating a typical high-carb diet, I don't get hungry; I get ravenous. I can't concentrate on anything until I eat, and I'll find myself wandering the kitchen every few minutes. On low-carb, hunger is a completely different sensation. I still get hungry, but it doesn't control me. I can have a small snack, or just wait until mealtime. As you say, it's hard to describe, but LC hunger just somehow feels more 'healthy.' -- From nobody Tue Dec 10 06:37:16 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Brussel sprouts References: <20021209212604.12357.00000185@mb-ci.aol.com> Date: 10 Dec 2002 06:37:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "sprudil" writes: > It also makes a difference as to whether or not the crop was touched > by frost. If it has enough exposure to frost it will develop some > of its natural sugars and won't be as bitter. Yes, they taste much better after a good frost or two. I'm surprised they're as carby as reported, since they seem very similar to cabbage. Oh well, cabbage is easier to grow, anyway. It has a *much* shorter growing season, and you only have to pick one to make a few meals. -- From nobody Tue Dec 10 06:56:30 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What to pack for an 8 year old's LC lunch References: <65eJ9.342953$fa.6602291@twister.tampabay.rr.com> Date: 10 Dec 2002 06:56:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "M'isa" writes: > This is an 8 year old. We are not to be practical here, we want him > to be "cool" so, that being said... Yes, since being 'cool' and fitting in are what school is all about. My niece started taking uncool cheese sticks for her snack (they're still having a snack in third grade). After a while, she told her mom she needed more cheese for two friends who say they "never get cheese at home." I'm not sure what they do now with the chips and cookies their moms send with them. -- From nobody Tue Dec 10 19:12:51 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Getting naked References: <20021210153000.08963.00000526@mb-fo.aol.com> Date: 10 Dec 2002 19:12:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Would someone care to translate? The Myers-Briggs test tries to chart a person's personality on four scales: Introverted <-> Extroverted iNtuitive <-> Sensate Thinking <-> Feeling Judging <-> Perceiving (If those aren't the terms exactly, they're very close.) There are 16 possible combinations. Actual test results give you a position on each scale. One Introvert might be 51% I and 49% E, while another is 99% I and 1% E. So the acronyms are somewhat vague. The problem with personality tests is that once you have an idea what they're testing for, it's hard not to tell what the questions are designed to do, and let that affect your answers. For example, a question like, "In group settings, are you the life of the party, or do you prefer to talk in a small group?" is obviously designed to score on the I/E scale. So if you're really an I, but you see yourself as an E, will you answer correctly and/or honestly? We took the Myers-Briggs a few times in high school. My first results were ISTP. After that, just for fun, I made sure to get radically different results every time. Nowadays, if I took it honestly, I'd be ISTJ -- becoming more TJ with age. -- From nobody Tue Dec 10 19:30:16 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A question for long term low carbers.... References: Date: 10 Dec 2002 19:30:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "David Harvey" writes: > I understand the science of keto and it obviously burns fat, but > surely it is not a long term option as a diet? Ketosis is only necessary until you reach your goal weight. Every low-carb plan out there will tell you that when you reach (or in some cases, start moving toward) your goal weight, you increase your carbs until your diet and weight are in balance. > Our bodies evolved to use our fat reserves in lean times and to > store fat in good times. Our bodies also evolved on a diet of mainly meat, with some berries and roots thrown in when they could be found. Human beings only started eating a significant amount of grain and other carby foods about 10,000 years ago. That's just a blink on the evolutionary timeline; not nearly enough time for us to evolve to handle large amounts of carbs. > We are very efficient fat storing machines and the prosperity of our > society has naturally meant we have few lean times to face. Exactly. Our bodies are designed to burn protein and fat the best, and to quickly pack on the pounds whenever extra fuel is available. That's why eating very many carbs is unhealthy /in general/, whether you're dieting or not. Unless you expect to get caught in a snowstorm or be in a famine soon, there's no reason to let your body store fat like our ancestors needed to. > Hence the problem that in affluent countries obesity has become more > and more widespread. I just don't see how living in an enforced > state of keto can be good for us? Actually, it may be very good for you -- or at least better than the alternative. Excess insulin, which is released to deal with the carbs you eat, has many negative effects on the body. Check out _Protein Power_ for details. -- From nobody Wed Dec 11 13:37:01 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Nutritional Bang for the Buck References: <299dae61.0212101029.4f18a630@posting.google.com> <3DF778E9.C5362F55@yahoo.com> Date: 11 Dec 2002 13:37:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 Lee writes: > > thoughts………Folks, eating low carb SHOULD BE a > I don't understand what all the ampersands and numbers are supposed > to be doing in this line? They only come across as ampersands and > numbers on my screen. Whatever software the original poster used to compose the message used special 8-bit characters for something (usually fancy quote marks and hyphens and such). Usenet is a 7-bit medium, so somewhere along the way those 8-bit characters got converted into a numerical HTML representation which doesn't translate across platforms. I see the original post was made from google; perhaps the original poster wrote it in an 8-bit-capable word processor and then cut and pasted it into google, which converted the characters. Anyway, there's not much you can do about it except try to decipher it as you read, and maybe ask the poster to fix his newsreader. -- From nobody Wed Dec 11 13:52:48 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: USA Today Article about Atkins (12/10/02) References: <20021210113028.19601.00000443@mb-fi.aol.com> Date: 11 Dec 2002 13:52:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 57 kcheck202@yahoo.com (KellyAnn) writes: > It really surprises me (although by now it shouldn't) that they > consistently quote people describing the Atkins plan as "all bacon > no fruit and vegetables." It's not surprising when you consider the fact that to people who have always eaten a high-carb diet, 'fruit' means 'apples, oranges, and bananas'; and 'vegetables' means 'potatoes, corn, and carrots.' At my local grocery store, the true low-carb fresh vegetables (excepting lettuce) take up less room than the carrots alone, and probably 1/5 the space of the potato shelves. And most people consider lettuce a condiment for sandwiches or carrier for salad dressing, not a real vegetable. Fruit is the same way -- piles and piles of the high-carb fruits, while the low-carb ones can mainly be found in tiny cartons in season only, or in little frozen boxes. When you first walk into the fresh food aisle, it does seem like there's not much to choose from, until you realize all the LC items are just packed into a small space. So to people who've grown up thinking a baked potato is a vegetable course, and OJ is a great source of calcium, I'm sure LC *does* seem like "no fruit and vegetables." > Reading this article, I thought that the author was just as > uninformed as all the others, then I read the sidebar - which > contradicted most of the statements in the article about what we > eat. I guess should be happy that it was at least THERE, so people > who bothered could see how wrong that impression of the diet is. > But it still irks me that the author, who obviously had access to > the right information, never bothered to refute these statements in > the article itself. Really, how hard would it be to say "however, > despite common misperceptions, Atkins strongly recommends the > consumption of vegetables and allows some fruits during the OWL > phase"? Journalists don't do that sort of thing anymore. They just take quotes (from both sides if they're trying to write a good article; from one side if they're propagandizing) and write just enough original material to glue the quotes together into an article. They don't follow up or challenge dubious statements. (Harsh enough?) People who are interested will just have to read between the lines and spot the contradictions, as you did. > And, also, the guy who regained all his weight on "maintenance"? If > he was truly on maintenance, he wouldn't gain any weight - that's the > definition of maintenance. Good point. -- From nobody Wed Dec 11 16:40:33 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Way Off Topic...Anyone watching "Taken"? References: Date: 11 Dec 2002 16:40:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "mdmquincy" writes: > Nope, is it good? DH thinks it's the next V. Is that good or bad? :-) Lots of people watched 'V' at the time, but it definitely didn't age well. The acting was terrible, and all the Big Hair is just distracting now. -- From nobody Wed Dec 11 19:52:08 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Getting naked References: <20021211100156.21899.00000105@mb-dh.aol.com> Date: 11 Dec 2002 19:52:07 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Alicat writes: > I have had a lot of experience with the Myers-Briggs "system", > having run young adult retreats (that included "ministry > development", which means doing stuff like "discovering your gifts" > Man, I always hated that stuff. We had regular 'goal-setting retreats' that were just excruciating. -- From nobody Thu Dec 12 05:12:24 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Nutritional Bang for the Buck References: <7883-3DF7EB25-19@storefull-2176.public.lawson.webtv.net> Date: 12 Dec 2002 05:12:24 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Smart_Blonde@webtv.net writes: > My personal opinion is that those who do not eat any sweets or > treats are bordering on eating disorders. I say this because there > are so many posts from people who say they must stay away from these > things or they become out of control. To me, it's a question of laziness. If I stick with the meats, cheese, eggs, and dark green veggies, it's easy to stay under the 30g limit recommended by _Protein Power_. I don't have to count carbs every day; I don't have to track my weight to see if one artificial sweetener or another is causing me to stall; and I don't have to worry that something will trigger a carb craving attack. But that's just me; if having a dessert every day is important to you, and you're willing to go to the trouble to make LC sweets, more power to you. -- From nobody Thu Dec 12 16:39:18 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Way Off Topic...Anyone watching "Taken"? References: Date: 12 Dec 2002 16:39:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 jamie@sure.spam-me-silly.net (jamie) writes: > (still grumbling about them cancelling Farscape....while they're > advertising the heck out of the upcoming last few episodes as if > they hadn't cancelled it.) Yeah, that's typical Sci-Fi Channel marketing. The first promo I ever saw them run for MST3K was for the final episode. -- From nobody Fri Dec 13 07:07:49 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Way Off Topic...Anyone watching "Taken"? References: <3DF96F61.2020708@fake.com> Date: 13 Dec 2002 07:07:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 kathryn fogg writes: > Not only did they cancel Farscape but they are starting that dreams > analyzed show and Tremors the series. Blech. Hey now, don't be dissin' Tremors. I don't know if the series will be good, but at least it comes from a good series of movies. (I didn't like the third one on first viewing, but it grew on me after that. Still would have been better with Fred Ward, though.) That's better than most of the stuff they pick up that failed miserably elsewhere. > Without Farscape, the only show worth watching is Stargate. I tried to like Stargate way back when it was on Showtime, but I just couldn't take McGyver beating me over the head with his political opinions so often. Maybe I should try it on SFC and see if it's gotten better. -- From nobody Fri Dec 13 07:18:09 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Way Off Topic...Anyone watching "Taken"? Date: 13 Dec 2002 07:18:09 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 allison.NOSPAM@mycym.com (allison aka psycho) writes: > and I didn't like MST3K when it went to Sci-Fi Channel....there were > too many other bad genre movies out there waiting to be made fun > of...fortunately, I have about 50 of the 2nd season on from the > Comedy channel on tape. I never saw it on Comedy Central, but someday we'll get high-speed internet around here (hopefully) and I'll start downloading those eps. The funny thing about MST3K on Sci-Fi is they *didn't* just do sci-fi movies. I don't know if they already had some contracted, or what, but I can think of a few off the top of my head: Girl in Gold Boots -- weird 70's seamy LA crime story Hamlet -- awful German version Danger: Diabolik -- James Bond knockoff except you're supposed to cheer the bad guy while he kills and steals The Deadly Bees -- Bees sting people. That's the whole movie. Then there were several that weren't really sci-fi, but SFC probably considered them such (they showed "Big" and "Field of Dreams," after all.) -- From nobody Fri Dec 13 07:23:30 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hoody Hoo! Someone noticed! References: Date: 13 Dec 2002 07:23:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Jordan Leigh" writes: > Of course, they then asked how, and I started getting the lecture > about how you can't not eat carbohydrates, despite me saying I do > eat carbos, just good ones in vegetables... Ah well. We'll see what > they say when I lose another 80 lbs. :) Isn't it amazing that people will credit theories they've heard over what they can see with their own eyes? And even believe it strongly enough to argue with the evidence that's right before them? Oh well, the truth will out. -- 280/245/200 From nobody Fri Dec 13 16:17:05 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: not too proud to share the humor References: Date: 13 Dec 2002 16:17:04 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Roger Zoul" writes: > :: > :: I have to congradulate you on your profile... > :: You are also a very beautiful and sensual looking lady > :: and have very kind and caring eyes. Any man would be > :: honored to have you on their arm while walking thru > :: the mall... > :: > :: --------- > Oh, you'd be his trophy! No, apparently she'd be 'their' trophy (on 'their' arm). He must have multiple personalities. Maybe one of the other ones can spell 'congratulate' and 'through.' We *were* supposed to pick on these, right? -- From nobody Fri Dec 13 17:27:38 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: not too proud to share the humor References: Date: 13 Dec 2002 17:27:37 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Reb" writes: > Thought I'd throw in one of the responses I've gotten. I didn't > even search for the worst. Just pulled up one at random. This is a > straight cut and paste. [snip 2nd-grade English] > O-kay. Come on guys, at least run a spell check! > Scary stuff out there in the singles world! Here's the really scary part -- the guy has to pay and sign up for the service to send you that message, right? That's the best message he can come up with, when he's paying to send it? -- From nobody Fri Dec 13 18:12:29 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The great pork rind shortage References: Date: 13 Dec 2002 18:12:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 BillJ writes: > I wonder if there's a drop in pork slaughter this time of year or > something that affects the production of pork rinds? Shouldn't be. Ham production goes up a little for the holidays (Easter more than the others) but pork rinds don't come from the meat anyway. Maybe pork rinds just aren't a big seller, so they get squeezed out by the seasonal items that need space. -- From nobody Sat Dec 14 02:54:41 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: not too proud to share the humor Date: 14 Dec 2002 02:54:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "eff" writes: > Yep. I always make sure I respond to someone who specifically > mentions at least one part of my ad. Thanks for the tip. I'm going to have to start responding to some of these ads. If these guys are the typical competition... -- From nobody Sat Dec 14 03:09:54 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The great pork rind shortage Date: 14 Dec 2002 03:09:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 BillJ writes: > That sounds right for Wally World and Big K. They're always > rearranging the stores for seasonal items. I also noticed the whole > section that used to include pork rinds has been given to chips and > other products from Frito Lay in both stores. I'm a bit worried > that Frito has bribed them (I remember an old 60 Minutes story) for > a monopoly on shelf space, which would mean the poor little porkies > manufacturer and I are screwed. Probably. That's the way it works with soda brands, and they're all the same couple of companies. If you get desperate enough, you can make your own 'cracklings,' which are something like pork rinds. Go to your local butcher, and get pork fat. Tell them you want to render it down to lard, and they'll give you the right stuff. Our butcher gives it to us for free, since they throw most of it away. You'll also need a candy thermometer. Cut it up into chunks about 1" or so in size. Put them in a big heavy pot (not aluminum) and add 1/2 cup of water. Put it on the stove and start simmering. I usually start it out on medium heat, and lower it to a simmer once it gets bubbling good. Stir the chunks every so often to keep them from sticking to the bottom. It's an all day process, so be patient. The chunks of fat will gradually cook down, until they're floating around in grease. Watch the temperature; when it reaches 255 degrees it should be finished. (I usually let it go just a bit higher to 260, in case my thermometer is a little off.) Remove from heat and pour the contents through a sieve of some sort (cheesecloth works) into whatever you want to keep your lard in. Sunlight decreases its shelf life, so use something opaque. What you have left in your strainer are cracklings. Press as much of the liquid fat out of them as possible. Some people put them in a sausage press to squeeze it out, but when we did that, I thought they got awfully dry. You should be able to just twist up the cheesecloth and squeeze most of it out. Now salt the cracklings to taste, and store them in the fridge. You can use them like bacon bits or pork rinds, and you get lard in the bargain. -- From nobody Sun Dec 15 15:33:11 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New to group References: Date: 15 Dec 2002 15:33:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 63 "wilson0707" writes: > Hi all. My name is Jasmyn. I have been trying different low cal > "diets" recently as I have just been married a year and have gained > weight. I need help. I have been told that the Atkin's diet works. Low-carb diets work. Atkins is the most famous low-carb diet, but there are others. > What does it entail? It entails keeping your carb intake below a certain point, and filling your diet instead with healthy sources of protein and fat. > I would buy the book, but I cant afford it yet. I plan on buying it > in the New Year sometime. I haven't spent dollar #1 on this diet yet. I've borrowed several low-carb guides and cookbooks from my local library, and picked up lots of good tips and recipes in this group and on LC web sites. > Does this diet work? Yes. > What can I and can't I eat? If I told you that, you wouldn't need the book. :-) Basically, you want to avoid carby foods and eat non-carby foods. But sometimes it's not obvious to newbies what foods are in each category, so it's best to have a list from somewhere when you're starting. > I have read a few posts here so far, but there is over 10000 left to > go. If someone could email me and help me out that would be > fantastic. Usenet doesn't work that way. Answers should always be posted to the group, so that other people can benefit from them, and they can be archived for future searchers to find. Any decent newsreader can be configured so follow-ups to your posts will be highlighted in some way, so you can easily find them in a busy group like this one. Just slog through those 10000 posts; by the time you get finished, most of your questions will be answered, and you'll have a pretty good idea of what foods to eat just from the examples and recipes. Then start checking out the sites that people recommend, and you'll have more than enough ideas on what to eat. If you've still got questions at that point, be sure to post them; this is a very helpful group. > BTW, I weigh 158lbs. My goal is 125lbs-130lbs. (when I got > married, I was 130lbs). I am 5'6. Then the good news is you don't have much weight to lose. Some people here have lost over 100 lbs. I've lost 35 myself, with 45 to go. -- 280/245/200 From nobody Sun Dec 15 19:35:31 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: liquid supplements? References: Date: 15 Dec 2002 19:35:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 DJ Delorie writes: > Someone I know is hesitant to start a LC diet because she just can't > swallow pills. Are there appropriate liquid supplements she could > use that people have experience with and can recommend? Many of us don't bother with supplements. (I can't swallow pills either.) I did buy some Morton Lite Salt for potassium the other day, but for the first few months I didn't even bother with that. As long as you get a variety of meat and dark leafy vegetables, you'll be getting far better nutrition than the pasta-eaters and soda-drinkers. So other than the potassium question, I personally don't see that going LC means you'll need more supplements than you took before LC. If she wants to take a supplement on general principles, there are liquid multi-vitamins that have a little fructose in them, but you'd have to check the carb count on the bottle. There are also sub-lingual versions of some vitamins, like the B's, as well as liquids like licorice root extract. -- From nobody Mon Dec 16 20:34:39 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: yes another poll References: Date: 16 Dec 2002 20:34:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 56 "turkeylady" writes: > Which low carb plan are you following? Did you read the book? Mine own concoction, after reading several books. > Are you male or female? All man. > How long have you been low carbing? About 3 months last year, then maintained until restarting a week ago. > How much weight have you lost while following this low carb way of > eating/diet/whatever? 35 lbs. > Do you drink diet soda? If so how often? Never. > How much water do you average a day? Several glasses. > How many carbs do you average a day? 10-30. > Do you exercise, what type and how often? Physical labor (cutting firewood, carrying heavy stuff, etc) a few times a week. > Do you eat "low carb" products? If so how often and which ones? Never. > What has been your longest stall? How did you break that stall? IIRC, I stalled for a while after losing the first 20 lbs. Didn't do anything special, just waited until the weight started dropping again. The stall lasted a few weeks. > What has you learned about your healthy while low carbing? (health > improvements) More energy, no more heartburn, no headaches, fewer coughs and colds, less dry skin, less mental fog.... -- From nobody Mon Dec 16 20:40:25 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Finished the Induction Today:Results! References: Date: 16 Dec 2002 20:40:25 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "John Blythe" writes: > Finally finished the induction, and lost some weight: > Is losing ten pounds in two weeks healthy? Or Am I losing too > Fast/Slow > I feel good, and am happy about the weight I lost. :-) You just answered your own question. -- From nobody Mon Dec 16 21:11:52 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Harvard: New Statement on USDA Pyramid References: <20021216154700.28245.00000239@mb-fo.aol.com> Date: 16 Dec 2002 21:11:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 LiquidHAL writes: > I can't remember exactly where I heard this, but there is a theory > that the USDA food pyramid was just marketing campaign. Think about > it, the USDA stands for United States Department of Agriculture. > Their interests are not in the health of the American public, but in > promoting America's agriculture products. The largest crops in the > US are grains, which just so happen to be the most recommended food > group on the pyramid. If they had recommended few carbs from grains > and potatoes then many rice, grain, and potatoe farms would have > gone bankrupt, and the USDA's job is to prevent that. Am I making > any sense here? Not really. If people don't eat grain, they have to eat something else, and it all comes from agriculture of some sort. In fact, if keeping farmers in business were the purpose of the food pyramid, it'd be heavy on meat and dairy, since those "value-added" foods require more farmers to produce than simple grains do. My understanding is that the original "4 food groups" concept was created to convince people that school lunches were healthy. Once people were convinced that any meal with an item from each of the four groups was healthy, it was easy to design school lunches that met the requirements. (Like ketchup as a vegetable.) The food pyramid, on the other hand, has obviously been heavily influenced by the animal rights and radical vegetarian crowds, as well as the general low-fat hysteria that's permeated the medical and media establishments for the last few decades. -- From nobody Tue Dec 17 15:27:03 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Personal Ads....Post Your's Here! References: Date: 17 Dec 2002 15:27:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 10 "Carmen " writes: > I wonder if that organ's a *mouth* organ...... Only if he's extremely flexible. -- From nobody Tue Dec 17 17:13:59 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dry Meat References: <6ANL9.238991$ka.5765290@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> Date: 17 Dec 2002 17:13:58 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Soulful" writes: > I would be more successful sticking with induction if my meat didn't > always taste so dry! > Any suggestions on how to liven things up low-carb style? Cooking meat in a crockpot tends to help it retain moisture. I not only do this with whole chickens and roasts, but also with pork chops and smaller cuts. Or take whatever cut of meat you have ready, cut it into small chunks, and make a stew with low-carb vegetables. Or smother it in some sort of sauce. Last night I fried some hamburgers, and then simmered them for a while in a can of cream of mushroom sauce. -- From nobody Thu Dec 19 06:58:01 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: how many carbs do i actually need? References: <27554-3E01681A-33@storefull-2132.public.lawson.webtv.net> Date: 19 Dec 2002 06:58:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 crg903@webtv.net (clinton_gandy .) writes: > I have been doing the high protein/low carb thing since > August. Great success, but gow many grams of carbos are actually > needed by the body? Zero. Your body can produce any glycogen it may need from other sources. -- From nobody Thu Dec 19 07:45:41 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: This NG is very discriminating References: Date: 19 Dec 2002 07:45:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Randy" writes: > Sorry. I guess something is wrong with the news service I use. > And, I also use Outlook Express for reading and posting to this > newsgroup. Could that be a problem if you are all using Google? I > searched Google too and didn't find them, but I find them when I use > Outlook Express. Outlook Express probably saved them as outgoing messages when you posted them, so even though they didn't make it to the outside world, it still has a copy. Google, on the other hand, archives almost every post that makes it into general propagation, so if your post doesn't show up there, it probably didn't show up many other places either. I see you're posting through slurp.net, so it's possible that they were just having technical problems when you posted before. Or maybe your ISP was switching news providers, or had some other problem. In any case, it appears to be working now. -- From nobody Thu Dec 19 07:55:28 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 6lbs in 3 Days! References: Date: 19 Dec 2002 07:55:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "Jazz" writes: > 1. When your sick (with something like the Flu) does this encourage > weight lost, as more energy is needed to heal the body? I think most people lose weight when sick, but it's probably mostly because they don't eat much. Your body is healing, but you're probably also not exercising, so I'm not sure whether you'd burn more calories or not. > 2. I'm only 9 lbs away from my goal weight and as you know I am > still in Induction, what if I lose that weight during induction or > the early part of Phase 2, if I go back to my normal eating habits > (I have maintained my weight on my normal eating habits for bout a > year) will I put back the weight? Hard to say. If, as you say, your 'normal eating habits' maintained your weight before, I'd guess they will again. But how were you eating when you put on the weight in the first place? You certainly don't want to go back to those habits. Low-carbing has enough other health advantages that I wouldn't ever recommend that someone go back to a typical grain/sugar-based diet. > 3. If I have only 5-10 grams of Carbs is that fine? sometimes I > can't be creative to reach a solid 20 :) Yes. > 4. Anyone know whats the Net Carb for a tablespoon of Ketchup, I am > gettting sick of butter and mayo, anyone know any alternative to > ketchup? Ordinary ketchup is mostly sugar (well, corn syrup, really). Salsa can be pretty low-carb. You could also take some tomato paste, mix enough water into it to get the consistency you like, and then add whatever spices you like. You can also vary your mayo by stirring in mustard, horseradish, dill, or other spices. -- From nobody Thu Dec 19 14:04:28 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: smokers? References: <3E01294E.FC7CDAA0@obase.net> <20021219012327.28503.00000127@mb-fv.aol.com> <3E020C34.DED1F575@obase.net> <3E021527.FBD1AF67@obase.net> <3E021FBB.B49E272A@obase.net> Date: 19 Dec 2002 14:04:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 William Stacy writes: > Maybe, but Dr. A's theory is if you are in ketosis, you *can't* be > putting on fat. True, you may not lose, but your body throws off > the extra calories in ketones instead of storing fat since the > insulin has been "neutralized" and cannot lay it away. I think I've > experienced just this in my 2 weeks+ of induction. After the intial > 5 lb drop, I stabilized and did not go up or down no matter how much > I consumed, and I eat a lot, in spite of the "appetite supression". The Eades also discuss this in one of the PP books. They had a client who had been low-carbing for a while, and complained that she wasn't losing weight. They added up her menu, and found that she was eating some huge number of calories/day (3000+ or 5000 or something like that. As they said, the amazing thing was that with all those calories, she hadn't gained a pound. Had she been eating carbs as a portion of those calories, she'd have been packing on the pounds. She simply couldn't gain weight. -- From nobody Sat Dec 21 03:11:24 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Newbie Question References: Date: 21 Dec 2002 03:11:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Jim" writes: > I realize that I'm not required to eat 20g of carb, but I would like > to inorder to not feel so fatigued. Fatigue and tired muscles are often due to low potassium levels. You might want to try a supplement, or use a no- or low-sodium salt that contains potassium. -- From nobody Sat Dec 21 19:16:38 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: First fruit.. References: <20021221120435.20512.00000293@mb-mh.aol.com> Date: 21 Dec 2002 19:16:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 castinneford@aol.comremove (CAStinneford) writes: > If the fruit fits with your carb count, what's the big deal? If you're trying to design a diet that'll work for as many people as possible, you have to take into account the people with serious insulin resistance who will have problems with anything slightly sugary, such as fruit. That's why Atkins says to avoid fruit for the whole two weeks of induction -- so that as many people as possible will get off to a good start. It's too bad he doesn't take the same approach with artificial sweeteners, since they also seem to give many newcomers trouble. With the exception of Atkins's induction period, I don't think any LC plan outlaws fruit. They just recommend focusing on the ones with lower sugar content, and you have to count the carbs, like anything else. Some plans, like Schwarzbein, downright recommend fruit. Berries are very low-carb and high-fiber, so they're fine for any LC plan except the first two weeks of Atkins. Melon is also a good choice. Of course, the high-carb fruits -- apples, oranges, and bananas -- are the ones the stores have huge piles of, but there are other choices. Once you've been LCing for a while, a great LC dessert is to freshly whip some heavy cream, and stir any kind of berries into it. With the heightened sense of taste for sweetness that I have now that I'm not loading my system with carbs anymore, it tastes downright sweet without any sweeteners added, real or artificial. -- From nobody Sat Dec 21 19:24:43 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Holiday Depression References: <3e02a3ff@news.theLink.net> Date: 21 Dec 2002 19:24:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Since every woman I know (it seems) says this, I'm going to do it. > Of course, it will be via e-mail since I think she is now gone. I > don't know why I can't figure this stuff out on my own. Must be why > I'm still single. It's not just you; none of us knows what he's doing. It's just that some guys (those darn E's) bull ahead and try things without worrying about whether they'll work or not, and sometimes they get lucky. Nothing ventured, nothing gained... I've been telling myself that for almost 20 years, but I'm rarely convinced. -- From nobody Sat Dec 21 19:56:08 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Digestive enzymes? References: Date: 21 Dec 2002 19:56:08 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 "Violet" writes: > Is there anyone out there taking any sort of digestive enzyme? I used to take a papaya enzyme extract for heartburn, but since going LC, I haven't needed it. It worked great, though. -- From nobody Sun Dec 22 02:37:43 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: First fruit.. Date: 22 Dec 2002 02:37:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 castinneford@aol.comremove (CAStinneford) writes: > While you've written an intelligent and informative post here, > taking my quote out of context and using it as a jumping off point > kind of ticks me off. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. -- From nobody Sun Dec 22 02:45:55 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Skin tags and GOOD IR side effects References: <20021221221313.02209.00000157@mb-fz.aol.com> Date: 22 Dec 2002 02:45:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "Reb" writes: > I did a quick Internet search to find something on this I could > point you to, and the first page I looked at did mention the skin > tag/insulin resistance connection, but even more interesting is the > 10th symptom on the list. Take a look, especially all you men. It > might make you even want to stop low-carbing! > http://www.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk/dhmhd-bin/hum-look-up?852 I can certainly attest to the truth of this one, as I have *huge* insulin resistance. -- From nobody Sun Dec 22 17:29:34 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Skin tags and GOOD IR side effects Date: 22 Dec 2002 17:29:34 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Reb" writes: > > I can certainly attest to the truth of this one, as I have *huge* > > insulin resistance. > Oh, yeah??? > Are you single, Aaron???? Yep. -- From nobody Sun Dec 22 17:35:31 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Skin tags and GOOD IR side effects Date: 22 Dec 2002 17:35:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "Reb" writes: > Are you single, Aaron???? Yep. I'm afraid I don't have a personals ad for everyone to pick over, though. I was thinking about posting one, but my most recent picture is my senior high school picture from 1987, so it's a little misleading. I still have about the same amount of hair, but part of it has migrated to the lower half of my face. -- From nobody Mon Dec 23 07:45:38 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Comfort food References: <853038c9.0212221843.4f2aa74e@posting.google.com> Date: 23 Dec 2002 07:45:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 rltomic@hotmail.com (Elly) writes: > What do you eat as comfort food now you are low-carbing? I have > tried strawberries and cream, peanuts, cheese, but nothing gives > that comfort food feeling like carby food did......I'm feeling > awfully miserable, give me ideas please!! Once the carb cravings have passed, the only thing I miss is crunchy, salty foods. Popcorn, potato chips, crackers, that kind of stuff. Pork rinds are the usual suggestion, but I just don't care much for them. Nuts can be crunchy and salty, but they're also expensive, and too carby if you scarf them down the way I tend to. LC crackers like Wasa are expensive and not that tasty. So, I really haven't found a solution, other than to keep the cupboards bare of crunchy carbs that might tempt me. I just tell myself that by this summer, when I've reached my goal and am on maintenance, I'll be able to work some crunchy snacks back into my diet in moderation. A few months' wait isn't that much to ask in exchange for losing 15 years of fat build-up. Jerky is a pretty good substitute if it's plenty salty, so I'll be making a batch of that soon. Anyone know if there's any reason *not* to use potassium salt in jerky? -- From nobody Thu Dec 26 09:22:16 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I don't get it! References: <20021224224451.29062.00000518@mb-cn.aol.com> Date: 26 Dec 2002 09:22:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "John" writes: > So if I am on induction, when is the best time to utilize my 20 > grams of carbs? Protein Power says to spread them out throughout the day, about 7 on each meal. I've also read somewhere that insulin sensitivity is best when you first wake up, so you'll handle carbs better at breakfast than later in the day. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter much unless you're stalled. -- From nobody Thu Dec 26 13:47:01 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Slightly OT: George Foreman Grill question References: <3e07c93f$1@news.theLink.net> <3E09F76E.8070502@fake.com> Date: 26 Dec 2002 13:47:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 dreemrytr7@hotmail.com (Debbie S.) writes: > There's a trick to cleaning a GF grill. Clean it just as you finish > cooking with it, ie, while it's still hot. If you let it cool while > you eat your dinner, the grill becomes almost impossible to get > clean. I have pretty good luck if I just plug the thing in for a couple minutes before cleaning it. Once it's warmed up, a sponge wipes it clean easily. -- From nobody Fri Dec 27 08:57:51 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: i don't really trust myself (hy) References: <20021226231205.22317.00000483@mb-md.aol.com> Date: 27 Dec 2002 08:57:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 icrazyhorsei@aol.com (Icrazyhorsei) writes: > Nah. No, most of us refused to give up caffeine, for one thing. We > just kind of skimmed over that part. I don't know anybody that's a > hundred percent caffeine free except maybe the real Food Purity > people. I gave up caffeine years ago, before I'd ever heard of low-carb, and I don't know any Food Purity people. Caffeine made me tired and gave me headaches and heartburn. It's not like caffeine is in every prepared product out there (like sugar). If you don't drink coffee, tea, or soda -- or drink the decaf versions -- that pretty much does it. I drink about one soda a year, just to remind myself of what I'm not missing. > I commend you on your willpower but don't make it harder than it has > to be. Zen Food Perfection is pretty hard and it's not necessary to > lose assloads of weight. Really. Aversion to caffeine seems to vary greatly from person to person. I agree that people shouldn't necessarily give it up on day #1 of LC, if they like it and don't have other problems with it. If a person stalls down the road, then he can try eliminating it to see if that helps. -- From nobody Fri Dec 27 09:44:54 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: how to read those posts -- for loni References: <2uYO9.1578$Oc.203794@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Date: 27 Dec 2002 09:44:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 42 "simbone" writes: > Thanks for the response.  I can see responses in outlook (using the > + ), but a lot of times all I can se are the responses - in other > words, someone made a new post to respond to another - I can see > that, but not the original topic because it's lost somewhere in all > the other new posts. Most newsreaders only show posts you haven't read yet. There should be a keystroke or menu option to click on to show the parent post of the current one, or all the posts in a thread. > And is there any reason why not all of the posts show up on the > lowcarbers.org board?  That one has an easier interface for me.  > However, it won't let me post there... I'm not finding a site at lowcarbers.org, so I can't test it. But Usenet is not a guaranteed medium. It's a huge web of news servers passing posts around to each other, and sometimes posts get lost. If your newsreader will let you see all the headers in a post (click "View -> All Headers, maybe) check out the Path header. It shows all the servers that a post passed through to get to you. For example, your post came through 9 different news servers to get to mine. Other people will see a different Path, showing the route it took to get to them. At any one of the 9 points, technical problems could cause a post to be dropped. Many news servers get posts through redundant feeds, so if a post is lost in one place, it will still be gotten from another. But if this lowcarbers news server you're using only has one news feed, it'll probably miss some posts. Even an archive site like groups.google.com, which has many feeds, will miss a post once in a while. Or it could just be the same problem you're having with Outlook; see if there's an option to switch between showing all posts and just unread posts. -- From nobody Fri Dec 27 09:48:23 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Can I drink wine? References: <20021227044643.29143.00000377@mb-cn.aol.com> Date: 27 Dec 2002 09:48:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 edelafore@aol.com (EDelafore) writes: > I have been on the low carb diet for several weeks. I love the food > but I have not lost any weight. I drink three glasses of red wine > every night. Do you think this is causing the problem? I think it's likely. > I have not gone over 30 carbs per day counting the wine. Does > anyone know if that is the problem? Thanks.. Your total carbs are probably okay; they're within the limits of most LC plans. But you'll burn the alcohol in the wine before you burn off fat, so it'll slow down your weight loss. Drink water instead for a couple weeks and see what happens. -- From nobody Fri Dec 27 14:50:19 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Max # of eggs per week? (hy) References: Date: 27 Dec 2002 14:50:19 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Susan" writes: > > > *surely* 3 eggs a day, 7 days a week is not ok... or is it? I eat 4-5 eggs for breakfast every morning, usually with bacon or sausage. Sometimes I have quiche or some other egg dish for lunch or supper, and I often have deviled eggs for a snack. (I'm usually too lazy to actually devil them, so I just dip boiled eggs in mayo.) I've lost 35 pounds so far, and am in better health than in years. > Because, according to traditional thinking, this would make one's > cholesterol go through the roof. Traditional thinking about food is mostly wrong, as is conventional wisdom about most things. Besides, the anti-fat, anti-meat, anti-salt, etc. thinking isn't really that traditional; it only became prevalent about 30-40 years ago. Before that, most people understood that sweets and starches make you fat, not meat and vegetables. -- From nobody Fri Dec 27 15:09:24 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: posting to this group help please References: <3jPO9.867$aD3.115152@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Date: 27 Dec 2002 15:09:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 noladq writes: > Now I'm at lowcarber.org, and I can reply to my own message made > through outlook, but I can't post a new topic. That would depend on what software that site is using and how they have it configured. See if the site has an email address or customer support form where you can ask them that question; if not, send it to webmaster@lowcarber.org. -- From nobody Fri Dec 27 17:33:30 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Max # of eggs per week? (hy) Date: 27 Dec 2002 17:33:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 "Susan" writes: > GAHH! That wasn't my post, Aaron! I was one of the people that > responded. Sorry, I'm usually more careful about attribution than that. -- From nobody Sun Dec 29 10:37:57 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins and Caffeine References: Date: 29 Dec 2002 10:37:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Dave S" writes: > I am starting the Atkins diet this morning. Dr. Atkins web site > states that caffeine, especially during induction, is prohibited. It > states that caffeine can drop blood sugar levels and create cravings > for sweets. I think the book also says it affects insulin levels. My > question is: if you can handle the cravings, does having caffeine > really hurt the Atkins diet? Probably not, but... Strict Atkins induction is only two weeks. You said you don't have a problem going without caffeine drinks "for days on end," so why not follow the plan exactly and just drink water for two weeks? Even if it's not biologically necessary, it might help steer you in the right direction will-power-wise, just to establish right up front that you can do what it takes to make this work. -- From nobody Sun Dec 29 10:58:27 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hey Wayne? References: Date: 29 Dec 2002 10:58:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 Wayne Crannell writes: > Also got to experience loving family members who, in spite of their > best intentions, do not understand that in my food world, fat free > does not mean carb-free and a mother-in-law (whom I love dearly) > still doesn't believe I'm serious about this. "No, I really can't > have some of that Waldorf Salad even though it has all those > 'healthy' apples and raisins in it," and "Yes, your Rice Pudding was > always my favorite dessert but no I really can't have any anymore." That's why I'd have to really be pushed before I'd get rude with someone who tried to get me to eat carbs. LC is just so foreign to people -- even (or especially) people who are well-read and know all the latest stuff about nutrition and health -- that they really have no idea how to deal with it. I don't tell people I'm eating low-carb, because they'll either have no idea what that means, or they'll have a completely incorrect idea what it means. So I just tell them I'm not eating any sugary or starchy foods. That usually prompts statements like these: "But you still eat bread, right?" Telling some people you don't eat bread is like having green antennae sprouting from your head, judging by the looks you get. "But you can eat , right? said that is really good for you." "I heard you were dieting, so I brought some carrot sticks and [sugary] dip. Enjoy!" Luckily, now that I'm 33, I seem to have gotten old enough that my older female relatives don't feel a need to keep an eye on me and make sure I don't starve. Finally I can fill my plate in relative peace at family meals, taking what I want. The exception will be tonight, when my grandmother will certainly ask at least once if I got enough to eat, and suggest taking more of something. To which I'll say, with a smile, "Do I look like I've *ever* gone hungry?" I'm taking deviled eggs. -- From nobody Sun Dec 29 16:52:42 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What if you are not the greatest fan of meat? References: Date: 29 Dec 2002 16:52:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Mr. Spock" writes: > How much meat do you guys eat a day? ( if you can, please tell me in > grams) Probably a pound or so, but it varies a lot. If I go a couple days without any red meat (beef or pork), I tend to get weak and dizzy spells -- some hypoglycemia or anemia happening there -- but I also eat a lot of chicken (because I get chickens for helping dress them). I really like fresh fish, but it's expensive to buy so I mainly just eat canned tuna and whatever fish I've caught lately. Anyway, a pound is 454 grams, right? So I'd say about 500 grams. > Also the meat I prefer is that ready sliced, refrigerated ham > (smoked or whatever else), is that bad since is too salty? The salt isn't a problem, but cured meats usually have some sugar, and in the U.S. at least, grocery store sliced ham is pretty bad about that (corn syrup, usually). Most ham also has nitrites, which concern some people. You can get other meats sliced, like chicken, turkey, and roast beef; those shouldn't have any added carbs. > How hard is it for you not to think of all of the sweets and drinks > and stuff that you are missing out on? and how long did it take you > to stop thinking about all this? It took a few days for me to get over the physical cravings. There's still an intellectual desire there -- I was looking at a cherry pie my mom made for lunch today, and thinking about how it'd be *really* good -- but it's controllable now. It's a thought process now instead of a chemical process. I knew it would taste good, and I knew it'd set me back a couple days (at least) on my weight loss, so I passed on it. -- From nobody Sun Dec 29 17:07:37 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Vitamin queasiness References: Date: 29 Dec 2002 17:07:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 The Powerful Katrinka writes: > Thanks for the suggestions. I was unaware that low-carbers were > supposed to avoid iron supplements. Why is that? Almost everyone should avoid iron supplements. Your body uses iron over and over, and loses very little unless you bleed a lot. Even normally healthy vegetarians can get plenty of iron from root vegetables and other sources. There's a lot of iron in dirt and the things that grow in it. Besides, the iron in most supplements is basically ground-up iron shavings. Might as well chew on a magnet. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:02:47 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Radishes References: Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:02:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Violet" writes: > A link you'll find indispensable: > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/cgi-bin/nut_search.pl > Radishes, raw > Scientific Name: Raphanus sativus > NDB No: 11429 Nutrient Units 1 small > ------- > 2.0 g > Carbohydrate, by difference g 0.072 Wow, those must be some really small radishes. I'm metric-impaired, so I went and weighed some I had on hand. They're from the grocery store, so they should be pretty typical. I've already washed and trimmed them of roots and blemishes. Twenty radishes weighed 200 grams, so by the old math, that looks like ten grams each to me. (By the New Math, I guess we'd have to take a poll and see how we feel about that.) Anyway, dividing the numbers above gives me .036 carbs per gram of radish. So if I ate all 200 grams of radish in this bowl (I like 'em, but not *that* much), that'd be 7.2 carb grams. In other words, a few radishes as a side dish would barely register on one's daily carb count. By the way, if you're growing radishes, the key to keeping them from getting bitter is to keep them soaked. I had the best radishes one year when it rained constantly and the garden was a swamp. I might try growing them in a spring-fed stream this year. And as someone mentioned, radish sprouts are very mild, as long as you don't forget to rinse them regularly. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:12:03 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hey Wayne? Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:12:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 Wayne Crannell writes: > Love 'em. Took three months though to convince my mother that there > was a difference between Miracle Whip and mayo, Hehe, yeah, I'm still working on that one too. Of course, it doesn't help that most of the mayo in the grocery store has added sugar, so if they check the labels, the difference isn't obvious. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:17:04 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Tortilla's that may be naturally lo carb? References: Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:17:04 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Nikita" writes: > Dietary fiber cannot be more than the total carbohydrates, since > fiber is a carbohydrate itself. My guess is at best, they've > subtracted out the fiber from the total carbs already. However, I'm > also skeptical that there are only 2.5 grams of carbs leftover. Well, he did say they're only 5 inches in diameter, so that's only 1/4 as much tortilla as a 10-inch one. I'm not sure what you *do* with a 5-inch tortilla, though... -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:25:26 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: this connection between Jungian types & LC is fascinating... References: Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:25:26 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "ant" writes: > Our occ. psych was licensed in myers briggs, You can be *licensed* in it? Good grief. It's a fun, harmless toy, but I'd hate to think anyone takes it that seriously. That'd be like having a license in making those paper things the girls made in grade school, where you'd fold it up somehow and write boys' names and stuff on it, then stick your fingers in it and follow some sort of chant, and end up determining whom you were going to marry. What the heck were those things called, anyway? -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:29:42 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 2003 Resolutions References: <2_rP9.910$9N5.124954@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:29:42 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 DJ Delorie writes: > If they're old enough to have taken the SATs, you might be able to > use those instead of mensa-specific tests. I know they allowed it > back when I took them, but I don't know if they currently do > (because the SAT tests change, and may not be appropriate indicators > any more). > www.mensa.org I'm curious; what's the point? If I already know I'm a Super Genius, what does a Mensa membership do for me? Thanks, -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:34:16 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 2003 Resolutions References: <2_rP9.910$9N5.124954@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net> Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:34:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 DJ Delorie writes: > If they're old enough to have taken the SATs, you might be able to > use those instead of mensa-specific tests. I know they allowed it > back when I took them, but I don't know if they currently do > (because the SAT tests change, and may not be appropriate indicators > any more). > www.mensa.org I'm curious; what's the point? If I already know I'm a Super Genius, what does a Mensa membership do for me? I've heard of it all my life, but it's always in the context of, "If you're smart enough, you can belong to Mensa (for a fee)." Never any further info on what that means besides nerdy bragging rights. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:45:54 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Max # of eggs per week? (hy) References: <20021227211411.23557.00000336@mb-ml.aol.com> Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:45:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Martha Gallagher writes: > How long will hardboiled eggs keep in the refrigerator? They'd be a > great quick snack, but for some reason I always thought they'd go > bad in a couple of days. Weeks. Raw eggs will keep at least a month, and boiled ones probably longer than that. I'm assuming you leave them in the shell until ready to use them, of course. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:51:41 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins stuff or do yourself? References: <20021221201957.12383.00000233@mb-df.aol.com> <01HW.BA339C8C00754E78091D6AD0@NEWS.MD.COMCAST.GIGANEWS.COM> Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:51:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Nessa writes: > i just spent $57.00 in the grocery store and was amazed at how much > food i got realative to buying junk food etc. i got beef and > cheeses and some veggies. no fruit yet. it was nice. Yeah, if you compare meat and cheese to plain pasta and potatoes, low-carbing looks pretty expensive. But when you compare it to Ruffles and frozen pizzas, it starts to look almost cheap. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 09:57:45 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins/LC in Maxim Magazine References: <3E0FBEF3.5030006@optonline.net> <6cPP9.1844$us1.690@news.bellsouth.net> Date: 30 Dec 2002 09:57:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 15 "Dean S. Lautermilch®²ºº²" writes: > The tide has been turning in favor of LC the last few months. The > low fat lie is being exposed for what it is. There's definitely a lot more awareness of it out there. People aren't shrugging it off as the latest crazy diet fad anymore, but they haven't quite accepted it either. One of these days Katie Couric or one of her morning show clones will endorse it, and then it'll be sanctioned for the masses. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 14:18:39 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: this connection between Jungian types & LC is fascinating... Date: 30 Dec 2002 14:18:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Carmen " writes: > Those things are "Fortunetellers" and I can still remember how to > make them. :-) Thanks, I'll have to see if there's a web site with instructions. I don't remember calling them that, but maybe there are different regional names for them. It'd be nice to remember *one* useful thing I learned in school. -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 14:56:56 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 2003 Resolutions Date: 30 Dec 2002 14:56:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Susan" writes: > To me, separating one's self because of your high IQ is similar to > separating one's self because of blonde hair, big feet or curly > hair. It's just how your born... we did nothing to achieve it. That's what I always thought too. If anything, I keep getting dumber every day. Besides, Mensa isn't nearly selective enough. 2% of the population is 5 million people in the US alone: that's an awfully big clubhouse. Are there any *really* exclusive IQ groups out there -- say the smartest .001 percent? -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 15:03:29 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hey Wayne? Date: 30 Dec 2002 15:03:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Carol Frilegh writes: > 1 egg and an extra yolk (the extra is optional) Good. I'm lazy, so when a recipe says to start separating eggs, I usually skip it. > Combine all ingredients but oil Does the type of oil matter? Can I use melted lard? :-) -- From nobody Mon Dec 30 15:08:22 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Santa Claus ???? References: <20021225181142.16941.00000271@mb-cf.aol.com> <7hnp0vgtaa6re55vsjsuu649t190c0hr46@4ax.com> <3e105244.235840300@News.CIS.DFN.DE> Date: 30 Dec 2002 15:08:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 harkon@inxpress.net (LizC) writes: > I've been amazed that my 11 year old has managed to keep himself from > spilling the beans to his eight (almost nine) year old brother for > three years now :) He's made some glaring hints at times, but Del > (the 8 yr old) just keeps on believing - he even understood that Santa > was having cheese crackers instead of cookies because he's trying to > lose weight One of my favorite commercials of all time is the one with the little girl who leaves out cheese for Santa, and he leaves a huge pile of stuff. I've seen it dozens of times, and I still chuckle every time it's on. The big grin on her face when she says "Cheeeeeze" is priceless. -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 06:22:53 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Souldn't i have been knocked out of ketosis? References: <0hhv0v0upmi3t9vor8ni1ic3ab1ghblqki@4ax.com> <3e105fae$1@news.theLink.net> <3E107BEB.60709@fake.com> <3E10EC77.9000707@fake.com> <3E10FC53.1060404@fake.com> Date: 31 Dec 2002 06:22:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 kathryn fogg writes: > Thanks. He probably is on a high carb diet. You know, now that I > think about it, I figured it was because men held almost all of the > positions of power in the world that we have problems. Maybe it's > because they all eat high carb diets. ;-) Yeah, he couldn't just be doing his best to defend us from people WHO ARE ATTACKING *US*. -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 06:37:13 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Johnsonville bratwurst question References: <22954-3E1120D3-1@storefull-2238.public.lawson.webtv.net> Date: 31 Dec 2002 06:37:12 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 soulmarket@webtv.net (Raw Human) writes: > The package says they contain 1 gram of carb per link, 25g fat and > 14g protein with 290 calories( 230 from fat). The carb area does > not indicate whether or not it is a sugar gram or not. > I am assuming it as one, because the ingredient list corn syrup,( > not high fructose, just corn syrup). > I keep my daily carb levels well below 20g per day, so I guess I was > wondering if these would be a " safe " food for the induction phase. Sounds fine to me, unless you're going to eat 20+ of them. The calories add up right, so it doesn't look like they're hiding carbs. I have no trouble with eating ham, bacon, and sausage, all of which have trace amounts of sugar. -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 15:32:22 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Souldn't i have been knocked out of ketosis? Date: 31 Dec 2002 15:32:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 kathryn fogg writes: > A little humor. My husband is an Air Force officer. I have plenty > of family members who have served in the military. Even they joke > about it some. The reason I said he probably is on a high carb diet > is because he likes to think of himself as a health nut and he runs, > a lot. I think maybe you were being a touch sensitive. I didn't > make a comment about GWB's job performance. Try rereading my post. I guess I misunderstood you. In the context of what came earlier in the thread: >>>Of course, there will always be little pockets of malcontents >>>hugging their twinkies and trying to cause wars! :-) >> GWB eats a high-carb diet, I take it?! I assumed you were agreeing with the 'trying to cause wars' part. Sorry. I should have backed up in the thread to reply. I've seen so many flippant "Bush as warmonger" posts in various newsgroups lately that I finally had to tee off on one. I wouldn't mind a reasoned critique (I could write pages against the Homeland Security Dept. myself) but I'm so tired of the standard throwaway suggestion that we Americans (and Bush especially) are warmongers. Had we not been attacked, Bush would have spent 4 years fiddling with the tax code and giving in to Ted Kennedy on education. Anyway, I've never heard that Pres. Bush knows anything about LC, but since he's into fitness, I doubt that he eats a typical American high-carb soda-and-chips diet either. -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 15:52:22 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dumb elementary question References: <%LmQ9.7563$4f2.1956739093@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Date: 31 Dec 2002 15:52:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "Bob" writes: > This has to be Feederus or whatever the hell his/her/its name is. Looks that way. > Anyone know how to read this so that I can complain? > Path: > newssvr10.news.prodigy.com!newscon07.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy > .com!prodigy.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele > .dk!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!adsl-33-103-68.asm.bellsouth.NET!not-for-mail Read it backwards, split on the bangs. The last item (ignoring 'not-for-mail') says he connects via a DSL line through Bell South. So if you were thinking of running some sort of attack against his computer, that's the address to use. It may or may not change occasionally, so make sure you're reading a recent post. The next item tells you the server he's posting his articles to, which appears to be in Germany (.de). So that's where to complain, if you're going to try to get his Usenet access revoked. Also, he won't be able to edit the Path header (and a few others) without changing Usenet providers, so set your newsreader to kill all articles with "fu-berlin.de" in the headers, and you won't see his messages anymore -- or any replies to him, if you do it right. -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 15:58:01 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Did you clean out your cupboards before you started? References: Date: 31 Dec 2002 15:58:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Lisa1164TN@aol.com (Lisa) writes: > I would like to try and start a low-carb program again. What is > everyone's opinion on cleaning all the junk out of your fridge and > cupboards? I got rid of the easy snack stuff before starting, like potato chips and ice cream bars. But I still have a few things around like rice and flour, which aren't very conducive to temptation, and which can be used in very small quantities on LC. It's easy for me since I live by myself, though. Especially since I'm 10 miles from the nearest grocery store. As long as I don't buy it and bring it home, I don't have to worry about cravings that might come along. -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 16:18:05 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Sugar or Fat? References: Date: 31 Dec 2002 16:18:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Jazz" writes: > Just wonder whats worst if you wanna lose some weight? Is Sugar > worst than Fat? Yes. Sugar is worst than almost everything. > Cause you see Sugar-Free products that high in fat, and Fat-Free or > Low-Fat products that's high in Sugar? Fat and sugar are the two main (and cheapest) sources of flavor. So if a company wants to make fat-free ice cream, they'll have to pump it full of more sugar to compensate.. If a food doesn't have any fat or sugar, it's basically straight protein, like boneless, skinless chicken breast -- edible, but hardly chock-full of flavor. > Whats the 101? I'm not hip enough to answer that. -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 16:40:32 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: REC: Savory Cheesecake References: <1fnuhbx.1jlggcv1m264ceN%cheesemonkey@hotmail.com> Date: 31 Dec 2002 16:40:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 cheesemonkey@hotmail.com (Himillsy Dodd) writes: > 8 ounces smoked gruyere cheese, grated Can anyone recommend a more common cheese that could be used as a replacement for this? My local grocery doesn't have a large variety of cheeses, so I'll be doing good if they have the blue cheese it calls for. > 1/3 cup whipping cream Unwhipped, right? This sounds really good, and doesn't call for any AS, so I'd like to try it. Thanks, -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 17:46:00 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dumb elementary question Date: 31 Dec 2002 17:46:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 DJ Delorie writes: > That would take a LOT of regulars out of the loop sometimes, like > Quasi and Carol Ann. You never know which news servers are going to > be involved in your messages. I count 92 unique senders having at > least one message path'd through fu-berlin.de in the last month. Yeah, that's a bummer. I didn't realize how popular that server is. Guess I'll have to get more specific with my scoring rule. Thanks, -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 18:08:32 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: not too proud to share the humor References: Date: 31 Dec 2002 18:08:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 ""Myra S"" writes: > I wonder if I should post my ad here, so y'all can take it apart! Well, since some of you did, I thought I'd follow suit. I finally set up an ad today; I'm "roark13579" at match.com and yahoo personals, if anyone wants to pick it apart. Be brutal; let me know if I come off too pathetic or weird. :-) I didn't have any recent pictures to scan, but you can see childhood pictures here if you really want to: . -- From nobody Tue Dec 31 19:49:17 2002 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dumb elementary question Date: 31 Dec 2002 19:49:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "ant" writes: > The best way to work out who they are and where they are from is to > look at the headers, find "NNTP Posting host" or similar, and look > that up. It'll be a bunch of numbers. feed it into an IP lookup > tool. Paths are not a great way to do it. True, but NNTP-Posting-Host can be spoofed, although usually the people who deserve kill-filing aren't that savvy. Also, that header varies for people on dynamic IP connections, so for them you'll have to kill an IP range. Still better than killing on a substring of Path, though. I came up with a scoring rule that'll just catch the problem induhvidual, but I'll keep it to myself rather than provide any hints to help him avoid it. > You'll also be putting the many people who use this large, free news > server in your killfile. Yep, I've remedied that now. -- From nobody Wed Jan 1 06:06:39 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: not too proud to share the humor Date: 01 Jan 2003 06:06:37 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Deborah M. writes: > Hi there - - I looked for your ad on match.com, but I got a message > indicating you don't exist :^(. Sorry to be the bearer of that kind > of news ... Well, they did say it would take 24 hours or so for it to be reviewed and added, and with the holiday, that might be longer. I should have waited until I was sure it was up before mentioning it. Oddly, match.com seems to have no way to tell if the ad has been approved other than searching for it. Yahoo says it's been posted there, but they don't seem to have a way to look them up by nickname. (Sheesh, who designs these things?) I should be the only one in the 62365 zip code, though. :-) > Good luck with your online personal ad. I met my partner that way > (Thanksgiving of 2000) and we have been very happy together ever > since. Thanks. It's a little strange for me, and I'm not sure what to expect from it, but I figured what the heck. I'm too old and too introverted to get anywhere in the bar scene, and I've really been pretty impressed with some of the female ads from my area. -- From nobody Wed Jan 1 17:23:00 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dumb elementary question References: <%LmQ9.7563$4f2.1956739093@newssvr10.news.prodigy.com> Date: 01 Jan 2003 17:23:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Rob Wynne writes: > Bob wrote: > >I called Prodigy and they said the post was from there. > According to that path statement, the post ended upon Prodigy -- > path statements are read right to left from the point of origin to > the destination. > It was from bellsouth.net. Honest. Yes it was. 'Bob' is just another manifestation of Feedrus the Tool, trying to confuse the issue. -- From nobody Wed Jan 1 18:04:56 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Induction:Eating too much? References: Date: 01 Jan 2003 18:04:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Maggie" writes: > I am on day 7 of induction, and although my carbs are under 15, my > calories are about 2000!!! Guess I'll find out tomorrow when I weigh > in, but every other day of induction I have kept to around > 1700-1800. How bout the rest of you? When you were new to Low Carb > did you watch your calories? Maggie I never have, but people vary greatly on this issue. In fact, over Christmas I regularly pigged out on meat, with the theory that if I kept my stomach stretched to the bursting point with meat, I wouldn't break down and eat any pie. It worked, and I lost 2 pounds over that period. However, had I not been stuffing myself so much, I likely would have lost *more* weight over the same stretch. You probably can't gain weight gorging on fat and protein (see _Protein Power_ for a discussion of this) but you *can* slow or prevent weight loss. -- From nobody Thu Jan 2 04:22:45 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New to LC References: <70a59387.0301012011.f8753d7@posting.google.com> <%EQQ9.526255$WL3.140831@rwcrnsc54> Date: 02 Jan 2003 04:22:45 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "Geri" writes: > > my boyfriend of nine years told me that I've gained so much weight > > that he doesn't want to have sex with me anymore. I started > What a jerk! Well, at least he was being honest (most female personals ads stress honesty as a big requirement), and she did say that's what finally motivated her. Maybe he's already tried kinder ways of getting her to change her eating, and this was a last-ditch 'tough love' approach. Given her diabetes, he might have saved/extended her life. Or he might just be a jerk. -- From nobody Thu Jan 2 17:03:10 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbies: Eat Your (Low Carb) Veggies References: <5m271v09k31icnr4beodvelhs4sno07dsv@4ax.com> Date: 02 Jan 2003 17:03:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 "Bob" writes: > Well, technically he requires two cups of leafy vegetables and one > cup of other vegetables. Is that really six servings? If I'm hungry enough, it's one. :-) -- From nobody Thu Jan 2 17:17:15 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Myra Cookbook?? References: <16271vcfckd586t625aoein1p211oc39dv@4ax.com> <314a4ba6.0301021025.dc4440@posting.google.com> Date: 02 Jan 2003 17:17:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Jason Baugher writes: > triannadunord@hotmail.com (TdN) wrote: > > Oprah may not be on the air then. > Could we be so lucky? Uh-oh. You've insulted The Oprah on a newsgroup that's about 90% female. Better duck and cover. -- From nobody Thu Jan 2 17:24:38 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: not too proud to share the humor Date: 02 Jan 2003 17:24:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Carol Ann in Atlanta" writes: > I'm bestinatlanta at Match.com. Hey, if you are going to join, I'm > an affiliate! You can go to www.bestinatlanta.com and just click on > the link. That way, I get credit for referring you. I'll be sure to do that. I've just filled out a profile; I haven't signed up yet. What's wrong with guys who bite their nails, anyway, huh? :-) -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 06:16:15 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Body Image & Losing Weight References: <20021230210430.06372.00000234@mb-dh.aol.com> Date: 03 Jan 2003 06:16:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "Tricia" writes: > I'm 45 and I will not be called middle aged until 50 that is my > rule, I intend to live until at least 100 ;) "Speak for yourself, sir. I intend to live forever." -- Will Riker, ST:Generations -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 07:01:09 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: this connection between Jungian types & LC is fascinating... Date: 03 Jan 2003 07:01:09 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "OtherDeb" writes: > I hate to tell you this, but lots of psychologists, psychiatrists, > humand resource professionals, job counselors and academic > counselors take Meyers-Briggs very seriously. For some reason, I'm reminded of the last part of _The Restaurant at the End of the Universe_, by Douglas Adams. > For better or worse, we live in a world where people are much more > comfortable if hey can quantify things and other people in succinct > terms. True. I could see the M-B being mildly useful in those jobs, but I'd think a 5-minute conversation would reveal more about a personality. I'd say the usefulness drops way off if the subject has taken the M-B or similar tests in the past, though, since it's trivially easy to subvert the test once you have a clue what it's looking for. The really odd thing is that these tests are perfectly legal to give to job applicants, but the Supreme Court banned IQ tests for the same purpose. (Where they found that in the Constitution, I have no idea. Probably right next to the right to dance nekkid.) IQ is actually a good indicator of job performance. Maybe that was the problem -- it was too effective. -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 07:39:07 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: a few question from a new guy References: <20030103013045.13293.00000464@mb-fr.aol.com> Date: 03 Jan 2003 07:39:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 95 boiledweevil@aol.com (BoiledWeevil) writes: > So, here's a few questions before I get started. > 1. I'm not a fancy cook. I'm fine with stuff like a beef patty with > some cheese and bacon, or some eggs and sausage, or maybe some tuna > salad, etc. I'm not going to be adding a pinch of this and a table > spoon of that to things that I cook. Anyone know of a place on the > net or a book that has very simple and basic list of things like > that that are OK to eat? For example, I think I could make a good > bbq sauce for chicken out of mustard, mayonaise, and texas pete > sauce. Any place that has really simple and basic stuff like that? If you're willing to mix three ingredients to make a BBQ sauce, you're already more of a cook than many people. :-) The main thing to remember about cooking is that it's hard to screw up. If you mix ingredients that you like separately, you'll almost always end up with something edible, so just try things that sound good together. If you've got bacon, sausage, eggs, and cheese, that's about a dozen different combinations right there. I stirred leftover ham salad into my scrambled eggs this morning. You don't have to keep a lot of 'pinch of this' stuff around if you don't want to, but spices can add variety, especially to everyday dishes like eggs. I just have a few that I use regularly: basil and oregano for tomato stuff (you can get Italian seasoning instead), parsley on anything, poultry seasoning in chicken stuff, sage in pork stuff. > 2. When eating chicken or fish, do I need to peel off the skin if > it's fried? You know, like the junk at Bojangles or Captain D's. No, the skin is good for you. > 3. I'm on the road a lot and sometimes it's impossible to not stop > by a fast food restaurant. Anyone have a list of the best things to > get at these places? The pickin's are pretty slim. Some places have salads, but you'll have to watch out for their sugary dressings. You can get a burger of some sort and throw away the bun, if the sauce on it isn't too sugary. Hardees here (Carl's Jr. some places, I guess) has a Monster Burger that's all burger, bacon, and cheese -- without the bun, that's pretty LC. If there's a gas station near the fast-food place, you could stop in there and get some beef jerky and sunflower seeds. > 4. Is there a differnece in buying some cheap multivitamin at > Wal-Mart or spending 30 bucks on a bottle at some health store? I really don't know. > 5. Are there any foods out there that have no carbs in them that > should still be avoided becasue of some other additives? Some people have trouble with sugar-free products. Many people have come here asking why LC isn't working for them, and when they type their menus, it's not unusual to see "SF Jello" in there somewhere. It's fine for some people, but be prepared to suspect it if your weight loss stalls. MSG also causes cravings in some people. > 6. Any other suggestions about getting started? > A shopping list and a really simple 2 week menu plan would be cool. Buy your groceries from around the outside of the store. Most LC foods are around the outside -- vegetables, meat, dairy -- while the high-carb stuff -- pasta, bread, prepared foods -- are usually in the aisles. There are exceptions (potatoes), but for the most part it's true. I only go down the food aisles for a few things now, like salt and spices. If you want a 2-week menu to follow, most of the LC books have one. I've never been able to follow a menu like that, because I never have everything on hand at the same time, and there are always things in the menu that I just don't care for. Here's what I do. Start every day off with some sort of egg meal. Usually that's fried eggs with a slab of some sort of meat. While that's cooking, get something out to thaw for lunch or supper. If the supper item is crock-pot-able, get it started on low heat. When lunch comes, if I didn't thaw something, I'll have leftovers or something else that can be made right away, like tuna salad. At supper, same procedure. Make sure to keep some frozen vegetables on hand, so you've always got a side dish for pork chops or whatever the meat might be. -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 07:55:30 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Good fats vs. Bad fats References: <3e0d1baa.22722252@news.tn.comcast.giganews.com> <8d091vo6j5ndk77qg2v5ks81vgnnql54j3@127.0.0.1> Date: 03 Jan 2003 07:55:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 The Eternal Immortal writes: > Anyway, I would think that mankind ate as much fresh fruit as he ate > vegetables and meat. Maybe in tropical areas, but doubtful elsewhere. My pre-agriculture ancestors in northern Europe might have found a few wild fruits in season, but certainly none for most of the year. And what fruit they did find would have had much less juice and sugar than today's domesticated fruits. Before humans started growing edible plants, they pretty much ate meat, meat, and more meat. I was watching a show on Lewis and Clark (the first Americans to explore and map a route to the Pacific Ocean) the other day. I'm pretty sure it said the explorers were eating *nine* pounds of meat each per day at one point. That seems like a heck of a lot, but they were trying to stay warm in the mountains, and rowing upriver, and stuff like that. I don't suppose anyone got fat. Another funny story from that show: at some point they were short on food and having trouble hunting anything down, so Lewis broke out some emergency soup provisions. Some of the men turned their noses up at it, and decided to kill and cook a colt instead. These guys were *hard-core* low-carbers. :-) -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 09:09:41 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I am SO Very Tired References: <88j61vsqdm9n5pfn951rtqfi9auodb4is7@127.0.0.1> <012a1vsih79kqmpdc8r22783gqsc3ip98m@4ax.com> Date: 03 Jan 2003 09:09:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 49 "Dave S" writes: > Other than a prescription, how can you get enough potassium? All the > over-the-counter vitamins we have on hand have only 1% of the > RDA. What foods are high in potassium (other than bananas, which are > not allowed during induction)? Thanks. The list below is from _Eat Right or Die Young_ by Dr. Cass Igram. It's not a low-carb book, although there're a lot of similarities, so some of these things may not be LC at all, or not appropriate for induction. It's mostly nuts, fruits, and a few herbs. You can also use a potassium salt, like No-Salt or Lite-Salt. almonds dried apricots basil brazil nuts cabbage cantaloupe cashews chestnuts dates dill weed hazelnuts honeydew melon mango molasses (blackstrap) papaya paprika parsley parsnips dried peaches peanuts pecans pomegranate prunes raisins red pepper soybean flour squash (especially winter) tomatoes (especially tomato juice) turmeric watermelon -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 09:42:49 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New York Times article References: <-tGdnb5bPJ4pDoijXTWc3A@comcast.com> Date: 03 Jan 2003 09:42:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "LucidofEarth" writes: > What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie? > By GARY TAUBES Wow, this is an excellent article. Was this really in the NY Times? I'm going to print this out and hand a copy to anyone who asks me about low-carbing. He really does a great job of covering all the points, and dealing with the bad science of the low-fat crowd. -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 10:29:42 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: this connection between Jungian types & LC is fascinating... Date: 03 Jan 2003 10:29:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 89 The Powerful Katrinka writes: > I don't know why you'd want to "subvert" the test, since it is NOT > designed to predict job performance -- or intelligence, or anything > of the sort. I've also never heard of it being administered to job > applicants, though I'm sure someone somewhere must've done it. I > can't imagine why, though. Well, most employers want to hire people who are 'normal' psychologically. There are exceptions -- someone hiring a salesman might want a strong extrovert -- but for the most part, they aren't going to want people who are off the chart in any direction. So if I'm extremely shy, and I know that if I answer honestly on the M-B it's going to put me way over at the I end of the scale, I might logically assume that an employer might pass me over, assuming that my extremely introverted nature would make it difficult for me to work in groups. So I answer a few of the "At a party, are you more likely to..." questions in the E direction, and subvert the test. I've never been asked to take the M-B or any other personality test for a job, either, but I know people who have. > (I'd also be surprised if IQ were a good predictor of job > performance in most jobs. Some of the most "successful" people I've > known -- people who make lots of money and are well liked by most -- > are not particularly bright. This may not apply to nuclear > physicists, but in most jobs success is less about raw intelligence > than the ability to produce, the desire to work, the ability to get > along with people, the ability to play politics, ambition, > etc. Conversely, some of the most brilliant people I've known have > drifted from crappy job to crappy job, discontented and bitter.) There are exceptions, but in the crap-shoot that is choosing good employees from resumes and quick interviews, IQ could be as good an indicator of job performance as anything else. It's a big generality, and it's just one trait among many, but it's at least one that can be tested for and quantified to some extent. That's much harder to do with traits like ambition and politicking. There's a pretty good article here on the correlation between national average IQ and per capita wealth. They actually chart together pretty well. There just isn't a lot of study going on in the field of IQ, because the people who study it tend to get accused of being Nazis or worse. By the way, since we've been discussing both IQ and newborns here lately, I'll post this quote: "The survey by University of Kentucky nutritionist James Anderson [which appeared in the October, 1999 edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition] looked at 20 different studies comparing the brain development of infants who had been breast-fed with that of infants who had been given formula." Our study confirms that breast-feeding is accompanied by about a five-points higher IQ than in bottle-fed infants," Anderson said." -- Tim Whitmire, AP, 9/22/99. For all I know, that might be common knowledge among mothers, but it was news to me. > As for a 5-minute conversation revealing more, you've been very > lucky. I've known people for years without them really gaining a > clue. Most people, for better or worse, are not especially intuitive > or sensitive to others' personalities, because they're busy > expressing themselves and trying be liked, and trying to get others > to do as they do. I'm not intuitive either, but I'm not in one of the aforementioned professions. I'd expect that most psychiatrists and counselors (the good ones, at least) *are* intuitive and good at picking up on personalities in a more detailed way than a test can. > Is it possible you're misunderstanding the purpose of the MBTI? It's > to help people understand one another better, as they *are*, not as > they wish each other to be. It's to help them get along better, and > work together better, and appreciate each other's strengths, and not > consider differences to be "flaws." Seems like a noble thing to me, > but YMMV. Mostly I was being flippant and making a joke, and it gave me a chance to ask about those fortuneteller things I was wondering about. :-) I was just tickled by the notion that you could be licensed in Myers-Briggs. Sometimes I think what I do (computer programming) must be the only unlicensed job left in the U.S. -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 14:06:40 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: a few question from a new guy References: <20030103013045.13293.00000464@mb-fr.aol.com> Date: 03 Jan 2003 14:06:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Wayne Crannell writes: > > 2. When eating chicken or fish, do I need to peel off the skin if > > it's fried? You know, like the junk at Bojangles or Captain D's. > Yup...the fried part is usually breading. I retract my previous answer on this one. I'm not familiar with those fast-food chains, so I didn't realize he was asking about breaded chicken. Even then, I suppose it would depend on the amount of breading. I've seen recipes that used a couple tablespoons of flour to coat several pieces of chicken, so those wouldn't be a problem, but KFC Extra Crispy would. -- From nobody Fri Jan 3 16:08:36 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Restart after 2 years 45 lbs lost and over 60 regained References: <3E15ECA7.CB7BCBC7@noos.fr> Date: 03 Jan 2003 16:08:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "Susan" writes: > "Huey" wrote: > > Here's a tip I read once in this NG. You just have to use 2 > > regular scales to weigh yourself. Put them side by side, one > > foot on each scale. Your actual weight is the addition of the 2 > > numbers displayed. > Huey, your weight wouldn't be evenly distributed, and the weight > wouldn't be accurate. I don't see why it wouldn't work. Every pound has to press down on one scale or the other. As long as the scales are right side by side, you should be able to stand straight above them and press directly down. If you lean to one side a little, they may not each show exactly half the total weight, but that's ok; all you want is the total. If two scales could accurately weigh two 200 pound people standing side by side, I don't see why they couldn't weigh one 400 pound guy with a foot on each one. -- From nobody Sat Jan 4 04:18:36 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Help References: Date: 04 Jan 2003 04:18:36 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "Pooja" writes: > I was hopeing I could gain some insight from this group. I started > the Atkins Diet the day before thanksgiving. I did really > well. After the first three days I did not miss much of > anything. However, its been a little over a month and I have only > lost about 5 pounds. My everyday menu is usually a 3 egg and veggie > omelet and a cup of decaf coffee in the morning. Sometimes I put a > small amount of heavy cream in my coffee. For lunch I usually have a > large salad with different types of lettuce, spinach, tomatoes, > cucumbers, and some shredded cheddar cheese. Usually, by 4 pm I eat > one low carb chocolate candy bar ( the carb count is usually under > 1g for the whole bar). Ding, ding, ding! About 90% of the times that someone comes to the group with a question like yours, there's an artificially-sweetened item prominently featured in the menu. Drop the candy bar for a couple of weeks and see what happens. If that's not it, other possibilities would be that the veggies are pushing you over your carb limit (hard to say without measuring quantities, but tomatoes do add up), or that you're not getting enough calories, or that you're getting too many calories. Since you only need to lose 25-30 pounds, you may not see huge early losses like those of us who started out much heavier than that. You said you're in it for the long haul, which is good, so if you continue losing at the same rate, you'll be in great shape in 6 months. -- 280/243/200 From nobody Sat Jan 4 04:28:15 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What the HECK is Sugar Alcohol References: <20030102221656.21142.00000288@mb-fm.aol.com> <1bib1v8fd0b3o184g7tuolhlmnq1flhtf8@127.0.0.1> <3E163102.28BD24C4@pre.org> Date: 04 Jan 2003 04:28:14 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 ogden writes: > I'd eat a licence plate...if it tasted of chocolate and was carb > free! Reminds me of a Mystery Science Theater 3000 riff, when there's a vaguely lobster-ish monster on the screen: "Ooh, I bet that would be good with drawn butter. Then again, I'd eat my own head with drawn butter." -Crow T. Robot -- From nobody Sat Jan 4 08:08:01 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Going camping - what food to take on a long hike? References: <3E166A93.4030600@adelaide.edu.au> <49uR9.620495$NH2.42568@sccrnsc01> <3E168266.2020703@adelaide.edu.au> Date: 04 Jan 2003 08:08:00 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Carmen " writes: > Are eggs sold off the shelf in Australia? Without refrigeration? > In the States they're sold out of refrigerated coolers, and all > packages say "Keep refrigerated at or below 45 F". In my local store eggs are sold on open-air shelves, just like dairy products. The shelves themselves might be cooled, or cool air blown across them from behind, but they can't be as cool as actual refrigeration. Eggs can actually keep quite a while warm. Back before egg production was automated, eggs could sit under a warm chicken for 12 hours or so before someone collected them. (Mine still do.) As far as taking them on a camping trip goes, I'd be more worried about the hassle of avoiding breakage (boil them?) than about temperature. -- From nobody Sat Jan 4 17:04:10 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Going camping - what food to take on a long hike? Date: 04 Jan 2003 17:04:10 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Carmen " writes: > The eggs we buy in the store in the States have been washed with hot > water and detergent though. That, in conjunction with the constant > refrigeration, is designed to decrease Salmonella mediated > illnesses. Therefore, saying that eggs can "keep" under conditions > of no refrigeration is debatable. Good point. It's hard to say what effect the detergent might have on the protective properties of the shell, too. > There's a risk involved that can reasonably be avoided, so it's > prudent to do so. Powdered eggs would be a better bet. And certainly less trouble than carrying whole raw eggs. -- From nobody Sun Jan 5 06:14:31 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Happiness is ... References: <01HW.BA3CC7FC016353BF0A87F160@NEWS.MD.COMCAST.GIGANEWS.COM> Date: 05 Jan 2003 06:14:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 10 Observer writes: > and the arteries, nitrate caused cancers, to prove it Your haiku doesn't have enough syllables. -- From nobody Sun Jan 5 06:23:18 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please don't feed the trolls (eom)[Solution?] References: <6a2ad276.0301041353.55c789e1@posting.google.com> <1GNR9.238674$qF3.19947@sccrnsc04> <8UOR9.352251$ka.9263389@news1.calgary.shaw.ca> Date: 05 Jan 2003 06:23:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Garrett" writes: > I'm currently writing a Bayesian filter for NNTP. It essentially > learns what messages you don't like to read, and will automatically > drop them from sight. It's working better with broadband > connections, as it's still a tad chatty, but I think it just may be > the solution to trolls and spam on usenet. I use Gnus, which does something like this with adaptive scoring. When I read a post, the post's author and subject line each get a small positive score. If I don't read a post, they both get small negative scores. If I delete a post, the author gets a big negative score; and if I kill a thread, the subject gets a big negative score. I can also manually raise/lower scores on any criteria. Rather than have messages from trolls dropped outright, I have them scored really low so they end up at the bottom of my summary buffer. That way I can take a quick scan through the headers and see if there's anything interesting before moving on. Does your filter work with the client, or as/with an NNTP server? -- From nobody Sun Jan 5 06:36:56 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Somebody tell me I'm .. Feedrus again References: <040120030552482911%cma@sympatico.ca> <3e17bb71@news.theLink.net> Date: 05 Jan 2003 06:36:54 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "marengo" writes: > Feedrus, you really should do a google search on Drooling Moron's > trolling of our NG a year or so ago. At least his posts were ever > so much more clever and entertaining .... he had much more style and > natural trolling talent. Maybe you could take correspondence > course? Is anyone posting from a bellsouth.net DSL account other than the Tool and Quasi? I created a scoring rule to dump the Feed while keeping Quasi's posts, and just want to make sure I'm not missing anyone else whose words might have a speck of value. -- From nobody Sun Jan 5 18:50:53 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie questions References: <214e2c83.0301042209.1bb3950e@posting.google.com> <214e2c83.0301051534.6070e6a6@posting.google.com> Date: 05 Jan 2003 18:50:53 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 JqStovall@aol.com (Motivation) writes: > Thanks for your suggestions. What is NaC1 and KC1? Those are ells, not ones. Na - Sodium Cl - Chlorine K - Potassium KCl is potassium salt, and NaCl is the much more common sodium salt. I believe that Morton No-Salt is KCl, and Morton Lite Salt is a combination of the two. > I'm not trying for zero carbs. 20 is low enough since I was used to > begals, garlic bread and chocolate. I just wasn't sure about the > "no sugar" policy. Like Lawry's seasing salt. It has sugar low in > the ingredience. Well, I think I'm going to use it because the > calories and carbs list 0. Ultimately only you can determine whether it's safe for you -- by trying it. The worst thing that could happen would be that you'd be getting more carbs than you realize, and you wouldn't lose weight. If that happens, you can always ditch the Lawry's then. If you lose weight while losing it, more power to you. -- From nobody Mon Jan 6 06:21:21 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: MUTTER.... your wearing it out! References: <3E18FAD6.1050703@yahoo.com> <16527-3E190141-828@storefull-2297.public.lawson.webtv.net> <3E190BB5.8020103@yahoo.com> Date: 06 Jan 2003 06:21:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Ron writes: > Laureen you hurt my feelings ........now I'm gonna go eat me a BIG > PIZZA with everything on it.....lol. > Ron....... You're period key is stuck. -- (Yes, I know it's "your".) From nobody Mon Jan 6 07:24:04 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Our Lo-Carb ancestors References: <9VidnS79_oiYc4WjXTWckQ@giganews.com> Date: 06 Jan 2003 07:24:02 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 70 "Paladin" writes: > Some advocates of the Lo-carb diet describe our ancestors as > "hunter/gathers" who existed mostly on meat. Most scientific > research does not support this claim. Our ancestors diet must have > been similar to the diets of gorillas and chimpanzees of > today. These animals exist on fruits and other plant products that > are available to them. Their consumption of meat is almost not > existent, except for eggs and insects. Sometimes researchers will go to any lengths to support their own preferences over common sense and history. Humans are not gorillas, and don't have the same history. Also, we don't know nearly as much about other species as we think we do. Jane Goodall spent over ten years with gorillas before seeing them commit genocide. We don't have to theorize about what pre-agricutural humans ate, because they've told us. Even before language and writing were developed, there were cave paintings, sculpture, and tools that tell us what they spent their time doing. We see cave paintings of the hunt, not of berry picking day. We find tools used for killing, skinning, tanning, etc. Even without those things we know, there's common sense. Animals were plentiful everywhere, even during winter, while edible plants would have been hard to come by for several months in most parts of the world. Even when edibles were in season, a tribe of any size would have had a hard time subsisting on them before agriculture. How many days will a big wild asparagus patch feed even a small group? One woolly mammoth would have fed as many people as acres and acres of wild roots and berries. Nomadic tribes (which plant-eaters would necessarily have been) also would have had to deal with the fact that any new plant they encountered might be poisonous. Even in recent history, people on the American frontier lived mainly on meat where they hadn't developed farms yet. Even once they started growing food, meat was still plentiful, easy to preserve, and full of nutrition and energy. > Lo-carb is obviously "good for me". I question if Lo-carb is good > for people without diabetes. > Is Lo-Carb beneficial, if practiced for weight control alone? It's beneficial in many ways. Just recently there was a thread on the beneficial side-effects people have seen while low-carbing, including reduction in heartburn, increased energy, healthier fingernails and hair growth, improved blood cholesterol levels, and many others. The human body just isn't designed to deal with large amounts of carbs. Some people can deal with them better than others, but that's like saying that it's okay to punch some people in the head because they don't bruise easily. Just because some people can eat lots of carbs and stay skinny (about 25% of the population) doesn't mean it's actually good for them. The real question should be, "Are Carbs beneficial in any way?" And the answer is not really. Your body uses carbs in exactly two ways: it burns them for fuel, or it stores them for future energy as glycogen or fat. Carbs have no other use by the body comparable to the way fat and cholesterol are used to repair the heart, or protein is used to build new muscle. Unless for some reason you can't get enough calories from the beneficial fat and protein in your diet, eating carbs makes as much sense as eating cardboard -- less, since the cardboard won't make you fat. -- From nobody Mon Jan 6 14:19:53 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: MUTTER.... your wearing it out! Date: 06 Jan 2003 14:19:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "rosie readandpost" writes: > ;) > it remains a mystery to me, WHY folks would feel a need to > comment on typing styles.........................why not expend that > energy on securing WORLD PEACE or something? World peace might be achievable. I prefer really hopeless causes like proper grammar on newsgroups. :-) Actually, I try to never pick on people's writing except for certain situations. One would be where my target was criticizing someone else's writing, and made equivalent mistakes of his own -- always fair game. The other is when I think my reply is especially witty, like my post earlier in this thread. YMMV on that one. -- From nobody Mon Jan 6 14:30:39 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Our Lo-Carb ancestors Date: 06 Jan 2003 14:30:39 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "Susan" writes: > Maybe I'm missing something, Aaron... but do you ever say anything > positive, that's not argumentative? "Tina" writes: > Well said, Aaron! "Wildflower" writes: > Right on, Aaron. I guess two out of three ain't bad. Seriously, I know my writing style leans toward 'lecture mode' sometimes; really I don't think I talk that way. But when someone throws out a handful of theories based on 'scientific research' that's never mentioned or linked to, yes, that does get my argumentative side going a little. Feel free to argue back or correct me; I hate to be wrong. -- From nobody Mon Jan 6 14:53:52 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Rules that you live by References: <3e19e169.13502729@news1.sympatico.ca> Date: 06 Jan 2003 14:53:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 67 snorksca@yahoo.com (Mike) writes: > For all you low-cal experts who have lost 20lbs or more and kept it > off, can you give us newbies some 'tips to live by'. > I'm wondering if you've ever gone off the WOE after losing the > weight? I started last fall at 280, lost 30 pounds in the first couple months, and then got sloppy and got away from LC until recently. > Have you ever had a piece of pizza or a sandwich since losing the > weight? Yes, I pretty much went back to eating whatever carbs were around, but still with a lot of fat and protein in my diet. In a way, I was doing CAD, since I'd always eat meat and eggs for breakfast, and frequently make myself a low-carb lunch, but at least one meal a day was carb-based. I also never drink soda or use other high-sugar foods. So, by not going overboard on carbs, I maintained my weight at about 250. Now I've gotten back into LC seriously, and have dropped to 243 on the way to 200 or so. > Do you ever drink diet cola with aspertame? No, but I gave up soda and caffeine years ago, so that didn't have anything to do with LC. > Do you really drink 8 glasses of water a day? Probably, although I don't count. I get most of mine in the form of very weak, unsweetened, decaf, iced tea. > Do you exercise every day, 3 times a week or none at all? That varies. I don't follow any sort of exercise regimen, so I get my exercise in large chunks. I might chop firewood for hours one day, but get no exercise at all the next day. > What are your keys to success or the rules that you live by? The main thing I have to remind myself is that I *know* this works. LC isn't just the latest diet I'm trying (I've never followed any diet before), or something a friend or doctor told me to try. I've read the books and understand the biology of it, and for me, that's crucial to keeping myself convinced. Of course, there's also the anecdotal evidence of the 37 pounds I've lost and the other health improvements. I guess the secondary thing is to have some goals, some reasons *why* you want to lose the weight beyond weight-loss itself. I'm not one for writing down goals (it always seemed so silly when we had to do it in school), but that may help some people. But even something as simple as wanting to go to the beach and draw stares for the right reasons can be motivation. I'm looking forward to being able to ride my bicycle all day like I could when I was a kid. I want to be able to go sledding with my nieces and nephew and not get winded walking back up the hill. I want to be able to bend over the pool table correctly and get down on the shot without my gut getting in the way. Most of all, I want to live a really, really long time, and you don't see many fat 80-year-olds. -- From nobody Mon Jan 6 15:12:22 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How to cook Venison References: Date: 06 Jan 2003 15:12:22 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Sven writes: > I just received a bunch of Venison for free. Can anyone tell me a > good way to cook this? I've never done it before. For the most part you can cook it just like beef. Venison tends to be a little drier, as the fat content isn't as high as beef. You might look for Ted Nugent's book _Kill It and Grill It_. I haven't read it, but it's supposed to have recipes for all sorts of wild game. The other day I had deer steaks cooked in the crock pot with onion that were very good. I'm sure a web search for "venison recipe" would turn up plenty of hits too. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 06:29:36 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question... References: Date: 07 Jan 2003 06:29:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Sally" writes: > Jimmy Dean links and Armour Summer Sausage....good or bad? Brand-name sausage will often have added sugar, to improve the flavor of the low-quality pig parts they use. But it should still be okay on LC for most people, as long as they count the carbs. If you are extremely insulin resistant, the refined sugars in sausage could cause you to stall. If that seems to happen to you, replace the sausage with fresh ground pork or other fresh meat for a while, and see what happens. Search this group for suggestions on what spices you can mix into ground pork to make your own sugar-free sausage. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 06:33:29 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie questions Date: 07 Jan 2003 06:33:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 JqStovall@aol.com (Motivation) writes: > Another question. At first I ate a lot of bacon and meat, but now I > feel like I have to force myself to eat, except for the cheesecake > (one small serving a day, 3 to 6 carbs). The weird thing is I'm not > feeling hungry, but I know I have to eat. Is this normal? It is for many people. I was ravenous for the first several days, during which I ate as much as I liked of meat, eggs, and cheese. We're talking several big meals a day here, two pork patties and 6 eggs for breakfast, that kind of thing. Then the cravings passed, and my appetite became reasonable and very manageable. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 06:46:52 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins on LK: Comment References: Date: 07 Jan 2003 06:46:50 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Okay, now I do realize that he probably does eat many more veggies > than the average American (as do many of us on LC), but compared to > a vegetarian? I have to admit that I don't know much about the > various vegetarian diets, I guess some may be more liberal than > others in terms of the non-veggie foods they eat. Could that > explain his comment? I don't know much about vegetarianism either, but my wild-a** guess would be that many vegetarians take a typical American grain-based diet and subtract the meat from it. So they'd be eating lots of potatoes, corn, pasta, rice, etc. I'm sure many of them discover green vegetables, but I'd have no idea how many do. In my own very limited first-hand experience with vegetarians, they ate a lot of pasta, potatoes, and things like meatless chili. How about this for a totally unscientific study? A Google Groups search for "low-carb broccoli" returns 7100 hits. A search for "vegetarian broccoli" returns 7400. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 06:57:17 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm Back. Here's what's been going on, in detail References: <8fmj1v05v5q6bhvb612tuadk9aes44v60h@4ax.com> Date: 07 Jan 2003 06:57:17 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Max Harris" writes: > Simply put, I have a way of figuring who grabs my email address from > the newsgroup and lists me. The people who send univited email (ads, > trolls, etc), receive a bill for my copywriting services, along with > a corrected document. I can then set a collection agency on them if > they fail to pay. It proves to be a very good deterent to spammers > and trolls alike. Have you ever actually gotten paid? -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 10:01:19 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Preparing for flame - Atkins discussion References: Date: 07 Jan 2003 10:01:18 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Susan" writes: > I know I'll get flamed for this, but... I'm braced, and I'm just > wonering if anyone else feels like I do. I wouldn't flame or kill-file anyone for a well-written opinion like yours, and I'd hope no-one else would either. > A while back, someone asked why I wouldn't buy the Atkins book -- I > said I refused to pay money to improve my health (which is also why > I don't join Weight Watchers). Someone countered that they believed > Dr. Atkins to be a hero, and that he's entitled to make some money. > I'm not opposed to people making money -- I do it all day long. But > he's waaaaay over what seems, well, healthy, regarding trying to > make bucks off folks. $6 for a box of muffin mix? I mean, c'mon! I think the reason his high-priced products don't bother me is that we don't have to buy them. I haven't bought a single Atkins product, and I doubt I ever will. I'm not following Atkins specifically, but I believe anyone who wants to follow his plan can pick real foods out of the permitted lists and do just fine. On the other hand, people who want (and can afford) to try low-carb replacements for bread and such have a source for those items. What bothers me more are the TV infomercials I've seen. I don't how if Atkins is personally responsible for those, but they come across with the same 'miracle product' feel as every other infomercial. And unlike the book, the TV ads *do* give the impression that you must buy a bunch of Atkins products to make it work. Considering how most infomercial products turn out to be complete crap, these have to be contributing to the notion many people have that low-carbing is just another fad diet. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 10:04:52 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Are fried foods okay? References: Date: 07 Jan 2003 10:04:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "assimalated" writes: > I'm craving chicken fried steak and fried chicken. Are they okay on > the atkins diet? You can bread the fried chicken with Parmesan cheese or pork rinds to avoid flour. Chicken-fried steak around here usually has a gravy on it, but you can probably find recipes for low-carb gravy. One possibility would be using a thickener that's lower carb than conventional flour, like oat flour or Wondra. Just count the carbs. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 10:08:49 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Our Lo-Carb ancestors Date: 07 Jan 2003 10:08:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 jules2545@yahoo.com (Julie) writes: > >Jane Goodall spent over ten years with gorillas before seeing them > >commit genocide. > She did? I was rather under the impression that she studies > Chimpanzees. I'm sure you're right; they're all just monkeys to me. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 10:13:48 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question about eggs References: <90e51fb9.0301070544.3168d8e8@posting.google.com> Date: 07 Jan 2003 10:13:48 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 katherine.lublin@ps.ge.com (kb) writes: > I have checked a few carb counters and see that hard boiled eggs are > only .6 carbs while a scrambled egg is 1.3. Can anyone explain why > the same egg has a different carb count depending on how you cook > it? Some people put milk or cream in their scrambled eggs when they stir them up. Could they be including that? Other than that, I have no idea. The butter/oil/lard you cook them in doesn't add any. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 16:04:47 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Preparing for flame - Atkins discussion References: Date: 07 Jan 2003 16:04:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 "Susan" writes: > This makes more sense to me than anything. There will always be > cult-like followers of SOMETHING, and Atkins is no different. I think you're mistaking enthusiasm for cultish-ness. -- From nobody Tue Jan 7 18:39:22 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie questions Date: 07 Jan 2003 18:39:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 JqStovall@aol.com (Motivation) writes: > Thanks again Aaron for your response. How long have you been doing > low carb/Atkins? I was low-carb for about 3 months last year, losing 30 pounds. Then I maintained for a while. Low-carb was working fine; I just got lazy. I started getting serious again in mid-December, and am down another 7 pounds so far. > So far I love it, but changing my eating habits and way of cooking > is challenging. I need to look up more recipes that the whole > family will like, namely my husband who doesn't want anything to do > with diet eating. There are some good recipes at lowcarbfriends.com, although it's a slow-moving site for me. There are other good recipe sites that I don't know the names of offhand. -- 280/243/200 From nobody Wed Jan 8 07:09:48 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Rich's Rich Whip? References: <10PS9.198508$yW.107090@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com> Date: 08 Jan 2003 07:09:47 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Jazz" writes: > So it is the cream in like a cup sized carton? The better crockers > ones? Is the a pic you can provide of the product? Around here (in the US) 'heavy cream' comes in a half-pint (1 cup) cardboard carton, like the ones we drank milk from in school when we were kids. It might come in larger cartons too. If you whip it with a blender, it should just take a few seconds. Doing it by hand with a whisk will take longer. If you use a blender, be sure to stop as soon as it fluffs up and reaches the consistency you want. If you keep going, you'll make butter. Regular people often add sweetener to it, but low-carbers may not need to. I find it plenty sweet on its own. -- From nobody Wed Jan 8 10:15:16 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: HOW TO STOP TROLLS! References: <3E18B2D0.9050405@yahoo.com> <572A51E4707E76FA.00F76C3C73C66E29.1699093471F8EA6C@lp.airnews.net> <080120030849569430%cma@sympatico.ca> Date: 08 Jan 2003 10:15:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Carol Frilegh writes: > At the risk of being unpopular it would seem that just as there are > trolls there are people that want to test their duelling skills with > same. They think that they can cleverly outsmart or out troll the > troll. I've tried it and usually cave as it becomes tiresome, > annoying to myself and most others and after a while, boring. It's like wrestling with a pig. You just end up muddy and the pig enjoys it. -- From nobody Wed Jan 8 11:31:03 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: first day on induction References: <3kUS9.106893$eq2.24276623@twister.nyroc.rr.com> Date: 08 Jan 2003 11:31:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 lenine2@attbi.com (dutchie) writes: > I'm glad to see someone else starting up at the same time as me. I > started on Sunday. My biggest problems so far are wanting something > crunchy to snack on (I dislike pork rinds, and celery is OK but > doesn't hit the spot), and missing my glass of skim milk with my > meals. I found that if I have milk I feel full after my meal, and > if I don't have milk, my stomach doesn't feel like I've eaten. You could try mixing heavy cream with water, about half and half. That should give you about the consistency of milk with far fewer carbs. -- From nobody Wed Jan 8 15:27:07 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Banana/Potassium Substitute? References: Date: 08 Jan 2003 15:27:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "marvin rosen" writes: > I started a low carb diet which excludes eating bananas. > Yet a banana provides potassium which the body requires. > Other than a pill is there a natural substitute for the above? Yes, there are other foods that contain high amounts of potassium. I just posted a long list a few days ago, and this topic comes up on this group at least once a week. Go to groups.google.com and do a search for these terms: alt.support.diet.low-carb sources potassium -- From nobody Thu Jan 9 02:19:16 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: HOW TO STOP TROLLS! Date: 09 Jan 2003 02:19:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 SandyGurl writes: > And our troll is so dull and boring. He is not good enough for > interesting verbal sparring. Alas, alack it's ordinary PD2 at the > moment. It should take lessons from Master Sokwoo Lee. With one completely incoherent post to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic in September of 1999, he spawned a conversation that continues to this day. Do a Google search for Sokwoo Lee to find his original rant and many discussions of just what it all means. -- From nobody Thu Jan 9 16:57:30 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: that reminds me - lip balm carbs? References: Date: 09 Jan 2003 16:57:29 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Spuddie writes: > I make my own anyway. Cocoa butter, beeswax, mango butter, illipe > butter, avocado oil, hempseed oil, liquid cyclamates (obtained in > Canada) and a little unsweetened flavor oil. Good stuff! This made me thing of two scenes from the great show Newsradio: Joe: Duct tape. [looks disgusted] That stuff's a rip off; I make my own tape. and: [Joe shows Catherine his Boba Fett doll with hidden camera] Catherine: "Where in the world did you find a camera small enough to fit inside the Boba Fett doll?" Joe: "I made it." Catherine: "Where'd you get the parts?" Joe: "I made em..." -- From nobody Fri Jan 10 09:23:15 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie question References: Date: 10 Jan 2003 09:23:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 "Rookie" writes: > This may sound like gloating, but I have some small questions. I > have lost almost 15 kgs since Sept 30 (93kgs to 78.5kg) using the > LC/Atkins method. > 1. Why did my snoring stop (even before I lost any weight)? Dunno. I could probably dream up a theory, but it wouldn't be based on anything. You're not the first person to report that side-effect, though. > 2. Why is my digestion 100% better? You're now eating foods that your body was designed to digest better. > 3. Why has my skin improved? You've probably increased your consumption of healthy fats, which are important for healthy skin. In my experience, there's a direct link between trans-fats like margarine and skin problems. > 4. Why is my energy level through the roof? This varies; for some people it goes up and for some it goes down. I think this depends on your level of insulin resistance and possibly the health of your adrenals and pancreas. If those organs which produce insulin and other hormones are weak, then pounding them with carbs will wear you down, and going LC may boost your energy level. If those organs are healthy and doing fine, LC may give you less energy because you'll no longer be getting a rush from sugar (and caffeine, if you've dropped that). > 5. Why do people think you are mad when you begin following a LC > regimen? Because you're trusting your own judgment over conventional wisdom. -- From nobody Fri Jan 10 09:36:56 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cincinnati Skyline Chilli? References: <57ds1vchjdeo37r94p1u33cqosat9ngh7o@4ax.com> Date: 10 Jan 2003 09:36:55 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Goony writes: > I was looking on the back of a can and I saw 2g for each serving > which would equate to 4 pre can. That would mean I could join the > work crew on skyline days if I get a bowl of chili with cheese and > skip the crackers. > Could this possibly be true... 4g Carb? It's certainly possible if it doesn't have beans. If it has beans, it'd almost have to be higher than that. > BTW, the crackers would be the hard part. I just eat them without > thinking about it. Yeah, I grew up crumbling a handful of saltines into everything that was eaten in a bowl except ice cream. Soup just isn't the same without them, but that's okay. Once I've lost the weight, I'll have them once in a while again. -- From nobody Sun Jan 12 07:01:07 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How Do I Post My Stats After my Screw Up? References: <5d1f16ae.0301101544.1883f2b4@posting.google.com> <3e1fd365$1@news.theLink.net> <3E209546.57348549@alum.mit.edu> Organization: ESC Date: 12 Jan 2003 07:01:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Will Ware writes: > IIRC, the 6502 assembler used to use $1234. And this is really > stretching some old neurons, but I think the Basic that ran on the > Commodore 64 (1985-86?) used &H1234. You're right about the assemblers (writing machine code in decimal would be very painful), but the BASIC 2.0 in the C64 didn't understand hex numbers at all. Most add-on BASIC enhancements accepted the $1234 notation, though. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Sun Jan 12 07:07:16 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Made a creamsicle... References: <7LOcnXQ4AMG_64KjXTWcog@comcast.com> Organization: ESC Date: 12 Jan 2003 07:07:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "AJ M." writes: > Nothing sad here. The only thing that is sad is for me to read how > people have to concoct ridiculous meals to satisfy themselves. > Freezing scallions? That's a storage method, not a meal. > Crispy Cheese? So cooking a food and eating it is ridiculous? I'd say it's more ridiculous to crisp up a piece of potato or bread-stuff and then coat it with lots of artificial cheese flavoring to simulate Crispy Cheese. Yet they sell Cheetos and other such items by the ton. > Home Made creamsicle with no sugar? More ridiculous than one /with/ sugar? > Pork Rind Pancakes? Why not? Why is it flour less ridiculous than pork rinds? Because 'they' say so? -- 280/242/200 From nobody Sun Jan 12 07:36:21 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: testing References: Organization: ESC Date: 12 Jan 2003 07:36:21 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Jo-Anne" writes: > sorry gang just testing to see if this goes through.. Thanks... Your test failed. It showed up here instead of alt.test, where all good tests go. :-) Actually, there's a good reason for that. When you post to alt.test, using a valid email address, some news servers will send you a message letting you know that your post reached them and when. Handy. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Sun Jan 12 10:03:28 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Made a creamsicle... Organization: ESC Date: 12 Jan 2003 10:03:27 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Gary G" writes: > You really shouldn't feed the troll...GG When I read the first message and replied to it, it seemed more like frustration than trolling. Then I continued through the thread and realized what its real motives were. Oh well. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Mon Jan 13 10:34:40 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LOW CARB RECIPES References: Organization: ESC Date: 13 Jan 2003 10:34:40 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Jo-Anne" writes: > I do recall before that they had a newsgroup with strictly low carb > recipes on it??? does anyone know if it still exists??? Thanks in > advance There's no such newsgroup, but you might be thinking of a mailing list at Yahoo Groups. Go to and do a search for low-carb, and you'll find many. At least one is specifically for exchanging low-carb recipes. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Mon Jan 13 10:47:29 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Any Acid Reflux Gone Success Stories References: <20030111101358.01978.00000280@mb-me.aol.com> <20030112230600.03223.00000525@mb-cc.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: 13 Jan 2003 10:47:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 smoochablelips@aol.com (SmoochableLips) writes: > I've had acid reflux for 3 years and when I am on this diet, it goes > away. Not sure what it is but I am sure it has something to do with > the changes in acid reproduction that eventually make the reflux > disappear. I had acid reflux back when it was called hyatil hernia. (I'm probably misspelling the first word.) The way it was explained to me is that you have a one-way valve at the top of your stomach that's supposed to keep your stomach contents from coming back up the wrong way. Certain foods can weaken that valve muscle, allowing stomach acids to creep up and burn your throat. At the time, the list of foods I was 'allergic' to in this way included potatoes, white flour, popcorn, white onions, and sugar. Looks familiar, huh? What my chiropractor was calling food allergies was actually insulin resistance. Right prescription, though. When I cut those things out of my diet (long before I'd heard of low-carb) the heartburn went away and I lost weight. > Try reducing your carbs for a week or so and see if it works for you. It may not even take that long. It takes about two days of regular carby eating (especially late in the evening) to start giving me heartburn (as well as shortness of breath, tiredness, etc.). It also takes about two days of low-carbing to eliminate the heartburn, and the other symptoms follow soon after. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Mon Jan 13 10:55:14 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Spinach surprise! References: Organization: ESC Date: 13 Jan 2003 10:55:13 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Cherie" writes: > put moldy dip in bowl Does 'moldy' have different meaning where some of you people are from than it does here? Here in the US Midwest it means that a fungus has begun to grow on it, and you definitely wouldn't want to eat it. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Mon Jan 13 17:58:47 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Life in Stuckville (pics for your amusement) References: <20030108113053.17973.00001046@mb-mv.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: 13 Jan 2003 17:58:46 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 icrazyhorsei@aol.com (Icrazyhorsei) writes: > The top picture is my fat picture. The left one is my old > sort-of-goal picture, at 189. And the one on the right is me at 171. Wow. Unless you're 7' tall, I can't see where you're hiding it all. > When I look at it I think a goal of 155 is exactly right, not > anorectic or outrageously perfectionist or anything. Sixteen more -- > I just wish it would hurry up and GET OFF ME. It's all sitting on my > bottom half, too, like thermal tapioca. We'll have to see bikini-clad photos before we can study that issue. > The best part is being greeted by racks and racks of stuff in my > size at every store. Speaking of racks... oh, never mind, you meant something else... -- 280/242/200 From nobody Tue Jan 14 07:14:20 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ATTENTION AOL VICTIMS References: <3E23706F.F8D0D28@yahoo.com> <20030113211812.27101.00000196@mb-ms.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: 14 Jan 2003 07:14:20 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 castinneford@aol.comremove (CAStinneford) writes: > Not a word. The "Known Problems in Newsgroups" hasn't been updated > since September 2002. aol.newsgroups.announcements hasn't had a > posting in months. Newsmaster@aol.com didn't acknowledge any emails > sent to it about the problem and Tech Support told those who called > that postings are only supposed to be seen by other AOL members, > thereby showing that Tech Support doesn't know the difference > between internet newsgroups and AOL's internal message boards. Most of the technicians at ISPs -- even big ones like AOL -- don't even know Usenet exists. There's usually one older geek who was on the net before 1998 who makes sure they have Usenet service because he uses it himself. At one small ISP I do some work for, they've had enough turnover that I doubt anyone there knows about their Usenet feed. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Wed Jan 15 06:05:38 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Couple of questions References: Organization: ESC Date: 15 Jan 2003 06:05:37 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 62 "Deeds" writes: > 1) How often do I weigh myself? As often as you like. Just don't pay much attention to day-to-day changes in weight, since they can be caused by scale inaccuracies, water retention, and probably tidal forces. Just watch for trends. > 2) I am allowed 20 carbs per day to start. Now, I use up the 20 or > close to it by eating my 3 meals including any liquids. Am I allowed > (if I'm still hungry) to have an egg or some bacon or something with > zero carbs so I'm not having hunger pains or is that not allowed if > I had my 3 meals. I think you're over-using the word 'allowed.' For starters, Atkins is the only low-carb plan that keeps carbs that low, and that's only during induction. Other low-carb plans start you out at 30 carbs/day, or even higher. So don't beat yourself up if you end up with 22 carbs one day; just use that as a lesson to spread them out better in the future. The only foods which have zero carbs are fresh meat and oil. So if you're looking for a zero-carb snack, those are your choices. That would be a good time for some leftover roast chicken or beef, for example. But, if your only choices are going a little over your carb limit or going hungry, I'd recommend that you eat. Hunger leads to cravings, and cravings lead to bad choices -- especially when you're just getting started. You'll be better off having some eggs and finishing the day with 24 carbs than going hungry and ending up cleaning out the cookie jar. > 3) I tried Jello Brand sugar free jello today and it was delicious! > Can I have this even though it has zero carbs but uses aspertene > (sp?) as an ingredient? I actually ate the whole box at > lunch. You won't know until you try it. Some people are fine with it, and others stall. > 4) I have the printout from the website listing the "net" carbs of > most foods which I go by faithfully. My question is, am I going by > "that" list or the listing on the packages of foods I buy? His list > seems to be lower because it's listed in net numbers so when I shop, > what am I looking for? You'll need his list for all the foods that don't have counts on them, like fresh meat and vegetables. For foods that have counts on the label, you should probably go with the label, as long as it comes close to the number on the list. Subtract fiber from total carbs, and you get 'net carbs.' Just be aware that products are sometimes mis-labeled, and if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. I think someone else in the thread already explained how to figure true carbs starting from total calories, for those products that don't seem right. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Wed Jan 15 07:47:45 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: six eggs a day References: <3e2497a8@news.theLink.net> Organization: ESC Date: 15 Jan 2003 07:47:44 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "stevie-d" writes: > Hey thanx for the advice, this low carb deal is all new to me so I'm > doing a lot of learning here. I am still confused though, if it is > not saturated fat / cholesterol that caused heart disease then what > does, maybe starch from all of thse starchy carbs that we all eat, > but if that is the case why isn't there an epidemic of heart > problems in Asia where they eat tonnes of rice. Because they *don't* eat tons of rice. They do eat rice, but they use it in dishes with meat and vegetables, which spreads out the insulin effect of the carbs. I think (perhaps someone with experience can chime in here) that they also eat more whole-grain rice, and not the bleached stuff that we eat, which has nothing left in it except the carbs. There's just no everyday equivalent in the typical Asian diet to an American having a baked potato (with margarine, of course) and a Coke, as far as carbs and insulin effect are concerned. Or a Biggie fries, or a Subway sandwich that's mostly bread, or cereal and skim milk for breakfast, or having soda as your only beverage, or.... They eat quite a bit of rice; we eat some rice and quite a bit of every other carb ever discovered or created -- usually in the worst possible processed form. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Wed Jan 15 15:31:54 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Is Low carb diet healthy? References: <9e2a3f10.0301140705.325b0914@posting.google.com> <3e24dd2a$1@news.theLink.net> <3e25982a$1@news.theLink.net> Organization: ESC Date: 15 Jan 2003 15:31:52 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 162 "marengo" writes: > The NeoTrace mapped out *identical* pathways for posts from > Quasimodem, Feedrus and Observer. And from another troll called > "NotChung." Also, in each case, the source IP domain address was > 205.152.0.20, originating through NS.ATL.Bellsouth.net. Except for > a few posts made through Google, *all* went through a German news > server at Freie Universitaet in Berlin. And even the Google posts > pinged back to the same 205.152.0.20 source in Atlanta. These > pathways do not bear even a passing resemblance to those of any > other posts that I've seen. That's not the IP the posts came from though. What you've got there is bellsouth.net's DNS server, which is used by all bellsouth.net customers, at least in Atlanta. I'd say NeoTrace is misleading you a little. I'm not sure why it's even fooling with the DNS server, since any DNS server will be shared by many people. Just for fun, I ran some stats on the last couple weeks of posts in this group. I wrote a small program that took every post originating from a Bell South ADSL account, pulled the From address (easily spoofed), X-Newsreader (possibly but rarely spoofed), and IP address from each one, and tabulated them. The results are below, broken down first by newsreader, then by From address, then by IP and number of posts from that IP. This makes it pretty clear that Quasi != Feedrus. Quasi posts with a different newsreader, and he tends to get an IP address in the 208.61/16 range. The troll posts using Forte Agent, and gets an IP in the 67.33 to 68.158 range or so. Probably they live far enough from each other to connect to different parts of the bellsouth.net network. (Which I'm sure comes as a relief to Quasi.) However, it also makes clear that we only have one troll, going by many different names. Including attempts to pretend to be other real posters (a canceling offense with many ISPs). Here's the data, for anyone who's still reading at this point. :-) The number following each IP address is the number of posts made from that address, by that From header, with that Newsreader. It also provides a pretty good list (minus Quasi's part) to send along if you're writing to abuse@bellsouth.net. Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 "Quasimodem" 208.61.50.169 11 208.61.50.113 2 208.61.48.196 2 208.61.60.26 5 208.61.50.56 10 208.61.50.233 2 208.61.48.231 2 208.61.59.148 2 208.61.59.204 2 Forte Agent 1.9/32.560 Ghost Of Lyle 67.33.185.20 1 67.33.183.4 2 JOWELS 68.154.14.221 2 2PDieter 67.33.185.20 1 NotChung 67.33.183.4 29 Observing 67.33.178.189 50 Feedrus 67.33.146.27 26 68.154.25.89 11 67.33.149.68 4 Typical Dieting Usenet Ho 67.33.158.99 2 Got All I Need....For Now 67.33.108.64 1 MH Stand For MeatHead 67.33.103.68 1 SandyBrainedLunatic 67.33.103.68 1 Alice FaberFudgeHead 67.33.103.68 1 Lisa 67.33.158.99 4 An Observer' Observations 67.33.178.189 14 Feedrus. 67.33.146.27 4 Bob 67.33.103.68 4 67.33.158.99 1 M'isa Is A Voyeur 67.33.103.68 1 xyz 67.33.185.20 1 Feedrus 67.33.108.64 14 67.33.149.68 47 M'isa The Voyeur 67.33.103.68 2 An Observer's Observations 67.33.178.189 8 SusanDumbButt 67.33.103.68 4 Nina The Ninny 67.33.103.68 1 Feedrus Loves Harvard 67.33.149.68 1 An Observer's Observation 67.33.178.189 17 2PD <2PD@hotmail.com> 67.33.185.20 6 An Observer 68.154.14.221 2 Back To Observing 68.158.13.171 3 Peter 68.154.14.221 1 Atkins Forever 68.154.14.221 2 Horsepatootie 68.154.14.221 1 2PD 67.33.185.20 24 Feedrus 68.154.21.253 5 67.33.119.89 7 68.154.58.202 1 67.34.135.33 10 67.33.149.68 22 67.34.142.179 13 67.33.106.22 1 68.154.4.164 7 68.155.251.4 39 iluvemarsbars 68.154.14.221 2 Back Observing 68.154.21.253 3 68.158.13.171 5 Serena's Conscience 68.154.21.253 2 Feedus 68.154.21.253 16 Benny Hanna 67.33.103.68 1 Lisa 67.33.158.99 4 Observer 68.154.14.221 17 Feedrus 67.34.142.179 23 Violet The WW Basher 67.33.103.68 1 Determined Stands For Moron 67.33.103.68 1 -- 280/242/200 From nobody Wed Jan 15 15:39:15 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity on trial References: <3e24dff6$1@news.theLink.net> <20030115114100.06736.00000001@mb-cv.aol.com> <3e25b3f8.25899060@News.CIS.DFN.DE> Organization: ESC Date: 15 Jan 2003 15:39:15 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 harkon@inxpress.net (LizC) writes: > ewwwww - I had forgotten about that creep!! I haven't been reading > rpdb very much lately because of the Howe/Zen overload, Sheesh, is that still going on? I subscribed to rpd.behavior for a short while a few years ago, but it was almost entirely worthless. Every single thread turned into a long argument between Howe and everyone else. Asdl-c is a model newsgroup compared to that one. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Wed Jan 15 19:11:24 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Is Low carb diet healthy? Organization: ESC Date: 15 Jan 2003 19:11:23 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Ron writes: > Aaron........with all do respect after all is said and done is this > person getting reprimanded in any way? I don't know; it depends totally on the ISP. Some ISPs will drop a user after just a few complaints, figuring any user who generates complaints isn't worth the trouble of keeping around. Others just route abuse complaints to the bit bucket. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Wed Jan 15 19:14:57 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: romance + LC = :( References: <3e242536$0$83840$edfadb0f@dtext01.news.tele.dk> Organization: ESC Date: 15 Jan 2003 19:14:56 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Vad" writes: > I'm not sure what a "chi chi" restaurant is (language barrier > perhaps). I don't know if it's what the original poster meant, but here in the Midwest US, Chi-Chi's is a Mexican chain restaurant. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Thu Jan 16 07:45:04 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Men.. err a personal question References: Organization: ESC Date: 16 Jan 2003 07:45:03 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 milady writes: > Any of you guys out there notice your libido and umm 'staying power' > change after you began to LC? I haven't had the opportunity to test this theory lately, but I'm always up for some research. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Thu Jan 16 15:36:11 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How many carbs a day do we burn? References: <828f2c04.0301140820.5ae7bc87@posting.google.com> <3E2541AF.E2CFF446@ix.netcom.com> <828f2c04.0301151001.759f33b4@posting.google.com> <828f2c04.0301161008.78d02d39@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: 16 Jan 2003 15:36:09 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 vile5@attbi.com (Vile) writes: > Wow it is interesting that I have stumped the low-carbers on a > question that no one can seem to answer. I don't want to be mean, but there's no answer because it's a nonsense question. It's like asking how many apples it takes to fill your car's fuel tank. You could start stuffing them in there and counting, but what's the point? It's a nonexistent relationship. You burn calories, not carbs. Each carb gram provides 4 calories. So if you burn off 72 calories, that could have come from 18 carb grams -- or 18 protein grams, or 8 fat grams, or any combination of the three. But, if you eat 2000 calories today, and 72 of those come from 18 carb grams, and you do 2000 calories of exercise, that still means almost exactly nothing. The carbs you ate at breakfast might have been stored away in some muscles, while later in the day your body broke out some of last month's fat to burn while you exercised other muscles. Diet calories don't have a one-to-one relationship to calorie usage within a particular day. Also, there's the whole issue of insulin resistance, and the fact that some people can lose weight while overeating, while others have to cut back on calories to lose. There just isn't a hard-and-fast calculated answer like you seem to want. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Sat Jan 18 15:43:31 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "Bad Stuff" Clarification References: Organization: ESC Date: 18 Jan 2003 15:43:31 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Glen Scott writes: > WOW.... Pork can cause stalls too????? Probably not pork itself so much as the fact that many pork products are cured, which means they can include sugars, nitrates, and sodium salt. All of those have been suspected of causing stalls and/or water retention in at least some people. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Sat Jan 18 16:11:32 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Beer carbs References: <3E2994AB.6BC4B996@shaw.ca> <20030118143404.18543.00000102@mb-dh.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: 18 Jan 2003 16:11:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 mhazel2550@aol.comnospam (MHazel2550) writes: > Has anyone else tried Michelob Ultra yet? It's pretty decent, for a typical American beer. It's certainly better tasting than Miller Lite, the other low-carb beer. But then a puddle in the parking lot outside the bar probably tastes better than Miller Lite. Considering vodka is zero carbs, though, I usually don't bother with the beer. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Mon Jan 20 03:45:01 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Is a lo carb diet against the will of God? References: <72895e0a.0301191725.614c932e@posting.google.com> <8XMW9.60995$kH3.9049@sccrnsc03> Organization: ESC Date: 20 Jan 2003 03:45:01 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Henry Cabot Henhouse III" writes: > If we don't eat the little piggies, cows, chickens, turkeys, > etc. the animal population will explode and we'll be knee deep in > critters... Mmmm, critters... -- 280/242/200 From nobody Mon Jan 20 07:50:28 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: One Of My Patients..... References: <8ff71cdd.0301192100.3f346763@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: 20 Jan 2003 07:50:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 Emilia writes: > Perhaps this is why many are concerned because they think we are NO > carbers as opposed to LOW carbers.... If you think of all the things > we eat that have some carbs vs the things that have zero carbs you > can easily see his diet is not diverse or healthy. Are there any > zero carb veggies out there? What can you eat that is zero carbs? > Butter, eggs & meat? Now we all know that is not a healthy way to > live. No need to hear about this person's poor state of heath to > tell us that. Even eggs have some carbs, so a truly zero-carb diet would be limited to fresh meat and fats like butter, oil, and lard. Definitely boring, and expensive. The worst part would be the lack of fiber. Still, I'd rank that diet as healthier than a strict low-fat diet. You'd probably need to take some supplements to get fiber and potassium, but most of your nutritional needs would be covered. It'd certainly be healthier than living only on potatoes and bread, but I wouldn't want to try it. There's too much flavor and variety available in LC vegetables. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Tue Jan 21 17:11:07 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Induction Menu Suggestions please? References: <3e2c9bc4_1@corp.newsgroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: 21 Jan 2003 17:11:06 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 56 "Colette" writes: > I am having some trouble figuring out how to plan induction menus > for my husband and myself. I have the Atkins main book (the new > one) and I still find that there's so much information that I am > having a hard time getting it in gear properly. It is tough at first to come up with meals. I think it's partly because we're so used to one-dish casserole and Hamburger Helper-type meals, and those are always full of carbs. On low-carb, I find myself making more meals based on a main meat course with vegetable sides. > Right now, I need menu ideas for 90% Ground Chuck, Chicken Breasts, > Chicken Thighs and Whiting Fillet of Fish. What do we eat with it? You can fry, grill, or bake any of those (making meatloaf, burgers, or meatballs with the beef) and then make side dishes of: boiled cabbage (lots of pepper) cole slaw (search the web for a low-carb version) broccoli (boil and add butter, or melt cheese over it) radishes or turnips (I like them raw, but some people cook them) salad (use a full-fat, no-sugar dressing, or make your own) squash or zucchini (coat with egg and parmesan cheese and fry) spinach or swiss chard (boiled and buttered or cheesed) asparagus (boiled and buttered) wilted lettuce (search for recipe and leave out sugar) That should give you some ideas to get started, and some of them don't require much of a recipe. I'd recommend that you buy regular ground beef, rather than the 90%. The higher-fat beef is cheaper and more flavorful, and it'll help you get your fat calories up. It's more common for low-carbers to get their protein high and their fat low than the other way around. Here's a good recipe for ground beef that I actually got out of a regular cookbook. I don't have it in front of me, so the quantities may be vague. I try to vary it each time, trying different spices. Giant Burger Divide 1-1/2 lbs of burger into two equal parts. Press one part into a greased pie pan. Mix 3 oz. of softened cream cheese, 2 T. total of mustard and/or horseradish, some chives or parsley, and salt and pepper to taste. Spread this on top of the meat in the pie pan, keeping it 1/2" from the edge. Spread the other half of the meat on top of this, pressing the edge to seal it to the bottom layer of meat. Cook it all at 375 for 45 minutes, and cut into wedges to serve. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Tue Jan 21 17:25:11 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lo-carb AND lo-fat? Is it possible? References: Organization: ESC Date: 21 Jan 2003 17:25:11 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Yes, but how does one know that much protein to get for it not to be > excessive? In the Protein Power book they walk you through the calculations based on your Lean Body Mass. So many grams of protein per pound of LBM, and then that works out to so many eggs or servings of meat or cheese at each meal. The idea being to get just enough protein that your LBM has plenty and you don't lose muscle unnecessarily, but no extra protein that'll be converted to glycogen. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Tue Jan 21 19:32:35 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: atkins and sugar busters References: Organization: ESC Date: 21 Jan 2003 19:32:35 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "PolitWeb" writes: > what is the difference between atkins and sugar busters Atkins focuses on limiting total carb intake, while not paying much attention to the type of carbs. Sugar Busters focuses more on the glycemic index of foods, recommending low-glycemic foods like dry beans. I think (it's been a while since I read it) that SB is designed to help with other health issues (like hyperactivity in kids), while Atkins is pretty much all about weight loss. I'm generalizing greatly here, of course. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Tue Jan 21 19:57:41 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Introduction and question about my soup References: <1yhX9.79781$Pb.3277671@twister.austin.rr.com> Organization: ESC Date: 21 Jan 2003 19:57:41 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "Morkai Kurst" writes: > Anyway, my primary source of food is chicken, I roast a chicken, > debone it and hold back the leg and thigh meat and the breast, the > rest goes in a pot with an onion, some baby carrots, herbs and > peppercorns. Any juice from the roasting tin goes in there and then > I top it up with water. Todays batch yielded 9 cups of stock after I > seperated all the fat off. How do I work out the carb content here? > Do I just add up the carb content of the onion and the carrots or is > it not as much as that? Yes, just add up the carbs of the ingredients. Carrots are fairly high-carb; you might want to replace them with some lower-carb alternatives like green beans, cabbage, broccoli, or asparagus. > I usually throw in some mushrooms, corn, 1/4 galllon of milk, the > breasts and then thicken it up nicely with some corn starch (to the > point where the spoon almost stands up in it) I'm guessing I'm just > gonna have to limit that though to the mushrooms and breast > meat. I'm not going to be able to go shopping for a couple of days > so can't get any cream.(I gotta say I never thought I'd get real > cream of chicken and mushroom soup again!) The corn, corn starch, and milk are all high-carb. If you replace the milk with cream, it'll also help thicken the soup. There are low-carb thickeners you can get at health-food stores to replace the corn starch. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Wed Jan 22 08:20:02 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: lo carber poll References: <72895e0a.0301211953.1b57b0ce@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: 22 Jan 2003 08:20:02 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 fb22201@yahoo.com (frugal) writes: > I'm just wondering, do those of you following the low carb diet errr > "WOE" have other common traits? We're all extremely smart and good-looking, and we can spell. Three strikes for you, I guess. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Thu Jan 23 10:58:30 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: OT That stupid McDonald's Lawsuit References: Organization: ESC Date: 23 Jan 2003 10:58:30 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Carmen " writes: > Got the treatment it deserved: Unfortunately, it's far from over. The lawyers on the case admitted that they knew this initial try would get thrown out, but they're following the playbook used by the lawyers who made billions on the tobacco lawsuits. The early tobacco cases were laughed out of court too, but they helped to set the stage in public opinion for further legal action and softened up the companies for an eventual settlement. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Fri Jan 24 07:50:33 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: the BEST cookies I have ever made!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! References: Organization: ESC Date: 24 Jan 2003 07:50:32 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "revek" writes: > Is it ok to sub butter for the shortening? Trying to avoid transfat > as much as possible. When recipes call for shortening I generally use lard instead. You could also try half lard and half butter. It seems like butter makes things a little drier than shortening, so if you go with all butter, you may need to experiment with cutting the dry ingredients a little. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Fri Jan 24 14:43:49 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Carbs-Comments please References: Organization: ESC Date: 24 Jan 2003 14:43:49 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "lazarus_bitmap" writes: > Bunk. Cite the authors or the research. Everything I've seen says > the opposite. Earlier consumption or spread throughout the day > seems to be the consensus. Just prior to sleeping is the worst time > to eat carbs. It's when you body needs the fuel the least. Plus if I eat carbs right before sleeping, I'll have acid reflux for sure. At least one of the LC books (I forget which) says that insulin sensitivity tends to be at its best when you first wake up, so that's the best time of the day for eating carbs. But mostly the books say to spread them throughout the day. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Fri Jan 24 14:47:43 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: sPEAKING OF yOGHURT...nEW YUMMY SURPRISE! References: <3e31544e$0$7815$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> Organization: ESC Date: 24 Jan 2003 14:47:43 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "Rayvyn" writes: > I bought some Yoghurt I hate Yogurt. Even with strawberries. -- 280/242/200 Sorry, just couldn't resist the Spaceballs reference. From nobody Sat Jan 25 16:26:38 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: quick breakfasts? References: Organization: ESC Date: 25 Jan 2003 16:26:38 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 "Peter" writes: > My question is this: since I have never been a breakfast eater, what > kinds of things can I eat in the morning before I go to the gym? I > know that I can have bacon and eggs, but I don't think that I'll > have time to prepare and eat that in the morning. It takes me all of 15 minutes to cook and eat fried eggs in the morning, and I'm usually doing something else like getting dressed for the first 5 minutes while my skillet of lard is heating up. You can scramble eggs in a non-stick skillet in five minutes or less. Bacon takes a little longer, but if you're in a big hurry, I understand it can be cooked quickly in the microwave. Or you could cook up a big batch in advance, and crumble a few pre-cooked pieces into your scrambled eggs. > Are there any fast things that I can eat quickly in the morning - > preferably in the car? Or is there anything that I could prepare > the night before? I'm really drawing a blank here. Thanks for any > help. Sure, any leftovers from the day before can be heated up for breakfast. Just make some extra when you cook supper and stick it in the fridge in a single-serving microwave bowl. No need to have breakfast-y foods if you don't want to. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Sat Jan 25 16:33:17 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: red vs green salsa? References: Organization: ESC Date: 25 Jan 2003 16:33:16 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "r.john pelton" writes: > I have been reading through Dr.atkins book and wonder why he says > that you should eat the green salsa rather than the red. He's probably figuring that the sugar content of tomatoes increases as they ripen, so salsa made with green tomatoes will have fewer carbs than salsa made with ripe red tomatoes. But....who knows what other stuff the processors are putting in with those green tomatoes to make them tasty? I don't think you can know which is better without checking the labels on the specific brands you have to choose from. > The red salsa that i have been eating has 2 grams of carbs per > serving which is 2 tbsp. It tastes great on an omlet and chicken. Unfortunately, groundhogs decimated my tomato crop last year, so I didn't get any salsa canned. I intend to put up a bunch of it this year. It's a great low-carb alternative to ketchup and BBQ sauce, especially when you make your own without any sugar. -- 280/242/200 From nobody Sun Oct 19 12:32:24 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hola...I am new here...hope to hear from you References: <3F92357C.30001@luminiferous.ether> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:32:24 -0500 Message-ID: <86y8vhf80n.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "M.W. Smith" writes: > Carbohydrates aren't bad for you. You actually need them. What for? -- 280/228/200 From nobody Sun Oct 19 12:50:31 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: counting carbs References: Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:50:31 -0500 Message-ID: <86u165f76g.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "shutterbug" writes: > I am not too new to the LC diet, but have never kept a written > record of the carbs I eat either. What methods do people use to > keep on track with their LC diet? Other people will give you good tips on food diaries and Fitday, so I'll chime in with my way, which is different -- I don't keep track. When I'm low-carbing, I just don't eat foods with carb contents high enough to put me over my carb limit. Take eggs, for example. At one carb per egg, you'd have to eat over 20 eggs in a day to be over the induction limit -- pretty unlikely, even if you ate nothing else. I eat some vegetables like cabbage that could theoretically go over the induction limit if I ate nothing but cabbage all day, but that's not going to happen. So I eat as much as I like, and know without counting that my carbs are fine. I've been low-carbing off-and-on for nearly two years, and lost over 50 pounds. During the 'off' times, I did more or less a relaxed CAD, so while I wasn't losing weight, I wasn't putting it back on either. During the weight-losing low-carb periods, I eat meat, eggs, cheese, and low-carb vegetables, and never count a carb or calorie. I could probably get a little more variation into my diet if I included some borderline carby foods, but then I'd have to count carbs, and I'm too lazy for that. Besides, I *like* all the low-carb foods, and I don't have any trouble enjoying eggs at least once a day. Where I get into trouble (those off-LC periods I mentioned) is when I eat too many meals away from home. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Mon Oct 20 12:12:50 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Will PRAYERS help you lose weight or keep it off???... References: <0001HW.BBB967E900263A8A0A323EF0@text.giganews.com> <0001HW.BBB970C500284F680A323EF0@text.giganews.com> Organization: ESC berkeley-unix) Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 12:12:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86brsbg7e6.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Steve writes: > Look at the BMR equation, for example... any conscious activity > burns more calories than sleeping. Praying is a conscious activity. > The more fervently you pray, the more calories you burn. It also > helps to pray out loud, grit your teeth, flog yourself, chant, speak > in tongues, handle snakes, manipulate beads, etc. How about if I get someone else to flog me and manipulate my beads? -- 280/228/200 From nobody Tue Oct 21 18:23:51 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Egg tricks References: Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:23:51 -0500 Message-ID: <86wuaycgzc.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 dave@davedumanis.com (Dave Dumanis) writes: > For all you hardboiled egg-eaters who have breakage problems, boil > the water first, then take it OFF THE HEAT and immediately put your > eggs in (gently). Cover and leave it till the water is > lukewarm. They'll be perfectly cooked. No broken shells, no mess. Why bother? Won't you be removing the shells before eating them? I suppose they'll keep better if the shell is solid, but they never last that long in my kitchen. -- 280/228/200 "Vegetables are for commies." -- J. Lileks From nobody Tue Oct 21 18:28:01 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Egg tricks References: <1066697189.218564@newshost01.voicenet.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 18:28:01 -0500 Message-ID: <86smlmcgse.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Chris Taylor Jr" writes: > One thing I do hate (suggestions please) is when the egg shell > STICKS to the egg and it is REALLY hard to peel and then on others > it "slips" right of almost. I don't have a definitive answer on this one, but it *seems* to help if the eggs aren't fresh. My mom has chickens, so I get my eggs very fresh -- usually just a couple days old. I try to keep them around for a while before boiling them. But sometimes I boil eggs that are 3-4 days old and they peel very well, and they're surely much fresher than store-bought eggs, so I'm not sure that's the whole answer. I do notice that when I do them in the steamer, I have better luck than when I boil them. It takes a little longer, but it seems to be worth it. My mom often boils eggs with potatoes, and says they always peel great after that. Obviously that doesn't help us here, but maybe there's something about the starch in the water that makes a difference. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Tue Oct 21 19:30:38 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Atkins Diet Doesn't Work References: <3F946F5B.BE66219F@rcn.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:30:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86oewacdw1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "Teeb" writes: > EXACTLY.. I lost 57 pounds 2 years ago.. quit.. and now I am having > to lose most of it it all over again. Eating potatoes, white bread > and sugared up things made me fat.. dumping it out of my daily diet > takes it back off.. I don't even exercise... how can those idiots > say it doesn't work? Apparently the media's definition of "works" as pertains to dieting means that it flicks some switch inside your body that keeps you from ever gaining weight again. A pretty tall order. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Tue Oct 21 19:35:17 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Atkins Diet Doesn't Work References: Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:35:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86k76ycdoa.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 Luna writes: > I just read the article, and seems like the gist of it was > (paraphrasing here): Atkins doesn't work because dieters get bored > and go off the diet and gain the weight back. Hmm, I suppose that's > true. But, um, isn't that true of low-fat diets as well? Or any plan at all. By the same logic: Exercise doesn't help you lose weight, because it can be both hard and painful. Many people won't keep at something that's hard or painful, so they'll quit exercising. Drinking water doesn't help avoid dehydration, because some people don't like the taste of water, so they drink soda instead. Reading doesn't improve education, because many kids would rather watch TV than read. I could go on and on... -- 280/228/200 From nobody Tue Oct 21 19:47:05 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Atkins Diet Doesn't Work References: <2uu8pvkv0injeeq5869ikgukjuvmj6qhls@4ax.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2003 19:47:05 -0500 Message-ID: <86fzhmcd4m.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 43 Ina Hesmer writes: > So, how come I now eat about 1200-1500 calories a day and the pounds > *melt* off, whereas before I could only eat about 500-700 calories > of carbohydrates if I wanted to lose? With no difference in how much > I move or workout. I eat more now, both in calories in volume, than > on the usual "FDH" (Friss die Hälfte - Eat only Half), and I lose > weight so much I can't keep up with updating my signature > here. Yeah, I'm tired of the "it's all about the calories" mantra. I don't play along with that anymore; when someone brings up calories, I just say, "Calories are irrelevant to weight loss." Once they recover from their astonishment enough to argue the point -- it's like if I declared the earth were flat -- I start pointing out why it's wrong to assume that calories are a zero-sum equation. (Of course, I know calories aren't *totally* irrelevant; I just like that as a conversation starter. It'd be more accurate to say calories are secondary to food choices.) I've gone low-carb twice in the past two years, dropping from 280 to 250ish the first time, and then from there to 230ish the next time. I went off-plan both times because I eat a lot of meals with family who are major carb-eaters, not because LC wasn't working -- it was working great. So, I started again today, taking in almost 3500 calories and 16g carbs. This is the way I ate when I did it successfully before: as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted, with emphasis on plenty of good meat and fats. My exercise level will be staying the same as it has been while I've maintained at 225-230 for several months. I never kept track of anything before, but this time I'm going to, so that when I hit my goal of 228 by Christmas, I can print it out and show it to people who think it's impossible to lose weight while taking in more calories than you burn. There's no way in heck I burn 3500 calories a day; if I were, I'd have starved already. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Thu Oct 23 07:13:47 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Atkins Diet Doesn't Work References: <3F946F5B.BE66219F@rcn.com> <86oewacdw1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:13:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86ptgo9mo5.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "revek" writes: >> Apparently the media's definition of "works" as pertains to dieting >> means that it flicks some switch inside your body that keeps you >> from ever gaining weight again. A pretty tall order. > Funny how they don't apply the same definition to their pet low fat > diets. True, but that's because they think low-fat eating is natural and the Right Thing. They don't think of it as something you just do to lose weight and then drop. They've been fooled into thinking a low-fat diet decreases all health problems, from heart attacks to acne, so why would they ever want to stop? In contrast, they see low-carb as dangerous, because of all the fat. They also think it's somewhat neanderthal, since it means (in most cases) eating more animal products. They'll accept that it works as a crash diet, but they can't imagine actually eating this way for the rest of their lives and liking it, so they're anxious to find any evidence that people don't stick with it. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Thu Oct 23 07:19:28 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Atkins Diet Doesn't Work References: Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 07:19:28 -0500 Message-ID: <86llrc9men.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 Luna writes: > Plus, if I understand correctly all that I've read about Atkins, > there is nothing you have to eliminate _forever_ so how can you get > bored? I think "impatient" would be a better word than bored. Once > you get to maintenance you can have bread and pasta and potatoes and > suchlike, occasionally, in moderation, right? Correct me if I'm > wrong, I didn't pay much attention because I don't miss eating that > stuff. Sure. There's nothing so carby that you couldn't fit at least a little into a maintenance diet. (Well, maybe regular soda would be tough.) Baked potato, for example, has something like 50 carbs per serving. Since most people maintain at somewhere between 50 and 100 carbs per day, you could fit that in once in a while. You could probably even have a big heaping plateful of mashed potatoes at Thanksgiving, as long as it was a one-time thing and you went right back to your normal eating the next day. Some of it depends on how bad your insulin resistance is, and how badly you get carb cravings. I'll probably never go back to eating many refined carbs, because even when I don't eat enough of them to gain weight, they do cause me problems -- mental fog, sleeping too much, headaches, etc. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Fri Oct 24 06:40:50 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What is it with nuts? References: Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 06:40:50 -0500 Message-ID: <861xt27tj1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "Roger Zoul" writes: > It's you, Luna. It's me too. I have the same problem and it > matters not if the nuts are salted or unsalted. I just enjoy > crunching on nuts (almonds, specifically). Yesterday, I ate so many > I became sick. Same here. At the speed I eat them, nuts are too expensive to buy very often. I'm looking forward to when the grocery stores start carrying nuts in the shell for Christmas. I buy those by the gallon, since the time spent cracking them keeps me from eating them quite so fast. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Fri Oct 24 07:25:31 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ARTICLE: Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works References: Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 07:25:31 -0500 Message-ID: <86wuau6cw4.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 143 I feel a rant coming on... > *Yet another study has shown that the Atkins diet works. But even > the scientist in charge is baffled about why the low-carb regime > reduces fat more effectively than conventional low-calorie, low-fat > eating plans, Robert Matthews reports.* Now is she really baffled, or just avoiding the truth? Anyone who's spent 10 minutes reading about the role of insulin in fat storage knows exactly why low-carb works. For someone doing nutritional research to claim not to know this basic stuff means she's either woefully unqualified for her job or going out of her way not to learn anything that would interfere with mainstream beliefs. > Most nutritionists faced with the torrent of anecdotal evidence for > its effectiveness have simply parroted the mantra that more research > is needed, while muttering darkly about possible long-term health > effects. "Here be dragons." > According to Brehm, those following Atkins's low-carbohydrate diet for > four months achieved twice the weight loss of those on a conventional > calorie-controlled, low-fat diet. Furthermore, the team found no > evidence of harmful effects from following the diet - at least during > the study. Gotta get in those caveats. > They are something of an embarrassment to Brehm, whose research is > funded by the American Heart Association, which has long advocated > calorie-controlled, low-fat diets. Why should the AHA care what diet works, if their real concern is helping people with heart problems? How long will embarrassment over past mistakes trump doing the right thing now? > As a scientist, Brehm puts unearthing the truth above pleasing her > paymasters - but it is this that causes most concern. She is having > problems explaining her findings - and in the increasingly > vociferous debate over the Atkins diet, that may well land her in > trouble at next week's meeting. At least she's trying. She could always plagiarize Protein Power; it spends a couple chapters explaining exactly why it works. > To trigger this effect, Atkins dieters are instructed to begin by > eliminating all carbohydrates from their diet, Not true, of course, but we seem doomed to hear this daily. Even my eggs this morning had a few carbs. > forcing their bodies to get energy by burning up fat reserves > instead. Also not true. I've lost weight while eating way more calories than I burned. If it were all about 'burning up fat reserves', the low-calorie low-fat diet would work just peachy. > The result is supposed to be weight loss, plus the production of > compounds known as ketones; the higher the level of "ketosis", the > more fat is being burnt. Inaccurate, since we all produce ketones; induction-level low-carbers just produce enough to detect easily. > That's the theory. Yet studies of the patients in Brehm's trial failed > to reveal a connection between ketosis and fat loss. "We didn't see > any correlation - all of our expectations were confounded," she > says. "I'm hoping someone in the audience might have some answers." "It can't possibly be that the idea I was trying to disprove -- that will get me laughed at at the next convention -- could be the truth! I'd rather blame it on magical fairies. Could someone prove magical fairies exist, please?" > Brehm is confident that there is a reasonable, if not simple, > explanation for her findings: "In the end, the energy in has got to > match the energy out." Assuming the human body is a perfectly efficient machine, that burns food the way an engine burns gasoline. Mine isn't. > Even more baffling is why there are still such enormous gaps in > knowledge about how humans respond to diet. The past 20 years have > seen obesity reach record levels in the developed world. This has led > scientists to concede that the standard advice on nutrition and > healthy eating has been an abject failure - yet the Atkins diet is > still dismissed as a "fad" by the British Dietetic Association, with > leading nutritionists insisting that there is insufficient scientific > evidence to give it more credence. This lack of evidence has not > deterred many in the medical profession from condemning the diet out > of hand. Last week a poll of British doctors revealed that one in four > would advise their patients to stay fat rather than try the Atkins > diet - despite the proven life-threatening effects of obesity. It's become a vicious circle. Atkins came across the common sense (and hardly new or secret) idea that cutting back on carbs would help people lose weight, and developed that into an overall diet plan. Instead of spending the next 20 years researching it in a lab somewhere and restricting his results to tired medical journals, he had the tackiness to make money on it by putting it in a book where it was accessible by the common people. Associations of all stripes hate that kind of individuality. Now there's no need to research low-carb, because millions of people are already running their own tests at home. Mainstream types don't want to do the research, because they don't want to admit they were wrong for all those years, and they already can see that's where this is headed. Basically, we all beat them to it. The best they can do is treat it as a non-scientific fad, and hope it goes away or at least doesn't grow in popularity. > Despite this, Westman cautions anyone with a medical condition > against rushing onto a low-carb diet. "The problem is that it works > too well," he explains. "The diet can cause insulin levels to drop > by 50 per cent in one day, so diabetics could find themselves > over-medicated. It's the same for those with high blood pressure." Standard good advice. I'm sure diabetics shouldn't make any significant changes in diet without being careful. > "We had a tough time getting our results published - it took 18 > months altogether," she says. "The big journals really couldn't > handle it. But we're not endorsing the diet: it's just our results." That's really, really sad. Any journal that refuses to publish research simply because it doesn't like the results should cease to exist. They aren't supposed to be in the business of suppressing knowledge. > Those already embarked on such research suspect that it will take a > great deal to overcome the visceral response the mere mention of > Atkins provokes among academics. Says Brehm: "A lot of people just > want to hold on to what they learned in college." Ain't it the truth. -- 280/228/200 From nobody Wed Oct 29 06:16:39 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Ketosis and first week of induction References: Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 06:16:38 -0600 Message-ID: <86vfq8ck7t.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 70 CFioren317@excite.com (Chris Fiorentino) writes: > I'm just concerned about the glucose being "negative" since I > remember on the low-fat diets, you still must eat some fat or else > you could end up in the hospital, so do I need to have a minimal > amount of sugar daily? Not unless you're a diabetic injecting yourself with insulin, in which case you need to balance your blood sugar with your insulin and bring them down together gradually. The rest of us need no carbs in our diets whatsoever. We *accept* a certain amount of carb intake in order to get the fiber and other nutrients we need that aren't found in meat. > Also, how often do you take this test...more than once a day, > once daily, every couple days...? I've never taken it, so I'd say as often or rarely as you like. I can tell when my body's shifted into ketosis by how I feel. My energy level goes up, I feel thinner (water loss causing less bloat, I guess), and I get thirstier. > - I used to sweat profusely when walking up steps, walking almost > anywhere, but rarely when I would sit still, like at my computer. > Now, I don't really sweat as much when walking around, which is > good, but I sometimes just sit at my desk and sweat at my computer. > Is that normal during induction? Does low carbs make you sweat > standing still? It makes me warmer. I used to have cold extremities all the time; I don't get that so much on low-carb. So I probably do sweat more overall. > - I seem to be losing weight in strange places, like my back and my > leg right behind the knee, while my waist is about the same. Is that > a common thing? It really varies a lot. I seemed to lose a lot from my legs at first, then at one point my face suddenly got thinner. Monday I put on a suit I hadn't worn in a couple years, and discovered I've lost a couple inches of back-fat across the shoulders that I hadn't noticed. It seems like my belly will be the last thing to go. > Overall, once I got past the caffeine addiction, I feel fine. Sugar > cravings are there, but I usually have a salad and they go away. I > am trying not to be too tough with the smaller carb foods, like the > splenda sugar packets, eggs, lemons, even a tablespoon or two of > Miracle Whip, which is 2 carbs per tablespoon. I find it is better > to just eat what I want, as long as I am not eating bread or other > items that have 10+ carbs per serving, but if I pinch the small > things like Miracle Whip and even some ketchup, I'll start to hate > the diet. For me, I think responsible eating is an important first > step, but I am still keeping my carbs around 20. Lots of foods taste sweeter to me on low-carb, and some things that seemed tasteless before are quite good. I never liked mayonnaise before, but on low-carb, it tastes just right, and salad dressings like Miracle Whip taste way too sweet. You might try some mayo once you get settled; if you like it, it'll save some carbs. If you like salsa, it makes a pretty good replacement for ketchup. But I think you've got the right idea: stay totally away from the high-carb foods like bread, and you won't have to sweat the things that might sneak in one carb gram here and there. -- From nobody Thu Oct 30 06:46:09 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 72-100 grams of carbs a day References: Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:46:09 -0600 Message-ID: <86wuamc2r2.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 hodginswitch@yahoo.com (samantha hodgins) writes: > has anyone had success by eating between 72-100 grams of carbs a > day? any anecdotal stories are much appreciated!! I probably did that about 12 years ago, when I'd never heard of low-carb. My chiropractor checked me for food allergies as part of an attempt to get my weak adrenals healthy, and came up with a list that I now recognize as basically high-carb foods: wheat, white flour, sugar, potatoes, etc. I cut those things out of my diet, lost weight, felt better, thought more clearly, had more energy, and started exercising again. I don't know how many carbs I was actually eating daily, but I'd guess it was under 100 grams. So were they really "food allergies"? Maybe not in the sense that people usually think of allergies, but in the sense that my body was having a negative reaction to them (insulin spiking), then yes. The problem with that approach was that after I'd had the "allergic" foods out of my system for a few months, I thought I could go back to them without problems. Had I known what was really going on with the carbs and the insulin, I could have maintained a better diet for the long-term and not ended up getting into the same poor shape again. -- From nobody Thu Oct 30 06:59:31 2003 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What is low carb? References: <20031029103708.22540.00000195@mb-m18.aol.com> <7960d3ee.0310291051.687d9afa@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 06:59:31 -0600 Message-ID: <86smlac24s.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 dfreybur@yahoo.com (Doug Freyburger) writes: > When low fat first became popular in the 1980s, companies added > those two words to anything. It was a disaster. It took years to > settle on what it is supposed to mean. That's what I thought of too. I'm still not sure they've settled on it. You still see products labeled as "95% fat free!" when what they really mean is "5% fat." I've talked to people who think 2% milk has only 2% of the fat of whole milk. The truth is that 2% of the total *is* fat, while whole milk is something like 3.X% fat. So I expect that same thing will happen as food processors latch onto low-carb as the next Big Thing and put their marketing teams to work on it. They'll stretch the definition so far it has almost no meaning anymore, and people will be even more confused than they are now. We already see that from some of the Atkins products that claim without reservation that the sugar alcohols in them can be ignored, when we all know better. If people in the low-carb business can get that wrong -- intentionally or not -- what hope is there that Nabisco and their ilk will get it right? Mark my words: there *will* be an Orville Redenbacher Low-Carb Popcorn somehow. And people will come here daily asking if it's on-plan, or mentioning it in their menus when asking why they aren't losing weight. "But the box says it's low-carb!" I'm so cheery and optimistic in the morning. -- From nobody Thu Jun 24 05:45:26 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: French Dressing? References: <20040622161940.06903.00000325@mb-m13.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:45:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86llid5j5m.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 dmoscarson@aol.comnojunk (Debbie) writes: > Here's my question: We love bleu cheese dressing but I really like > it better with a little French. Anyone found a recipe Here's one from my Better Homes & Gardens cookbook. I just leave out the sugar, but you could replace it with AS. In a screw-top jar, combine: 1/2 c. salad oil 2 T. vinegar 2 T. lemon juice 1 t. sugar 3/4 t. dry mustard 1/2 t. salt 1/8 t. paprika dash ground red pepper Cover; shake well. Chill. Shake before serving. Makes 3/4 cup. There's also a Creamy French Dressing, which I prefer. Again, I leave out the sugar. In a small mixer bowl, combine: 1 T. paprika 2 t. sugar 1 t. salt dash ground red pepper Add 1/4 c. vinegar and 1 egg, beat well. Add 1 c. salad oil in a slow, steady stream, beating constantly with an electric mixer or rotary beater until thick. Refrigerate in a tightly covered jar. Makes 1-2/3 cup. -- From nobody Thu Jun 24 05:52:17 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: News story says low carb is dangerous... References: Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 05:52:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86hdt15iu6.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 Dave Balcom writes: > I just saw on the local news (KSDK in St Louis) that 13 "health" > groups (none identified) have joined forces to fight the "low carb > diet craze." I heard this one on the radio. Some hysterical woman from one of these groups (probably the American Potato Chip Council) actually said the brain alone needs 130g of carbohydrate just to function. I guess that explains all the comatose low-carbers out there. Good grief, now they're just getting desperate. She also gave the standard "it's just water loss" line. Even my carb-eating friends and family know better than that now. -- From nobody Fri Jun 25 07:54:40 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: JC-Exercise question References: <20040623120635.05741.00000524@mb-m05.aol.com> <20040623140331.19209.00000543@mb-m04.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 07:54:40 -0500 Message-ID: <86u0wz23xr.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 smick818@aol.comspamnate (SMICK818) writes: > Just suggestion: You may want to try bodyweight exercises before > working up to weights. I trained with weights for years and in the > past 3 years have switched to bodyweight training and have been very > happy with the results. Here's a really good site for bodyweight exercises. (I'm just getting started with them.) He sells videos and stuff, but he's also got a lot of free stuff on the site, including complete workouts and exercise instructions in the Workouts section. -- From nobody Fri Jun 25 08:22:48 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cheat vs goldenshot References: Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:22:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86llib22mv.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 Ada Ma writes: > It's said on the lowcarb luxury website that people find it easiest > to lose weight the first time they do lowcarb. After that it gets > more difficult. I think for me the problem is that LC just works too well. What I mean by that is that I *know* it works, so it's easy to put it off and say I'll start again tomorrow. I started a couple years ago in August, and quickly dropped from 285 to about 250. Then the holiday season came, and I treated myself to a few too many desserts and went wild with the cravings for a while. I still managed to maintain in the 250s, because I was still eating LC at home at least two meals a day. Later the next year, I got serious again, and dropped below 230. Went through the same cycle again: got lazy, indulged too much (my family is full of great bakers), and floated back up to nearly 240. After several months of maintaining at that point by eating LC at home and pigging out on carbs elsewhere, now I'm getting serious again. So the danger is that I find myself saying, "Oh, what the heck, I can't pass up cherry pie. Besides, it's just one more day or pound I have to lose, and with only 25 or so to go, that's going to be easy no matter what." If I were less convinced that LC works, or if it was an unpleasant diet to follow, I probably wouldn't be so casual about it like that. -- From nobody Fri Jun 25 08:48:46 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Experts slam low-carb trend as rip-off References: Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:48:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86hdsz21fl.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Ace writes: > "WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Popular low-carbohydrate diets are leading > Americans to poor health and spawning a rip-off industry of > "carb-friendly" products, health experts and consumer advocates have > said. Yeah, because all the "97% Fat Free!!!" products created for the low-fat craze were *certainly* not a rip-off leading to poor health. -- From nobody Fri Jun 25 08:55:18 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Buying low carb foods online?? References: Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 08:55:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86d63n214q.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 Ignoramus31038 writes: > More likely than not, they are fraudulent tortillas. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Good name for a band. -- From nobody Tue Jun 29 06:32:08 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Who here likes Low Carb food BETTER!??? References: Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 06:32:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86vfhaob0n.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 jjbchansen@hotmail.com (billydee) writes: > So things like pasta, vegetables and fruit are not real food? You LC > people are nuts. Pasta is more like a food by-product. Most pasta is made with white flour, which is what you get when you remove all the nutritious parts of the wheat kernel, grind up what's left, and bleach it. It's like if a meat processor took all the bones that were left over after making boneless pork chops, ground them up into a fine powder, pressed the powder into some sort of firm shape, and sold that. People probably wouldn't think of that as food. Although it would be high in calcium, so it'd at least be more nutritious than pasta. -- From nobody Tue Jun 29 11:33:46 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins 'may cut chances of pregnancy' References: <9rg1e054edfnafvvp35gcjj9rvkojri6au@4ax.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 11:33:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86r7rynx1x.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 59 Kalish writes: > Good grief...why are these people so desperate? K. The psychological reason: Because we're challenging their assumptions about the future. If you read or watch much science fiction, you notice that certain assumptions are almost universal: governments will become larger and more centralized with more control over economies; birth control will become flawless; health care will be free and universal; religion will disappear or be replaced by sort of a vague worship of nature; and humans will no longer eat animals, having their food created artificially in most cases. That's the image of the future in the back of most people's minds: a fairly sterile, centrally controlled, Star Trek-type of place, where if you encounter beings who eat meat or pray a lot, that's how you'll know they're savages. So when you suggest that eating meat and eggs and so on may not only not be bad for you, but could actually be the way of the foreseeable future, you're not just making a different personal choice; you're rolling back "progress." Once you question one assumption about the future, they're all in question. If the trend away from red meat and eggs over the last few decades was just a fad and not an unstoppable part of human evolution, then maybe we're not at all destined for some utopian society where we've figured everything out. That's why low-carb actually *offends* people in a way that any other diet wouldn't. Go on a vinegar diet or drink 8 gallons of water a day or starve yourself, and people might think you were wacky, but they wouldn't act personally offended by it. The economic reason: There's far more money to be made in processed foods. When you buy meat, eggs, fresh vegetables, and dairy products, much of your dollar goes to the person who grew the item. I know dairy farmers who are getting $2/gallon for their milk right now, so they're getting better than half the store price. Contrast that with something like a loaf of bread, where less than 5 cents goes to the farmer, with the rest going to the processors along the way. Then take something like a box of cereal, which doesn't take many more ingredients than a loaf of bread, but costs 5-10 times as much. There's a ton of profit there that they stand to miss out on, even if people only revert to a pre-Coke-for-breakfast diet, let alone a true low-carb diet. Some companies can shift their focus. A company that cans all sorts of vegetables can cut back on corn and focus more on asparagus and broccoli; but a company that's only into grains is in trouble, so it'll fight back. One way the big food processors are very good at fighting back is to get health groups, environmental groups, and farm groups to do their fighting for them. -- From nobody Wed Jun 30 08:41:37 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: No sugar added!? References: <20040629155341.23811.00000919@mb-m28.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:41:37 -0500 Message-ID: <86fz8db1ta.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 Crafting Mom writes: > Actually I think it's great. Drawing attention to REAL FOOD, as a > part of a low-carb plan. Hopefully some grocery store chain will > catch on and do the same thing with the standard low-carb > vegetables, as well, thus putting to rest the silly myth that people > on LC don't get vegetables. My small corner grocery has low-carb signs over many of the vegetables. I think they even have tomatoes marked LC, although that's a little questionable. They also have LC signs next to the cheese and pork rinds, and run an announcement about the new LC section over the PA once in a while. -- From nobody Wed Jun 30 08:43:46 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: As a physician I'm worried about those on low carb diets References: <20040629224617470-0400@news.adelphia.net> Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:43:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86brj1b1pp.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 Michael Greger, M.D. writes: > We doctors don't get much nutrition training in medical school. Understatement of the day. No need to read further. -- From nobody Wed Jun 30 08:51:33 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: low carb mashed potato's - cauliflower, not too good, how bout u? References: Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:51:32 -0500 Message-ID: <867jtpb1cr.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "Cheri" writes: > I think mashed cauliflower is great. Tastes a lot like mashed > cauliflower to me. ;-) Has that texture, too. It's perfectly good stuff, but I'd never say it has anything in common with mashed potatoes except for maybe the color. -- From nobody Wed Jun 30 08:55:15 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: OT: help! injured my shoulder joint doing front crawl References: <20040629200939.11511.00000854@mb-m11.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:55:15 -0500 Message-ID: <863c4db16k.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Ada Ma writes: > Bob, I am not going to see the doctor yet - unless it gets worse. > Last time I went to see the doctor about back pain and she told me > that I should have gone to a chiropractor. That'd be my recommendation. For years I had pain in the ball-and-socket joint in my shoulder when running. A chiropractor pushed it back into place (it was a bit of a struggle), and it's never bothered me since. $25. -- From nobody Wed Jun 30 09:07:01 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Who here likes Low Carb food BETTER!??? References: <86vfhaob0n.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <6jn2e0l7gkc38eo72niui9tvgse9u7podv@4ax.com> Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 09:07:01 -0500 Message-ID: <86y8m59m2i.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 me6@privacy.net writes: > Is there no way to make a high quality pasta? Maybe > with whole grains? > > Or is ALL pasta bad in your opinion? If you ground up whole grains and made it out of that, it would at least have some nutrition in it. As for whether it would be "good" for you, that depends on your insulin resistance, or how your body is affected by carbs. It'd certainly be better for you than the ordinary processed stuff, but it'd never be as good for you as a nutrient-dense low-carb food like broccoli or eggs. -- From nobody Thu Jul 1 20:58:52 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: CNN low carb quiz References: <_pyEc.6782$uK.5012@twister.tampabay.rr.com> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 20:58:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86acyj41b7.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "Sprgtime" writes: > What a retarded quiz! It's CNN. Their Iraq expert said there was no way we'd ever be able to take Baghdad. -- From nobody Thu Jul 1 21:18:00 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Pizza companies in distress? References: <2kfqusF1q3j6U1@uni-berlin.de> <10e5ep4a4tih1a@corp.supernews.com> <10e5pfna86bsa32@corp.supernews.com> <2kgp4bF29h4bU1@uni-berlin.de> <%sIEc.7811$a24.5350@attbi_s03> <2kh4n9F2bcafU1@uni-berlin.de> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:18:00 -0500 Message-ID: <86659740fb.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Pat" writes: > He wasn't talking about the dough, though, just the toppings. And, > obviously, not the overhead. When I managed a Domino's store, the cheese alone cost than 12 cents on a large pizza. Pepperoni would have been the second most expensive ingredient. Vegetables were cheaper, and the sauce and dough were practically nil by comparison. -- From nobody Fri Jul 2 17:20:41 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hypothetical question References: Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:20:41 -0500 Message-ID: <867jtm126e.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Ignoramus31546 writes: > In my hypothetical example, the person does not want to die, the > question is rather, can weight loss be stopped if only 20 carbs and > unlimited fat and some protein was available. Our non-tropical pre-agricultural ancestors survived on very low-carb diets, and some Eskimo tribes still do today, so I'd say that as long as you don't have a medical problem that causes you to lose weight beyond a healthy level, you should be fine. If you *do* have such a medical problem, fighting it by fattening up on carbs might only be a stop-gap solution. -- From nobody Fri Jul 2 17:36:02 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hypothetical question References: Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2004 17:36:02 -0500 Message-ID: <863c4a11gt.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 Ignoramus31546 writes: > Can one gain on LC? At all? I can't seem to, but it clearly varies by individual. I'm not a regular calorie counter, but I've stuffed myself on LC and still seen my weight stay put or creep downward. We're talking 3000 calories or more for a 250 lb. guy. When I'm low-carbing, I eat whenever I'm hungry, and I eat until I'm completely full, so cravings won't make me do something stupid. I don't get the appetite suppression that some people report, but I do get a lessening of the cravings. I get hungry on LC, but not ravenous. That's the best way I can describe it. In Protein Power, the Eades talk about a woman who did LC for a while and complained that she couldn't lose any weight. They went over her menu and discovered that she was eating some ungodly number of calories (my memory says 5000, but I don't remember for sure). As they pointed out, the surprising thing wasn't that she wasn't losing, it was that she wasn't gaining. Common sense tells me that a person who keeps his calories low will suffer less from any carb binges. For example, say I have my usual breakfast of 1/2 lb. pork and 4 eggs fried in lard, and a couple hours later I go to a birthday party and fail to resist the cake and ice cream. The insulin rush is going to find a lot of fat in my system just waiting to be stored away. If I hadn't eaten so much beforehand, there wouldn't be as much fat handy to store. (Of course, I'd also be hungry, so I'd binge on carbs for the rest of the day, and store those instead, but whatever.) That makes sense to me, anyway. -- From nobody Sat Jul 3 02:53:43 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Products in question for low-carb & low-sugar diet References: <68497021.0407021808.5bca5374@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 02:53:43 -0500 Message-ID: <86acyhzfug.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 fulbrighter2@yahoo.com (Office Drone) writes: > I have to sit on a low-carb low-sugar diet (to fight the yeast > infection), and, since I haven't run into direct references on the > products below, I wonder if anyone knows if these are generally > suitable: > * mushrooms Yes. > * white and green onions Green, yes. White ones are borderline, especially the sweeter ones. You can probably get away with using some for seasoning, but onion rings would generally be a no-no (even without the usual breading). > * "no-sugar" Red Bull (it says that it has 0g sugar on the label, > but what do the sweeteners break into, in such case?) No idea. > * cabbage Yes. > * black coffee Yes, although many people eliminate caffeine while they low-carb. > * dry gin (alcoholic beverage) Yes, but your body will burn alcohol before it burns fat, so while alcohol will not cause the insulin issues that carbs do, it can slow weight loss. I don't know if it affects yeast infection. -- From nobody Sat Jul 3 03:26:41 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet questions References: <68497021.0407021808.5bca5374@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 03:26:40 -0500 Message-ID: <866595zebj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 101 "Ian Waterhouse" writes: > I guess the first thing I want to ask is why so many nutritionists > and doctors DON'T recommend the diet? Even my own doctor is against > Atkins, but I started it anyway. We fear that which we don't understand. It's getting better, though. When I started this a couple years ago, there were virtually no doctors on board. Now some are catching on, and that's causing the ones firmly stuck with the status quo to dig in their heels, but they're fighting a losing battle against the facts. > Another thing I'm wondering about is the death of Dr. Atkins. What > caused it and did it have anything to do with this diet? He > obviously believed in the diet and I gather he followed it himself, > so was it just a case of bad luck, genetics, or ?? I heard he slipped on some ice and hit his head. However, even had he died of a heart attack, it wouldn't mean much. He didn't start this way of eating until late in life, after he learned he had issues with his heart. Single anecdotes aren't proof of anything, like smokers pointing to the 90-year-old smoker they know to claim smoking isn't that bad. > I started this diet because I'm seriously overweight (at least 75 > pounds) and conventional diets just haven't worked for me, unless I > exercise hard. I'm a school teacher so being off in the summer has > allowed me to exercise, but when I return in the fall the exercise > dries up and my appetite comes back. Thus, up until this summer, > I've always gained my weight back which isn't healthy. I started > Atkins induction phase late last week (after using intense exercise > to purge my system of sugars/ starches) and I already immediately > notice that my cravings have disappeared. In all honesty, I don't > know if this is because I have cut out carbs or due to exercise. That's good. Many people have a drop in cravings after the first few days or so, although not everyone is that lucky. When I exercise hard, it lessens my overall hunger for a while, but it usually comes back soon, so it sounds like you're feeling the change in diet too. > I'm still a bit lost when it comes to trying to take in everything > the Dr. says. For one thing, it looks like I should be taking > vitamin supplements. Also, some of the foods he recommends may be > hard to obtain and I'm still uncertain about other things as well. > What is a good recommended text of Atkins, in addition to the ones I > have now? Or, better yet, are there any web resources that would > help answer my uncertainty questions? I'd recommend some non-Atkins texts. Not that there's anything wrong with Atkins's take, but each book on low-carbing comes from a different angle, so you get a more well-rounded picture of what's happening. Besides, then you'll be able to tell your skeptical friends that Atkins didn't invent low-carbing as some sort of get-rich-quick scheme; the basic concepts have all been around a lot longer than him. He was just the first person to build a specific diet around it, add the concept of induction to help people get started, and put it into easy-to-use book form. _Protein Power_ is a very good book that focuses on weight loss while also explaining a lot of the biology and the nutritional aspects of LC. Fran McCullough's _Low-Carb Cookbook_ has some good advice on the type of foods to stock up on and lots of great recipes and LC cooking tips. There's also _The Schwarzbein Principle_, _Sugar Busters_, _Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution_, and many more which you can find in the FAQ. As for supplements, I've never bothered. If you eat a varied diet of meat, eggs, cheese, fats, and green vegetables, you'll be getting all the vitamins you need -- certainly more than the typical carb-eater. One thing that some people on LC need to supplement is potassium, which you can do by using No-Salt to season your food. Other than that, I wouldn't worry about it unless you show signs of some deficiency or other. > Finally, if anyone here would like to share their experiences with > the Atkins diet, such as successes/ failures, or any health issues > (did it raise your cholesterol, for example), I would be greatly > appreciative. I've never had mine checked, but cholesterol numbers improve for most people on LC. As for my successes: 60 pounds lost, far fewer headaches, improved evening eyesight, heartburn eliminated, less fatigue, better mood, clearer skin, and healthier hair. As for my failures, they're entirely my own fault. I get lazy and complacent and my mom makes really, really good pie, so I've fallen off the wagon a couple times. I've actually lost my 60 pounds in a couple of stretches totaling about 6 months. In between those stretches, I followed sort of a haphazard maintenance program: low carb at home, but too many carbs elsewhere. When I stay LC, I get all the health benefits I mentioned above. When I start to eat too many carbs too regularly, say 3 days in a row, the old problems start creeping back -- heartburn at night, afternoon exhaustion, vision fuzziness at night. One of these days I'll get smart enough to stop doing that to myself. -- From nobody Sat Jul 3 03:56:43 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Saddham Husein on Low Carb ?????? References: <8c740f26.0407022103.714353d2@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 03 Jul 2004 03:56:43 -0500 Message-ID: <861xjtzcxg.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 thiyal@hotmail.com (Ambul Thiyal) writes: > Washington: Saddam Hussein has been working out in jail and has lost > about 5.4 kg as part of a weight loss regimen, the head of the US > military said. He's probably hoping to get light enough that his neck won't snap when he runs out of rope. -- From nobody Tue Jul 6 09:20:55 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet questions References: <20040703145958.02583.00000514@mb-m07.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:20:55 -0500 Message-ID: <864qolrzco.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 connieg999@aol.com (ConnieG999) writes: > I think too many doctors don't even know what low-carb "dieting" > means. They think "all fat, no veggies" or that induction lasts > forever. At my family reunion this weekend a couple people (not doctors) commented on my weight loss. They'd heard it had something to do with carbs, and they asked whether I was doing "low" or "no" carb. One of my aunts told me that some ladies she works with tried "no-carb" and couldn't stick with it -- no surprise there. Then she went on to say they were eating hot dogs, eggs, etc. Surprised, I explained that the only no-carb foods are oils and unprocessed meats, and no-carb for any extended period of time would be very unhealthy, for the lack of fiber and other reasons. Apparently these ladies didn't bother to read a book or anything, or they would have known they weren't really eating zero carbs, and they would have known that they should have been including vegetables in their diet. Just more of the misinformation and confusion that's out there. One aunt has lost 30 pounds on Weight Watchers. She was explaining it to me, and, lo and behold, it's sounding suspiciously low-carb these days! They don't present it that way, of course, but they use a point system which pushes high-fiber foods and restricts low-fiber and sugary ones -- just like low-carb. They don't recommend as much fat in the diet as we do, but they're definitely restricting the carbs a lot more than a typical diet. I don't know if WW was always that way -- I suspect it was, or it never would have succeeded in the first place -- or whether they've gradually seen the writing on the wall. Maybe both. -- From nobody Tue Jul 6 09:23:22 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: nice drink References: <20040704111045.25422.00001027@mb-m29.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:23:22 -0500 Message-ID: <86zn6dqko5.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 jamie@spam-me-silly.net (jamie) writes: > In the herb and natural foods section. The nasty stevia you tried > was likely a matter of brand. They vary VERY widely in > concentration, refinement and aftertaste from brand to brand, so > pick one recommended by somebody. You can also grow your own from seed or plants. I'm doing that now for the first time, but it grows verrrry slowly. -- From nobody Tue Jul 6 09:36:54 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm dejected References: <8f49ae3e.0407032036.787f52ba@posting.google.com> <47VFc.9316$kz.2012199@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <9k1Gc.13787$kz.3565940@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:36:54 -0500 Message-ID: <86vfh1qk1l.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 "guitarprincess" writes: > Not blaming "low Carb" ...I was close to NO carb. Very unhealthy way > to eat. Our bodies need some carbs which is why the injuries do not > happen if you low carb in the correct manner. I've yet to hear any reason why my body needs carbs. Carbs are simply fuel; they have no other value. I can burn protein and fat as fuel, so I don't need carbs. The only reason I eat any carbs at all is for the other things in the food. If I had an Anti-Carb Kill-O-Zap gun that would blast the carbs out of food while leaving it exactly the same otherwise, I'd use it on everything I eat. As I understand it, the reason people carb up before an intense workout is because glucose stored in the muscles can be burned more quickly than fat, so it's better for sustaining long bursts of energy for lifting weights or sprinting. For a more aerobic workout, I'd rather just burn fat the whole time. I'd say it also depends on the shape you're already in. If you already have a low body-fat percentage, you'd better give your body something else to burn during a workout, or it might burn some muscle. If you have lots of extra fat to burn, it seems like that wouldn't be as much of a problem. > Bicyclists, runners ...most atheletes will tell you they "carb up" > before or after a work out. Low carbers just take in less bad carbs. I started running (jogging, really) about 3 months ago. I could barely last 60 seconds at a stretch the first day, but I've worked up to 4 miles three times a week. Saturday I ran in my first 5K race. (Hannibal Cannibal, 34:14 was my time.) No carb-ups, except for a bit of a candy bar binge one time, which was also the only day I got side cramps. -- From nobody Tue Jul 6 09:52:28 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: To those eating fake junk food and sweeteners References: <3DREc.15175$vO1.100424@nnrp1.uunet.ca> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 09:52:28 -0500 Message-ID: <86r7rpqjbn.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 trader4@optonline.net (Chet Hayes) writes: > I'd have to disagree about pork rinds. They are mostly fat, they > are loaded with calories and contain no significant amounts of > vitamins or fiber. They're mostly protein, which provides about half the calories. True, like other meats they don't provide fiber; that's what vegetables are for. I don't think anyone's recommending that you make pork rinds your #1 staple; they're just good for snacks and coating stuff. > Unlike madadamia nuts, much of the fat is saturated. Anyone doing > LC already gets plenty of fat from other sources. Not at all; many people have to work at getting enough fat into their diets, because they've gotten so used to avoiding it. Our meats are so much leaner than they used to be, thanks to the low-fat fad, that even adding a lot of meat to your diet may not add a lot of fat. If you follow the _Protein Power_ way of thinking, you eat a reasonable amount of protein for your lean body mass, a few carbs to help get your nutritious vegetables in, and the rest of the calories you need to survive and stay out of starvation mode have to come from fat. Sipping oil, using extra mayo and butter, and snacking on pork rinds are just some ways to do that. > They are also loaded with salt, which we already get too much of > from other sources. Salt isn't nearly as deadly as we've been led to believe. It was kind of an innocent bystander of the anti-meat-eating craze. > If pork rinds don't qualify as junk food, what then is your > definition of junk food? Mine would be a food that predominantly contains harmful or worthless substances. In other words, the harmful or worthless stuff outweighs the beneficial stuff. A piece of cake may have eggs in the cake and butter in the icing, but they're outweighed by the flour and sugar, so it's junk food. In pork rinds, the fat, protein, and salt are all necessary for survival and none of them are harmful in ordinary quantities, so it doesn't qualify. -- From nobody Tue Jul 6 12:40:56 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Ketosis References: <9tnje05a3q1p7kmi2n16egf54h9n8inmli@4ax.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 12:40:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86k6xhqbiw.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 ron writes: > The only reasonable explanation I have read for how low carb. diets > lead to weight LOSS is via ketosis, where the body switches over to > burning fat for energy, you don't consume enough fat to meet energy > needs, and the body therefore burns stored fat - hense weight loss. > Am I missing something here, or do most of you believe the ketosis > is the only real way to lose weight on a low carb. diet? Ketosis *is* the condition where you're burning stored fat, so if you're burning fat, you're in ketosis by definition at least part of the time, no matter what diet you're on. The only way to lose weight without ketosis would be to dehydrate or lose muscle mass. -- From nobody Tue Jul 6 13:06:48 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Crave and Binge busting References: <10e6i5bcjn8knca@corp.supernews.com> <7960d3ee.0407021032.259657f0@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 13:06:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86r7rpovrb.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Jane Lumley writes: > You know, I don't think I know what a 'craving' is. For me, a craving is when I'm working at my desk one minute, and the next minute I find myself wandering around the kitchen looking for food, without even realizing how I got there. If I go back to work, the cycle repeats itself until I eat something. -- From nobody Sun Jul 11 20:28:19 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Biochemical Machine References: <6AfHc.216027$Gx4.164665@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 11 Jul 2004 20:28:19 -0500 Message-ID: <86u0wec8uk.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "Lady o' the house" writes: > Sorry! It reminds me of a PETA billboard I see on my way into town. > Has a picture of a piglet looking straight at the camera, with a > punchline that says, "Think before you eat." I see it and everytime > I think, "I'm thinking...I'm thinking how good a pork chop would > taste for dinner." There's a great line in a MST3K episode, where the scene in the movie is of a scientific experiment where a bird is learning to peck certain buttons in order to get food. There's a sign next to the cage that says, "How Do Animals Learn?" Crow says, "How do animals learn? Well, as long as they learn to taste good, I don't really care." -- From nobody Tue Jul 13 18:20:47 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LC Doritos References: <1q11y175la2ve$.dlg@tarkus.karnevil9.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:20:47 -0500 Message-ID: <86hdsb8pf4.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "ClabberHead 4.01" writes: > I like 'em! Plus there's LC cheetos now too!!!!! I'm waiting for someone to make a cheese-coated pork rind. After all, a Cheeto is basically a fake pork rind covered with some sort of cheese flavoring. Until then, I'll just keep melting cheese and dipping them. -- From nobody Fri Jul 16 20:06:25 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: OT - Grammar (nimue) References: <468Jc.76769$a92.37205@twister.nyc.rr.com> <5c7896da.0407141159.5ac5170e@posting.google.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:06:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86llhj788e.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 "nimue" writes: > I certainly hope not. That very easily could be incorrect. It > depends on the sentence. If you said, "The man who I saw is my > friend," or something like that you would use "who." That sentence fragment is ambiguous and could go either way. If the meaning is "I saw a man over there, and he's my friend," then it'd be whom, because it's the object pronoun of the relative clause "whom I saw." On the other hand, if the meaning is, "I saw that the man is my friend," you'd use who, as the subject of the relative clause "who is my friend." (I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember for sure what "I saw" is in that case; an adverbial clause, maybe?) In the latter case, the example is a sentence fragment, since it has no main verb. > Where on earth do you live? Most people say, "Who did you give the > book to," or at least they do in my universe. It's wrong, but > that's how they say it. I probably say it that way in casual conversation too, but I'd never write it. > Now put your punctuation inside your quotation marks, for god's > sake! Sing it! -- "Free verse? You may as well call sleeping in a ditch 'free architecture.'" -- G.K. Chesterton From nobody Fri Jul 16 20:15:46 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: OT - Grammar (nimue) References: <40f6982d.7991406@news.charter.net> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:15:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86hds777st.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "nimue" writes: > Mmmmm, but is she a Strunk and White apostrophe gal? Does she > believe that even words that end in "s" (like "boss") deserve an > apostrophe when needed, too? That's about the simplest rule in English. Form the possessive of singular nouns by adding 's. Period. End of rule. No exceptions. -- "Baby, sometimes I'm too much man for my own damn self." -- Undercover Brother From nobody Fri Jul 16 20:19:48 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: bartender recipe References: <40f61239.24423468@news.west.cox.net> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:19:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86d62v77m3.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Damsel in dis Dress writes: > When "nimue" went through my spell checker, they suggested, > "unique." Try entering "prosciutto." Some spell checkers want to > change that to,"prostitute." It seems like about once a day I see "defiantly" used where someone meant "definitely." I'd blame it on spell checkers, but many times it's on web forums that don't have spell-checking capabilities. It's weird. -- "From grade school up we're taught that there are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated." -- Mark Steyn From nobody Fri Jul 16 20:26:14 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 101 creative uses for a pork rind References: <7rmJc.29392$_b.12536165@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net> <2lmgmdFe6mt4U1@uni-berlin.de> <2lpaaoFf9024U2@uni-berlin.de> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:26:14 -0500 Message-ID: <868ydj77bd.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 jjmoreta writes: > Wow! Someone on lc that doesn't rave about pork rinds! I don't > feel so alone now. LOL I don't care much for the plain ones by themselves; they have an aftertaste I don't like. The ones I buy that have a hot pepper coating are very good, though. -- "The fact is, the woman wanted me. And the fact that she couldn't have me made her, quite simply, insane, with what the great poets have called Manimal Lust." -- Phil Hartman, NewsRadio From nobody Fri Jul 16 20:41:15 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Freezing eggs? References: <2lp8tuFf5495U1@uni-berlin.de> <2lq3liFfm8ifU1@uni-berlin.de> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 20:41:15 -0500 Message-ID: <864qo776mc.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 jjmoreta writes: > Going back to this particular post, I never really had eggs growing > up (Dad was on all the various low-fat, low-sodium diets), so I have > zero experience with egg dishes. LOL I never realized you could > freeze them with edible results until I noticed all the frozen > scrambled egg products in the grocery store. Scrambled eggs are so fast that I can't imagine cooking and freezing them in advance would save much time. While a skillet is warming up with a bit of butter, crack some eggs into a bowl, toss in some spices, maybe a bit of cream, and stir with a fork. Dump it in the skillet and push it around a couple minutes until it's done. Ten minutes max; five once you get good at it. You could shave a couple minutes off the time by mixing up the eggs and whatever the night before and putting in a sealed container in the fridge. That way you could do something else while the skillet heats up. Most mornings I'm too lazy to scramble eggs. I put my lard skillet over the fire, crack some eggs in it, put a lid on, and go read my email. Several minutes later, I come back, put them on a plate, and season with salt and pepper. Scrambling is for special occasions. -- "In my next life, I want to be introduced everywhere I go by a personalized stock ticker. If I could walk into a room and announce that I am already down 2 3/8 for the day, maybe people would know when to leave me alone." -- Miss Alli From nobody Mon Jul 19 15:19:30 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Frustrated References: <40fbfd55_7@corp.newsgroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:19:30 -0500 Message-ID: <86k6wzyckt.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Mary Hogan" writes: > My problem is that I feel myself creeping back. I was giving myself > 1 day a week of freedom, but I limited it in some respect. I had a > few bites of potato and a large slice of chocolate cake with > buttercream frosting...which made me almost instantly feel sluggish. Guy walks into a doctor's office, hits himself in the face with his fist, and says, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." Doctor says, "Then don't do that." If I go off-plan one day a week, that's enough to stop my weight loss. A single day isn't enough to bring back all my high-carb symptoms -- headache, heartburn, fatigue, mental fog, etc. -- that takes 2-3 high-carb days. But one day is enough to kick me out of fat-burning mode for a week, and keep the cravings strong all the time. Some people can get away with it, and some can't. -- "Invader's blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -- Invader Zim From nobody Tue Jul 20 06:36:56 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lowcarbing for decades? References: <7vkof0l98ut411f0vr9dohvjj74a1nnk7p@4ax.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 06:36:56 -0500 Message-ID: <86k6wyx63r.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 Ignoramus19260 writes: > An excellent question. Is 30/30/40 balaned? Is 25/25/50% balanced? > What is best? Hard to draw the line. But, I think, when one > macronutrient is so low as to be, say, 8% of calories (50 grams of > carbs in a 2500 calorie diet), that is radical to me. Only because of where you've drawn the arbitrary lines between types of food energy sources. Instead of looking at the carb/fat/protein balance, divide your foods according to the four food groups, or the seven levels of the USDA pyramid, or by color, or by RDA of significant nutrients, and you'll get different percentages each way. All of those (well, maybe not the colors) are or have been considered useful ways to determine "balance" in a diet, and they would certainly not all give the same results for a particular person's diet. You could have a "perfect" 33/33/33 split, for example, and still get zero vitamin A, if you did it just wrong. Someone who drinks a lot of soda (Many years ago, I drank a six-pack of Mountain Dew every day. It's a wonder I survived.) may get as much as 30% of his calories from soda. If he stops drinking soda completely, is that "radical"? Cutting carbs isn't radical because carbs have no nutritional value. Unlike proteins and fats, carbs aren't used to build anything in your body. Carbs do two things. They provide energy which can be burned or stored as fat -- but protein and fat also do this. Carbs also trigger certain hormonal reactions (or in most people, over-reactions) which are biologically unnecessary in a reasonably healthy person. So lowering carbs for good is no more radical than giving up alcohol -- another energy source that has no nutritional value. -- "Burma is one of these multi-ethnic places, and that usually means trouble. My Social Studies teachers used to talk about the wonderfulness of multi-ethnic stuff, but let's be honest here: what multi-ethnic really means is if your car breaks down in the wrong neighborhood, you get beaten to death with your own tire iron." -- The War Nerd From nobody Tue Jul 20 07:04:27 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Getting people on Atkins References: Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 07:04:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86fz7mx4tw.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 vile5@comcast.net (Vile) writes: > Well I have had great success with Atkins. I lost 75lbs and I am at > my ACE. Took only 4 months alltogether from the point I did not > need to lose anymore weight. I am trying to get other people on > this diet that need it. People would be impressed with me, ask me > how I did it, and then mention the "A" word. How can something so > simple to do be so hard to get across to other people? It's always hard for people to believe something that sounds too good to be true. Conventional wisdom (we call it "peer pressure" when kids bend to it) is also a powerful force. I've told this story before: A friend told me she was scheduled for carpal tunnel surgery in two weeks. It was going to cost $2000, make it difficult for her to do her job for a while, cause considerable pain until it healed, and probably (according to her doctors) only relieve the problem for 5-10 years. Sounds great, huh? I suggested that she see a chiropractor first, since my own carpal tunnel had been cured (and has never come back in 12 years since) by a $25 adjustment to my shoulders and elbows. I said that I couldn't guarantee the chiropractor could help, of course, but wouldn't it be worth $25 to try, if there were even a small chance of avoiding all the pain and expense she had been promised with surgery? She declined, and went with the surgery. Had she taken my advice and been successful, she would have had to face the fact that her doctor was either a scammer or about as knowledgeable as the pad he wrote his prescriptions on. And if her doctor was clueless or corrupt, who else might be: teachers, politicians, even news anchors? I know I'm being melodramatic and exaggerating, but I think the basic point is valid. You can't convince people to go against conventional wisdom; they have to reach a breaking point inside themselves where they say, "Dammit, something about this just isn't right. I know everyone seems to believe XYZ, but I can't pretend it makes sense anymore." All you can do is provide an example of the truth, so when people are ready for it, they'll think of you. I try to never "encourage" people to go LC. I let people know I'm doing it, and let them draw their own conclusions from my shrinking size. When they ask, I'm only too happy to answer questions. -- "[I]f we elect a government that subverts or weakens or ends our war against terrorism, we can count on this: We will soon face enemies that will make 9/11 look like stubbing our toe, and they will attack us with the confidence and determination that come from knowing that we don't have the will to sustain a war all the way to the end." -- Orson Scott Card From nobody Tue Jul 20 16:43:35 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Frustrated References: <40fbfd55_7@corp.newsgroups.com> <40fd44d5$1_7@corp.newsgroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:43:35 -0500 Message-ID: <86zn5utkvs.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 "Dr. Brian Leverich" writes: > You'll be amazed at the results that just a little exercise will get > for you. That's for sure. A few months ago, my sisters (both heavier than me by percentage of weight, neither willing to LC yet) talked me into running a 5K with them. One of them found a training schedule online called "Couch Potato to 5K in 9 weeks." It started us out jogging 9 intervals of 60 seconds each, and we were huffing and puffing just to finish those. It gradually increased the lengths of the runs, which were three times per week. Ten weeks later, we ran in the Hannibal Cannibal, a fairly difficult 5K according to the experienced runners there. (It includes a 1/5-mile, 45-degree hill.) We didn't put up impressive times, but we all finished, which I never would have guessed we could do back when we were struggling to jog a full minute at a time. I was amazed how quickly we improved. (By the way, none of us lost any weight from this drastic increase in exercise. I had just started back on LC a couple weeks before this, so I had just dropped about 10 pounds, mostly water. The exercise made me hungrier, and hanging around with them brought me into contact with too much carby food on those days, so I maintained. They couldn't figure out why all the exercise wasn't burning off the pounds. I explained why, but they aren't ready for LC yet, so they continued to look for other reasons.) I probably wouldn't recommend jogging right off the bat for most heavy people who haven't exercised lately, because it is a pretty drastic change and can be hard on the joints. Walking would probably be a better way to start, maybe mixed with some simple exercises like sit-ups, push-ups, and squats. Whatever you do, you'll probably be surprised how quickly you feel the effects. -- "I want her to live; I want her to breathe; ...I want her to aerobicize." From nobody Tue Jul 20 16:50:06 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Splenda in 10 pound (equiv) boxes... References: <20040720144708.04966.00001298@mb-m24.aol.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:50:06 -0500 Message-ID: <86vfgitkkx.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 sunshyne5108@aol.com (Sunshyne) writes: > I love my yogurt with strawberries. I hope to continue to eat it, I > consider a low cost food also. Like a staple now. "Yogurt! I hate Yogurt! Even with strawberries!" -- Dark Helmet, "Spaceballs" I'm going to start making yogurt, as soon as I can get to the store for some to use as the starter. I'm not sure I really care for it as a main ingredient, although maybe I'll like the homemade better. I figure I can at least use it as a lower-carb, cheaper (I get cow's milk for free) alternative to sour cream in things, and turn some of it into cream cheese. -- "Invader's blood marches through my veins, like giant radioactive rubber pants! The pants command me! Do not ignore my veins!" -- Invader Zim From nobody Tue Jul 20 16:53:04 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Americans abandoning low carb diets References: Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 16:53:04 -0500 Message-ID: <86r7r6tkfz.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Cheri" writes: > As if any true LCer would buy those sodas when Diet Rite and the > like are already available. They surely realize that Diet Pepsi, and > Diet Coke are already low carb, and it's really funny to me that > some of the foods are listed as ONLY 22 carbs per serving. LOL Yeah, I'm not sure what the point of those products is. Half of a boatload of carbs is still a boatload. I guess those things are for people who want to play along with the latest craze, but don't really care to know how it works, because they don't really expect it to work any better than all the others. And of course, since they're doing it wrong, it doesn't work for them, thus proving them right! -- "Say what you like, but, in the Clinton era, the only naked guy with women's panties on his head and a dog leash round his neck would have been the President breaking in the new intern pool." -- Mark Steyn From nobody Tue Jul 20 17:14:25 2004 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Carb Canyons References: <2m4umcFfrmnhU1@uni-berlin.de> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 17:14:24 -0500 Message-ID: <86n01utjgf.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "Evad" writes: > So what the hell are they going to do if LC takes over the minds of > Americans all over? The grocery stores would be replaced by butcher > shops and veggie stands. All the groceries around here sell meat and veggies too, so I don't suppose they care much what's on the shelves, as long as they make a profit. Increased demand for fresh foods would probably help them, since those are the foods where they lose the most to spoilage. The more of a product you move, the less a certain amount of waste hurts you. They also wouldn't need as much space, since they usually only carry one 'brand' of things like steak or cabbage, instead of 42 different kinds like with cereal. The people who would really take it in the shorts would be those working at companies that spend millions designing the packaging and advertising they use to push the processed junk. > I sure hope the hell it goes this way, so I won't get trapped in > those carb canyons anymore. My small corner grocery only has five aisles, and I still have to hit every one most times. #1 - dairy on one side, pork rinds, nuts, mustard, and mayo on the other. #2 - canned mushrooms, kraut, and tuna. #3 - salt and spices. #4 - paper products. #5 - tea. That pretty well covers it for regular shopping. -- From nobody Thu Feb 23 09:14:27 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbies read this, others will get a good laugh References: <1140535267.804960.186400@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1140614289.069895.216330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:14:25 -0600 Message-ID: <86oe0y2jla.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 jbuch writes: > In general, education is in a poor state in the USA. And it will be > hard to fix. The school system in the USA is succeeding brilliantly at what it is designed to do. Unfortunately, education is not that purpose; it's just an occasional accidental side-effect. -- From nobody Sat Feb 25 13:20:03 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Starve and live longer References: <2KhLf.2713$5M6.1666@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net> <11vrentkooq1baf@news.supernews.com> <1140723267.071039.173960@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 13:20:03 -0600 Message-ID: <86slq71c0s.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 jbuch writes: > I really can't subscribe to this assertion of what American > Capitalism was "supposed" to do. American capitalism was in > existance (1800's or earlier) before there were cars or many > garages. For that matter, capitalism has existed as long as there have been people. Any time one human being says to another, "Hey, I want that; I'll give you this for it," and the second person agrees, they've committed capitalism. Capitalism isn't really an economic system at all; it's what happens naturally when you don't have one that's imposed politically. All the other economic -isms are ways to prevent/control/limit that natural process. -- From nobody Sun Feb 26 08:26:29 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: going off References: <1140909176.706293.33190@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:26:29 -0600 Message-ID: <86k6bi19ii.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 53 "catskills@monmouth.com" writes: > Ok lets go with this senerio, you made it to goal, maintained your > weight, and now one only one day lets say you have for one meal > pasta (mullers that kinda) and ragu about a big plate full for > dinner. What happens the next day??? Do you feel shitty after only > on cheat meal, now we are only taking dinner?? A single cheat meal doesn't bother me, except of course to break me out of ketosis and stall weight loss. If it's a really heavy, high-glycemic meal, like a Thanksgiving dinner with a big pile of mashed potatoes followed by a couple pieces of pie, I might get some mental fog, but that's it. It takes me 2-3 days of cheating for the other symptoms of carb poisoning to start popping up: headaches, heartburn, depression, lack of energy and ambition, etc. > Do you gain weight, lets say 200 cal breakfast, 300 cal lunch and > add the plate of pasta, sauce so that would still be about 600 cal > (a am guessing) ? I don't think you'll ever gain a significant amount of weight from a single meal. If you do, I'd expect it to be water from storing the extra glucose you're not used to. But any time you cause a large production of insulin, you're going to postpone weight loss for a while, and that's not good. > By the way I have never felt so great on this way of eating been > doing it since october and here are all my benefits: > 1. NO AND I MEAN NO HEARTBURN, USE TO HAVE IT ALL THE TIME > 2. NO GAS > 3. NO SNORNING > 4. GREAT SKIN > 5. OF COURSE LOSE ALL WEIGHT > 6. ENERGY OUT THE ASS!!!!!! 7. No headaches 8. Clearer mind > I am so thrilled !!!!!!!!! also I have become a more nicer and > compassionate person on low carb, not so angry. Never depressed > like before. But that may be due to looking better so I cant equate > that with low carb. I'm sure looking better has something to do with it, but I wouldn't discount the mental effect of cutting carbs. I can tell how well I've been sticking to my plan by how clear my mind is, how well my short-term memory works, and so on. -- From nobody Sun Feb 26 08:32:57 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Protein Suppresses Hunger References: <43fdfeea$0$563$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <43ff19cc$0$558$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <1140806087.394945.35720@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <39mhcca74l99.dlg@news.lillathedog.net> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:32:55 -0600 Message-ID: <86fym6197s.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Enrico C writes: > From what? I said that kidneys "might" complain... Joe said > "probably" not. We are speaking of probabilities. Do you know *for > sure* your kidneys will be fine? Just as sure as I know I won't be struck by lightning today because the sky is clear. Besides, since when is 'might' a basis for an argument? You might kill someone some day; should we go ahead and lock you up now to prevent it? 'Might' without some numbers behind it isn't probabilities; it's politics. -- From nobody Mon Feb 27 08:34:17 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins newbie questions References: <1140991333.994063.223850@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:34:16 -0600 Message-ID: <86slq4yion.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 91 "Rick" writes: > Hi, i just started on the Atkins diet a little over a week > ago. Keeping carbs under 20 g/day is hard. Sounds like you're making it harder than it has to be, but we'll get to that. > Im currently 265,after starting at 269. Cool, 4 pounds already! > Im trying to get down to 210, so i plan on staying Induction for 2-3 > months at the least. That's how I did it when I was the most successful, but it may not be necessary. I lived alone at the time, and I happen to like all the very low-carb natural foods, so it wasn't a hardship for me to keep my carbs that low. However, if you find yourself getting bored after a couple weeks and craving other foods (mentally, not chemically), you may be better off increasing your carbs to allow more variety. Better to lose weight slowly than to start cheating and not lose at all. For now, concentrate on doing Induction right; then you can worry about what comes next. Once you've been solid on Induction for two weeks, you may find that your tastes have changed considerably. > Recently i had been cheating a little on carbs after buying these > low carb frozen fudge bars by Breyers. It said 3 grams net carbs but > with sugar alcohols they are 9 gm. I now realize they not suitable > for Induction. Many people have to learn that lesson. Don't touch that fake stuff, at least while on Induction. (I'd say "don't ever," but that's a personal preference.) Even if their low-carb claims are correct, and if your body doesn't have any insulin reaction to them (two pretty big IFs), you're limiting how many good foods you can squeeze under your 20g limit. You'll get more calories and a fuller stomach for your carb grams (and your money) by spending them on meat and vegetables. > Anyways, i had a total meltdown the other night, i ate some sesame > wasa crackers,peanut butter,pickles,part of an apple and an > orange.So ill be starting over, in a way. We've all been there. If the worst you ever cheat is a one-day pig-out, you're doing better that most. Staying away from sweet-tasting foods -- no matter what's making them sweet -- helps many people to avoid the cravings. > Ive researched this group and wanted to clear some things up- > > Ketostix- are not important, and can be misleading,right? Right. Again, spend that money on quality foods. If you eat right and stay away from the questionable stuff, you won't need to test whether you're in ketosis -- you simply will be. Personally, I can feel the difference, but I'm not sure everyone can. > Splenda is OK on Induction,correct? I hope so,because it will be > hard without something sweet like diet rite, splenda lemonade or > even an occasional sugar free jello with aspartame. Just stay away from it; it's only two weeks. It might be okay, but it might not, and there you'll be two weeks from now wondering what went wrong and starting over again. It's hard? Not as hard as being fat the rest of your (shortened) life. Just suck it up; tell yourself you're not going to taste anything sweeter than cabbage for the next two weeks; and do it. You can handle it. Do you live alone? (You mentioned being out of work, but didn't mention a family.) If you do, I'd recommend having a "clean out the carbs" day. Go through your cabinets and fridge, and clean out everything that doesn't fit into Induction. Take the stuff that's still packaged to your local food pantry, and give or throw away the rest. Otherwise, when the cravings hit you in a couple days, that box of ice cream bars in the freezer could be in jeopardy; and even at 3 supposed grams each, scarfing them all down at once wouldn't be good. (And yes, the cravings can be that bad, or worse. The first time I tried low-carb, not knowing much about what to expect, I found myself eating raw macaroni by the handsful.) Now that you've got all that empty space, fill it with low-carb snacks like beef jerky, boiled eggs, and nuts. The idea is to make sure that when the cravings hit, you can grab something quick that's on-plan, so you aren't tempted to call for a pizza. -- From nobody Mon Feb 27 08:38:50 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: going off References: <1140909176.706293.33190@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <86k6bi19ii.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 08:38:49 -0600 Message-ID: <86oe0syih2.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Dick Yuknavech writes: > On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 08:26:29 -0600, Aaron Baugher wrote in > alt.support.diet.low-carb: >>... other symptoms of carb poisoning ... > > Love that! I'll have to start using that term in addition to > "low-fat fad". Feel free. I realize it's a bit of hyperbole, but not entirely. If I could sprinkle a powder in your food that would make you tired and confused, give you headaches and heartburn, and eventually cause disease, you'd say I was poisoning you, right? Carbs don't affect everyone that way, but they do me, so the shoe fits. -- From nobody Mon Feb 27 13:20:09 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.paleolithic,alt.health.diabetes,misc.health.diabetes,sci.med.nutrition Subject: Re: Grains a Good Thing: Bound antioxidant phytochemicals in grains survive intact long enough to reach the colon to prevent cancer References: <1140958726.786906.207340@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <1140969082.156840.191880@t39g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> <1140990160.183050.126620@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1141045961.350202.314220@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 13:20:02 -0600 Message-ID: <86fym4y5gd.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "dorsy1943" writes: > I didn't know this was a high fat forum. Which one? You're posting to several. > While I eat a mediterranean type diet and use olive oil and fatty > fish, I didn't realize that this forum was not for people with an > opposite view. Ornish and Pritikin seem to have gotten very good > results with their diets although exercise plays a prominent part in > their eating plans. I wouldn't consider exercise to be part of an eating plan at all. You can have an eating plan and an exercise plan (or one and not the other), and there's no relationship between the two except what you make up in your own mind. > I think the Atkins diet is dangerous to one's health but like to > read information about it. You haven't studied it yet, but you already think it's dangerous. Interesting. -- From nobody Tue Feb 28 07:33:33 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Porridge References: <1141124271.216838.28870@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 07:33:33 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7zvwqtu.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "Alan" writes: > What's the group's view on the merits (or otherwise) of porridge > oats as part of a low-carb diet? I suppose that's a slightly silly > question since porridge oats are clearly not a low-carb food - and > yet one consistently hears a lot of claims about their health > benefits. Oats get promoted because they're healthier than most grains, but that's like saying you'd like to be shot with a 22 because it's smaller than most guns. Oat flour has about half the carbs of wheat flour (and no gluten, I think), so some people use it for lightly breading things, if the carbs fit under their limit, especially on maintenance. -- From nobody Wed Mar 1 00:42:56 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Studies Link Urban Sprawl and Obesity ? References: <4404659e$0$563$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <12098am8v3pfv58@news.supernews.com> Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 00:42:56 -0600 Message-ID: <863bi2wtqn.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "Opinicus" writes: > If obesity is a consequence of excessive caloric intake then how are > the very poor able to afford the excess calories needed to make them > obese? The most fattening, least healthy foods are the cheapest, for those not growing their own. This paragraph comes from a very good article by John Ross: Remember the tedious Little House series of books you read in grade school by Laura Ingalls Wilder, that were later made into an equally tedious TV series with Michael Landon? One thing that always struck me as a kid was how much time and effort people in those days spent doing things like tapping trees to get the sap to make a little bit of maple syrup. Contrast that with our current situation: A person with no special skills can knock on doors in my neighborhood and make $8 an hour doing basic yardwork. In 90 minutes, he will have enough money to go down to the local Sam's Club or Costco and buy fifty pounds of refined white sugar. Refined flour is even less. With modern production methods, that's how cheap the stuff has become. Read the whole thing here: All his essays are good, and he did a followup on his low-carb success a few months later. -- From nobody Sun Mar 5 13:26:02 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What is your High Carb downfall? References: <9xEMf.15491$rL5.13935@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> <120914cefut0k84@news.supernews.com> <1141325052.489032.281020@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <3f3f02p6e15vv11tuhheodris5rrdk1vnd@4ax.com> <1141415274.431770.3950@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2006 13:26:02 -0600 Message-ID: <86irqsr8vp.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > For me cashews and peanuts just go away. The only way I can limit > my intake is by getting those little bags that have a small portion > in them. But brazils, filberts, walnuts and so on are fine. I can > eat some, leave the bowl next to me, and an hour later the bowl > still has all of them in it. But I love the flavor of brazils, > filberts, walnuts and so on. That's why I try to only buy nuts in the shell. Cracking them at least slows down my consumption somewhat, and sometimes they're cheaper that way. Also, even when they're mixed, the in-the-shell kind never includes those nasty cashews. -- From nobody Thu Mar 9 16:42:09 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New to Atkins... References: <1141841628.071178.80560@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1141850580.758819.192500@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 16:42:09 -0600 Message-ID: <863bhrme9q.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "Natasha Silverman" writes: > I haven't bought the book yet (as you can most probably tell) as to > be honest, I've had very little luck when it comes to dieting and so > didn't want to invest in yet another weightloss book in fear it will > end up being just another book in my collection of diet fads I'm > unable to stick to. Although this time, so far, so good! I saw two paperback copies at Goodwill the other day for 50 cents each. My local library also has a few copies, as well as _Protein Power_ and several other low-carb books. You can create your own low-carb diet by reading this newsgroup and the wealth of information online (that's how I got started), but in that case, you shouldn't say you're "doing Atkins," because that means something specific. -- From nobody Fri Mar 10 11:13:30 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fat is NOT bad? References: <0sfQf.74796$PL5.801@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1142004123.433586.92630@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:13:30 -0600 Message-ID: <868xrikyth.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > I think most of us would disagree that you can be on LC and still > consume a ton of vegetables and fruits. Maybe not 'a ton', but you can be on LC and eat more vegetables than many non-LCers. I know plenty of people who never eat a green vegetable unless they forget to have McDonald's leave the lettuce off their burger. People who think having potatoes, rice, and corn as side dishes at the same meal make it well-rounded because it has three "vegetables." You can easily eat more vegetables on LC than the typical fast food eater, even on Induction. Fruits are a little tougher, since people do eat a lot of apples and oranges and we're pretty much restricted to berries, but the LC fruits are also very high in fiber and good for you. They tend to be a lot more expensive, though, while LC vegetables like broccoli generally aren't. -- From nobody Fri Mar 10 11:16:37 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fat is NOT bad? References: <0sfQf.74796$PL5.801@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com> <1142004123.433586.92630@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> <12136lo682jm5c1@news.supernews.com> <47dm1qFf800tU1@individual.net> <12139bptmavvb3b@news.supernews.com> <47dokcFf7f1oU1@individual.net> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:16:37 -0600 Message-ID: <864q26kyoa.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Susan writes: > That's my point, broccoli is a "good carb!! I am incapable of > eating enough mesclun to make it matter, it'd take a wheelbarrow > full. That's why broccoli and salad are "good carbs." I think the reason people are balking at calling broccoli a "good carb" is that it makes it sound like the carbs in some foods are better than the carbs in others. Broccoli is good because it has few carbs, not because the carbs in broccoli are superior to those in a potato. -- From nobody Fri Mar 17 15:03:45 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Glycemic Index 'Unrealistic' and Not Very Useful References: <121f1ichesnva1a@news.supernews.com> <1142510124.409113.21400@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:03:45 -0600 Message-ID: <86d5gkkclq.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > It's not even clear to me what exactly they did in this study. It > sounds like they just asked people what they ate over a long period > of time and measured there BG levels. Now if these people were all > eating a wide assortment of different foods, some foods with high > GI, some with low GI, I'm not so surprised that it was hard to find > any difference. And anyone who's spent much time in this newsgroup knows how reliable asking people about their own diets is. If they aren't externally monitoring and measuring what the subjects are eating, I'd say the entire study is worthless. -- From nobody Fri Mar 17 15:16:23 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: thrid time on Atkins.Its not working . References: <1142323745.950139.194590@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1142455325.077333.286950@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1142576761.935800.98550@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:16:23 -0600 Message-ID: <868xr8kc0o.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 r3bell@gmail.com writes: > Here is what I am eating rite now > > no breakfast or if I am up early enough I have scrambled eggs > > For lunch > > 2 X Burger Patties > > For Dinner > > Grilled Chicken or a meatloaf > > For later dinner or a snack > > Tuna or turkey slices This looks fine, as long as you aren't sneaking too many carbs into your meatloaf. Most meatloaf recipes include some bread crumbs or crackers or something. Some people also put ketchup on it, which could be a problem. > Dont suggest any veggies I absolutely hate em . That's too bad; they're good for you, and they add variety. You don't have to eat them to lose weight, though. You might want to start taking a fiber supplement -- or keep a supply of laxative on hand -- if you're going to stick to a diet of nothing but meat and eggs. > Also I was just wondering if any of u guys have tried protein bars . Why would you want to eat those? If you want to eat more protein, have 3 burger patties for lunch instead of 2. > I know I am allowed 40ish grm of carbs in induction .. Those must be Celsius carbs or something. > I just dont know the nutritional information for them . SO if they > are ok could u tell me which are the best ones . I saw something > with 4gms of carbs but it cost 5 bucks a bar . Well, "best" is a relative term. Picking the "best" protein bar sounds a little like picking the "best" way to be kicked in the crotch, especially if I have to pay $5 for the privilege. -- From nobody Fri Mar 17 15:24:01 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Plateau References: <1142484251.899762.110120@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1142509571.159188.126120@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1142511848.676885.309600@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> <1142520715.769482.198100@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <121j8ld7ekdo98d@news.supernews.com> <1142532762.942698.127320@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <47tqk7FfvdieU2@individual.net> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:24:01 -0600 Message-ID: <864q1wkbny.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Susan writes: > If it has live, active cultures, just buy the oldest container in > the store and keep it in your fridge a few weeks. If it's sour, > odds are there are no carbs. I do this with plain whole milk yogurt > (Stonyfields) and I can eat it without taking lactase tablets. If > there were any carbs left, I'd be in pain almost immediately. Does anyone know how this affects homemade yogurt? Yogurt is very easy to make at home without any special equipment. I've also made cream cheese from yogurt, using instructions from the book _Stocking Up III_. It works very well and is much simpler than the usual method starting with milk and fermenting with rennet, but I have no idea how the carb count ends up. If anyone wants to try it, I'll type up my method here. -- From nobody Fri Mar 17 15:29:36 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Brilliant weight loss discovery....... References: <1142463637.764719.180990@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:29:36 -0600 Message-ID: <86zmjoiwu7.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "picasso" writes: > Hi, You have to try this .....Just Brilliant..... > > I have, like many other's Bzzt. You lose. -- From nobody Wed Mar 22 00:13:41 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What to eat for snacks References: <1142323745.950139.194590@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1142455325.077333.286950@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1142576761.935800.98550@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4827hlFi0bovU1@uni-berlin.de> <1143003518.300432.93960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 00:13:41 -0600 Message-ID: <86u09rgg6i.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 r3bell@gmail.com writes: > Whats do u guys eat as a snack ? I live in dorm so i can exactly > cook food( we have a meal plan ) . Just wondering what is a good > food to eat for times when the dorm food is not diet friendly . Boiled eggs (slice them in half and top with mayo and mustard for lazy man's devilled eggs), jerky, sunflower or pumpkin seeds, nuts, cheese sticks, radishes, pork rinds. -- From nobody Wed Mar 22 06:32:01 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What to eat for snacks References: <1142323745.950139.194590@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1142455325.077333.286950@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1142576761.935800.98550@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4827hlFi0bovU1@uni-berlin.de> <1143003518.300432.93960@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1143012200.311233.217380@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:32:01 -0600 Message-ID: <86lkv2hd8e.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 awais.asad@gmail.com writes: > I mean to write we cant cook . Thanks for the suggestions guys .Is > there any decent microwaveable stuff . Not really, because sugar and starches are used as preservatives in packaged foods, so even things that could be low-carb if you made them yourself will be high-carb when pre-packaged. In the microwave, I like to spread shredded cheese on a plate, top with mushrooms, jalapenos, or other pizza toppings, and nuke until the cheeze is all bubbling. Then just eat with a fork. If I have cooked meat, like leftover chicken that I've taken off the bone, I'll put it in a bowl with cream cheese and heat it up in the microwave and stir for a quick snack. -- From nobody Sun Mar 26 06:21:46 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: GI gets a call-up References: <1143240089.505914.211210@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC berkeley-unix) Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 06:21:46 -0600 Message-ID: <868xqx1jmt.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 diarmidlogan@gmail.com writes: > http://smh.com.au/news/nutrition/gi-gets-a-callup/2006/03/22/1142703438642.html > Experts agree that either a diet high in carbohydrate but low in GI, > or a diet high in protein, will help you shed kilograms. Well, A) "experts" don't agree on anything, and B) if they did, it certainly wouldn't be this. > The red meat itself was statistically "not the cause" of the high > cholesterol in this study, although Brand-Miller says the > "potential" for red meat to increase cholesterol is "definitely > there" on a high-protein diet. They just can't let go of the anti-meat bias, even when they prove it wrong themselves. -- From nobody Wed Mar 29 12:41:42 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Anyone tried that South Park Diet? References: Organization: ESC Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 12:41:39 -0600 Message-ID: <864q1hhz4s.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 10 bloated8@gmail.com writes: > Anyone tried that South Park Diet? Love gravy is too high in carbs. -- From nobody Thu Mar 30 11:19:26 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Acomplia... References: <1143650954.427532.176920@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 11:19:26 -0600 Message-ID: <86lkurg89t.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 OmManiPadmeOmelet writes: > If I want anal leakage, I'll abuse Mag' citrate. It's cheaper and > probably safer. That reminds me of a great line from Scrubs. Julie is a pharmaceutical rep played by Heather Locklear: Julie: Plomox is the most effective anti-arrhythmic drug on the market right now. And it has minimal side-effects: Only nausea, impotence, and anal leakage. Dr. Cox: I'm getting two out of three just from the conversation. -- From nobody Thu Mar 30 15:38:51 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: what do you think of these low carb wraps?? References: <1143234895.043605.43070@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1143494784.583677.105930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <1143634514.436339.263130@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <122mc6qpj8rb6e3@news.supernews.com> <1143721354.584992.258170@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <122ns4bgu2ceua0@news.supernews.com> <442bf221$0$567$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <122o5fcc7rdt743@news.supernews.com> <492jf3FmhgjiU1@individual.net> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2006 15:38:51 -0600 Message-ID: <868xqrfw9g.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Susan writes: > The flax wraps, along with cucumber slices, are a great substitute > for pita bread for dipping in hummos or baba ghanouj, too. Also > make a great crust for homemade pizza. Are these flax wraps available in ordinary grocery stores? I haven't noticed them, but I've been staying away from the borderline stuff like tortillas. -- From nobody Fri Mar 31 09:09:55 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: what do you think of these low carb wraps?? References: <1143234895.043605.43070@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1143494784.583677.105930@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <1143634514.436339.263130@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <122mc6qpj8rb6e3@news.supernews.com> <1143721354.584992.258170@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <122ns4bgu2ceua0@news.supernews.com> <442bf221$0$567$b45e6eb0@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu> <122o5fcc7rdt743@news.supernews.com> <492jf3FmhgjiU1@individual.net> <868xqrfw9g.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <493h8eFm42grU3@individual.net> <1143778037.500865.283770@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 09:09:55 -0600 Message-ID: <86zmj6d518.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > I've only seen the flax roll ups here at Pathmark in NJ. The other > supermarkets don't carry them. They are made by Damascus Bakeries, > perhaps they have a website. Thanks, I'll keep an eye out. -- From nobody Tue Apr 4 14:05:23 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Writing Article on Portion Control References: <1144112859.867981.65270@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 04 Apr 2006 14:05:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86odzhduvg.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 apotter@tiac.net writes: > I am a freelance writer working on an article on portion control for > a major women's magazine. I am looking for women, ages 30-50, who > have lost weight by reducing the portion sizes of their > meals. Specifically, I am looking for ways that you found made this > easy (eating off smaller plates, buying single-serving snacks, > sharing meals in restaurants, etc.). I am a freelance writer working on an article on getting laid for a major men's magazine. I am looking for men, ages 30-50, who have gotten laid with super-hot women by using quick pickup lines. Specifically, I am looking for ways that you found make getting laid easy (asking nicely, promising them gifts, licking your nose, etc.). I know it's possible, because I want it to be so. -- From nobody Sat Apr 8 23:12:54 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Controlling Blood Sugar in Hospitalized Patients Saves Lives References: <123cn8nj73j8nce@news.supernews.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 08 Apr 2006 23:12:54 -0500 Message-ID: <863bgnbd4p.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Then why in the hell don't they recommend a LC diet for all > diabetes. Because that would mean admitting they've been giving wrong, even deadly advice all these years. Not only that, they'd be admitting to being "scooped" by a bunch of do-it-yourselfers and people they consider crackpots. It's just not gonna happen. -- From nobody Mon Apr 10 08:57:33 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: best part of low carb References: <1144410225.824017.38130@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <1144434190.760412.220360@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 08:57:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86slol8rea.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Noway2" writes: > You have probably hit on one of the key secrets to the LC approach. > This alone makes me wonder why low fat is still pushed so damned > hard. "Nobody wants to look stupid, even in the past." -- Ted Spradley Especially when that stupidity shortened lives. -- From nobody Mon Apr 10 09:11:43 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: centurians (100 years old ) References: <1144580265.075847.67010@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <44390154$0$16081$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:11:43 -0500 Message-ID: <86odz98qqo.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "J. David Anderson" writes: > Your father, if quoted/understood by you correctly, is an idiot, > seemingly bigoted or else extremely naive, certainly not a > genius. Many races have very little in the way of "mixed breed" > (sic) and do not have any notable claim to longevity. In fact, in domesticated livestock, cross-breeding is known to improve strength, health, disease resistance, and other traits that would increase longevity. I don't suppose humans would be any different. -- From nobody Mon Apr 10 09:17:11 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Jumping back in the pool References: <1144601572.306748.102600@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:17:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86k69x8qhl.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > They breed too. You organize your books into 4 bookshelves, and > then when you mvoe them, it turns out you need another book shelf. > And this continues, even though you lend books out and give them > away... they just breed and breed and breed. Like rabbits. Especially when you give them a room of their own, they'll start overflowing into piles on the floor and other surfaces. They also attract other books from a distance; if you go to auctions or garage sales, other books will sneak into your vehicle to get to yours. -- From nobody Sat Apr 15 08:33:20 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: High HDL more important than low LDL (the study) References: <123sg7430h0ugc9@news.supernews.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:33:20 -0500 Message-ID: <86mzen7ylb.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Wayne Crannell writes: > My (former) Dr. was always having kittens about my slightly high LDL > levels in spite of the fact that my trigs are off the bottom of the > scale and my HDLs are nicely high. So, he of course prescribes > Crestor, a drug that targets high LDL and BTW is one of the highest > priced of the cholesterol meds. Naturally, it is also one of the > newest, so the maker is trying to maximize profits when they can > still price it high. The conspiracy theory side of my brain has to > ask if physicians are seeing some "benefit" (read: kickback) for > prescribing it. There's no question. Even if they aren't getting actual cash kickbacks, they get wined and dined by the reps, invited to conferences, and provided with all sorts of goodies. That's especially true for brand-new drugs. > I love it when doctors treat healthy people as though they must be > sick. As I told a friend of mine the other day, doctors don't know much about the human body. That sounds stupid at first, and he laughed like I expected, but in a way it's true. Medical doctors know medicine. They know about things that attack the body from the outside, like virii and bacteria, and they know how to treat illnesses and abnormalities with medicine, but they don't spend a lot of time thinking about how a healthy body actually chugs along on a daily basis. They're doctors, not biologists. -- From nobody Sat Apr 15 08:35:11 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: MacDonalds and KFC (US only) caught out ... again. References: <443ed9ab$0$32077$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:35:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86irpb7yi9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "J. David Anderson" writes: > Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of > mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement" > and ever diminishing health of its population. Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere contain the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the people eat." -- From nobody Sat Apr 15 08:38:13 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins + Muscle Pain References: <1144909354.444647.234490@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4a7ih5Fs2okrU1@individual.net> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:38:12 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejzz7yd7.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Pat in TX" writes: > This is a troll, people. Get the clues! Guy is in incredible pain > and he doesn't go to a doctor? He decides to rely on Usenet instead? > Oh, yeah, no need for the medical profession any more. It's what I'd do. You aren't getting me to a doctor anymore unless I'm clearly dying or unconscious and can't stop you from hauling me there. A chiropractor, sure; that'd be better for muscle pain anyway. -- From nobody Sat Apr 15 08:39:53 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins + Muscle Pain References: <1144909354.444647.234490@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1144918300.488656.253370@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 08:39:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86acan7yae.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > When I get leg cramps, I pour Morton Lite Salt in my hand and lick > it up until it goes away. Just takes seconds. Morton Lite Salt is > half potassium and available in pretty much every grocery store. That works great for me. In fact, when I'm not low-carbing, I rarely get cramps (and only in my feet), but when I *am* low-carbing, I *never* get them, presumably because of the potassium salt. -- From nobody Sat Apr 15 17:53:39 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: MacDonalds and KFC (US only) caught out ... again. References: <443ed9ab$0$32077$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> <86irpb7yi9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <44414748$0$25979$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> Organization: ESC Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 17:53:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86u08u30y4.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 "J. David Anderson" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> "J. David Anderson" writes: >> >>>Maybe the Bush Government should focus less on imaginary weapons of >>>mass destruction and more on laws curtailing the "mass enlargement" >>>and ever diminishing health of its population. >> Thank goodness we have a Constitution, which doesn't anywhere >> contain the words, "The Executive branch shall decide what the >> people eat." > > Who suggested that the government should make such decisions? I > certainly didn't. How do you expect the government to curtail "the 'mass enlargement' and ever diminishing health' of the people without passing laws to control what we eat? > But what about legislation that ensures that those who profit by > providing "what the people eat" must not, for the sake of profit > alone, sell food that will reduce both the length and quality of the > people's lives? That's just an end-around to accomplish the same thing without being honest about it. If you don't think people should eat XYZ, try to pass a law banning the sale of XYZ. And *all* businesses are in business "for the sake of profit alone," so I'm not sure what that qualification even means. Why else would they produce and sell food, for fun? > Are you also thankful that legislation of this nature doesn't exist? Absolutely. There's already far too much nanny legislation in other areas of our lives, from seat belts to smoking. Besides, since this is a low-carb group, consider what the likely result of laws to "encourage" the sale of healthy food would be, given the current conventional wisdom about nutrition. Do you really want an extra tax on red meat, and maybe a tax deduction for buying Special K? That's what it'd mean today, you know. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Apr 16 05:46:10 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: first off what is old fashion oatmeal References: <1145147730.221086.191750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 05:46:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86acal3ij1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "catskills@monmouth.com" writes: > does anyone eat this for breakfast, its not really low carb huh??? > and what is old fashion?? Feed it to a cow, then eat the cow. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Apr 16 05:50:08 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins + Muscle Pain References: <1144909354.444647.234490@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <4a7ih5Fs2okrU1@individual.net> <86ejzz7yd7.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <4adnacFsvde2U1@individual.net> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 05:50:08 -0500 Message-ID: <8664l93icf.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Pat in TX" writes: > A friend of mine started having muscle pain. Turned out to be > rhabdomyolysis. Can your chiropractor figure it out? Good luck with > that one. I have no idea; but if he couldn't, he could eliminate the causes of muscle pain that are a thousand times more common and narrow it down to a few possibilities, and then recommend a good doctor. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Apr 16 10:12:07 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: first off what is old fashion oatmeal References: <1145147730.221086.191750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <86acal3ij1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145185038.328378.95870@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 10:12:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86wtdp1rnc.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "catskills@monmouth.com" writes: > ok its not low carb, than no one hear eats it??? That depends on the individual. No one properly following Atkins Induction would eat oatmeal, because it's not on the list. No one keeping carbs at a significantly low level would eat it, because it's too high in carbs to fit. But someone maintaining a level of 70 carb grams a day, for example, might be able to fit a little into his diet. (Anything under 100 grams a day is "low-carb," in my book. Obviously there's room for a lot of variation there.) > Why is everyone claiming it's so good for you??? Ever heard of a "fad"? > My question is would you eat it?? While trying to lose weight? No. While maintaining, I might use a little as a binder in meatloaf, or that sort of thing. While all grains are basically unfit for human consumption, oatmeal is at least one of the better ones, with a lot of fiber and fewer carbs than most other grains. But all the good stuff in oatmeal can be gotten from good low-carb vegetable sources, so there's no nutritional reason to eat it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Apr 16 11:04:53 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: High HDL more important than low LDL (the study) References: <123sg7430h0ugc9@news.supernews.com> <86mzen7ylb.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 11:04:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86odz11p7e.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "readandpostrosie" writes: >> As I told a friend of mine the other day, doctors don't know much >> about the human body. That sounds stupid at first, and he laughed >> like I expected, but in a way it's true. Medical doctors know >> medicine. They know about things that attack the body from the >> outside, like virii and bacteria, and they know how to treat illnesses >> and abnormalities with medicine, but they don't spend a lot of time >> thinking about how a healthy body actually chugs along on a daily >> basis. They're doctors, not biologists. > such a generalization! > you really ought to find a new doctor! Of course it's a generalization; any comment on a group as large as "doctors" would have to be. It also happens generally to be true. Of course, I personally know an MD (an ER doc) who is very interested in other aspects of health, and has taken it upon himself to learn about things like nutrition and alternative treatments. We've had interesting conversations about all sorts of things, because he doesn't assume that because I don't have letters after my name, I'm clueless. He's the exception that proves the rule. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Apr 17 10:57:07 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: first off what is old fashion oatmeal References: <1145147730.221086.191750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <86acal3ij1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145185038.328378.95870@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1145215260.195741.99580@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1145223093.979392.232270@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:57:07 -0500 Message-ID: <867j5oxkj0.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 "catskills@monmouth.com" writes: > Well thanks for all the responses. First, I am no troll, I guess it > was a stupid question in a way, its just I go to these web sights > sometimes and you see a lot of people who say they include oatmeal. > Now I am talking like people who are in great shape. I mean women > who are just plain perfect, lots of weightlifting training. So I > was curious, because they all say they eat low carb. So it can be > alittle confusing sometimes. Thanks all. Happy Easter. Thanks; hope you had a happy Easter too. Yes, it can be very confusing, because like anything else, conventional wisdom on low-carbing is mostly wrong. I've heard all these things at least once: "So that's where you eat nothing but bacon and pork rinds, right?" "But surely you can eat potatoes/rice/pasta, right? I mean, that's healthy, right?" "Here, I made this special for you with low-fat cheese, because I heard you're doing that Atkins thing." "The human body isn't designed to eat meat." "I could never give up my pasta; I love the taste." "That'll destroy your kidneys." "Here, this has brown sugar instead of white, since it's healthier." The scary thing is when you learn enough about one field to realize the general population is completely clueless about it, and it dawns on you that people (including you) are that clueless about every topic they haven't personally studied. (By the way, not to pick on you, but it's "web sites," not "sights." Just a minor pet peeve that I see everywhere these days.) -- "Where have you gone, Burt Lancaster, and why'd you take most of the cool shit with you?" From nobody Mon Apr 17 17:53:11 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: first off what is old fashion oatmeal References: <1145147730.221086.191750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <86acal3ij1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145185038.328378.95870@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1145215260.195741.99580@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1145223093.979392.232270@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <867j5oxkj0.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145296710.711153.170870@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 17:53:11 -0500 Message-ID: <86bquzx19k.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "catskills@monmouth.com" writes: > really good post Aaron, the best one was Thanks. > I could never give up pasta; I love the taste. > > This is very funny when you truely think about it!! You made me > smile! And yet more than one person has told me that with a straight face. Not one of them ever eats pasta without plenty of sauce of some kind on it, of course, and many of the sauces would be fine on an LC plan if prepared with some limits and eaten with a spoon. -- "Where have you gone, Burt Lancaster, and why'd you take most of the cool shit with you?" From nobody Mon Apr 17 20:45:23 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: traders joes using too much cane sugar References: <1145238290.741425.221020@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1145312887.447905.168640@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <4aijfjFt8g86U4@individual.net> <1145317446.847884.151180@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 20:45:22 -0500 Message-ID: <863bgbwtal.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Laureen" writes: > I eat Mountain High Plain fat free. Have you ever made yogurt > cheese? Yes, a few times now. I do it in larger quantities than you do, but the process is similar. I start by making yogurt with about a half-gallon of milk, and letting it 'yogurtify' in a big thermos. The next day, I hang the yogurt to drain for 24-48 hours in a piece of sheer curtain material that I use rather than cheesecloth. It seems a lot like regular cream cheese to me, maybe a little tangier, but my taste buds aren't very discriminating. The texture is much smoother than the cream cheese I've made the traditional way, with rennet and buttermilk as the starter and cutting it into cubes and all that. -- "Where have you gone, Burt Lancaster, and why'd you take most of the cool shit with you?" From nobody Tue Apr 18 00:24:15 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: first off what is old fashion oatmeal References: <1145147730.221086.191750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <86acal3ij1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145185038.328378.95870@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1145215260.195741.99580@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1145223093.979392.232270@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <867j5oxkj0.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145296710.711153.170870@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <86bquzx19k.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1248bv7gje4v403@news.supernews.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 00:24:15 -0500 Message-ID: <86odyztq0w.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Pasta as zero taste, if you ask me. Same with a potato...they only > work when you add stuff to them. Right, that was my point. They think it's the pasta they like, but it's really whatever they're putting on it, which in many cases would be low-carb if they just left out the pasta. For me, the attraction of starches is the texture. None of the 'faux' options replace that for me at all. Spaghetti squash is fine for what it is, but it's nothing like pasta spaghetti. Ditto with faux-tatos made from cauliflower. It's chopped cauliflower, which is very tasty, but nothing at all like potatoes, because the starch isn't there. That's ok, it's just something I don't get to have right now. -- "Where have you gone, Burt Lancaster, and why'd you take most of the cool shit with you?" From nobody Tue Apr 18 09:22:42 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: here is one for you Rodger or food experts References: <1145314775.898493.221950@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <1mm842ls3ar024ol2c68qf7hj9hvkfvtdb@4ax.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 09:22:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86mzejrmj1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "DB" writes: > "Phoenix" wrote in > Thought Calcium from Dairy products was proven to burn fat? My guess on the Dairy Council's "milk, yogurt, and cheese help you burn weight" ads is that if you compare a milk drinker to the typical American soda drinker, yes, the milk drinker is more likely to lose weight. That doesn't prove to me that milk is actually a weight-burning food; just that it's better than the *usual* alternatives, and at least it does have some good nutrients. But if you're trying to lose weight, it makes sense to get those nutrients from other dairy products or vegetables, and skip the sugar in the milk. -- "Where have you gone, Burt Lancaster, and why'd you take most of the cool shit with you?" From nobody Thu Apr 20 05:51:03 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Transitioning from Atkins References: <1145473229.248946.52430@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 05:51:03 -0500 Message-ID: <86hd4oikq0.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Cheri" writes: > It's pretty amazing how many people do that though. The most > tiresome thing about Atkins IMO, is trying to explain it to people > who have no clue about it, or LC in general. They've gotten used to getting their diet advice from 1-minute blurbs on morning TV blather shows. It doesn't occur to them that a real healthy diet might require more than a few sentences to explain, so they catch the first few they hear about it and stop listening. -- "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows.You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours." -- General Sir Charles Napier From nobody Fri Apr 21 13:35:16 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cheese and anxiety References: <4amua9Fts290U1@individual.net> <44479a91$0$12167$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> <1145545272.109159.29450@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <4447a71b$0$12122$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> <1145548313.652244.33700@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <124fe9hg41aib9d@news.supernews.com> <1145558238.802425.124430@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 13:35:15 -0500 Message-ID: <86fyk6rd3w.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 orson14850@yahoo.com writes: > Mine too--100%. Which is why, when once in a blue moon I eat > something high in carbs, I can barely tolerate the reflux that was > once a daily part of my life before LC. It's a pretty effective > punishment system for straying from this WOE. Low-carb *completely* eliminates my acid reflux, which used to be so bad I'd wake up gagging on the acid some nights. I can get away with a couple carby meals without any problems, but 2-3 days on a 'normal' diet brings it creeping back. -- "Some guys think that when a woman says no she's only being coy, possibly because so many women have only been being coy when they've said no." From nobody Sun Apr 23 11:30:07 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dreamfields Pasta? References: <1145575550.627638.203120@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <1n62g.62478$F_3.39814@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <1145658970.876556.205740@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:30:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86r73ontkg.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > A bowl of meatballs with sauce and cheese melted over it is quite > yummy even without the pasta, which is really just a flavorless > filler. Just leave the breadcrumbs out of the meatballs, turns out > if you just add spices, it's way more flavorful than with bread > anyway. How do you get meatballs to stay together without some sort of breading to bind them? I've tried using more or less egg, and they still fall apart too easily. I've had some luck with parmesan cheese, but it's expensive to use that way. I have the same problem with fish patties. > Or have a bowl of chicken with an asiago or alfredo sauce. Decadent > and yummy. Sometimes I just take leftover chicken or other meat, nuke it with some cream cheese and maybe some mushrooms or olives, and eat with a spoon. Doesn't get much easier than that. -- "Weakness is a provocation." -- Mark Steyn From nobody Mon Apr 24 10:59:08 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dreamfields Pasta? References: <1145575550.627638.203120@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com> <1n62g.62478$F_3.39814@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> <1145658970.876556.205740@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <86r73ontkg.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145885325.177066.166600@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:59:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86veszm0c3.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > I suspect it's cause I buy cheapo hamburger usually. I did the > calculations once and figured that even when you figure it's only > 80% meat, it's still cheaper than the better burger. That makes sense. Much of my hamburger comes from my folks' cattle, via the butchershop, so I don't know what the percentage is. I'll have to see if they can add more fat next time. > I just throw an egg in (one egg for 2 lbs of burger) and a bunch of > spices and some armesan, and the meatballs stay together just fine > for me. Probably the higher amount of fat keeps them together. Sounds like I'm using too much egg (more like 2 eggs per pound). Thanks for this and everyone else's suggestions. I've tried the flax meal, but very much of that gives it a mealy texture I don't care for. -- "Take your blah-blah to the blah-blah-ologist." From nobody Mon Apr 24 11:06:26 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Progress and question References: <1145826542.805015.269890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 11:06:26 -0500 Message-ID: <86r73nlzzx.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Laureen" writes: > Do remember to ingest your good carbs though. They will come from > your veggies. Some people make the mistake and think if they ingest > no carbs they will lose weight faster. Not true! Your body needs > some of them. Is this new? As far as I know, your body needs zero carbs. It does need vitamins and minerals that can't all be found in zero-carb foods like meat and oil, but that's different. Yes, you should eat vegetables, but not because you need a single carbohydrate. To look at it another way, if broccoli had no carbs, would you eat more or less of it? -- "Take your blah-blah to the blah-blah-ologist." From nobody Mon Apr 24 20:19:43 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Progress and question References: <1145826542.805015.269890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <86r73nlzzx.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145916120.039430.233260@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 20:19:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86vesyladt.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > Carbs are not essential to life. Do not confuse that with > issues around loss. I'm not; I was just struck by the statement "your body needs some carbs" in this newsgroup. That's the kind of thing I hear from people who got all their low-carb knowledge from Uncle Ed at the family reunion last year, but I'm surprised to hear it here. If I tell the clueless newbies who ask me about my diet that their bodies need carbs, that's misleading. It doesn't take that much longer to explain to someone that: "Your body doesn't need carbs; carbs are simply fuel, which you either burn for energy or store as fat. But almost all foods except meat have at least some carbs, so you'll have to eat a few to get a varied, nutritious diet. That's why it's called LOW-carb, not NO-carb." I've said that to numerous people, and they've all seemed to grasp the concept. > Decreased dietary carbs trigger ketosis and ketosis triggers loss, > but once in ketosis lowering further does not further decrease > insulin or increase ketosis. It's simple and obvious that would > happen, but it doesn't. Makes sense to me, if your cells are kicked into either fat-storing or fat-burning modes, with no in-between state. -- "Take your blah-blah to the blah-blah-ologist." From nobody Tue Apr 25 09:59:38 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Progress and question References: <1145826542.805015.269890@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <86r73nlzzx.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1145913586.938092.184930@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <1145966027.497343.132790@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Organization: ESC Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 09:59:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86u08hk8f9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > There's no biological difference between the carbs in broccoli > vs. the carbs in potatoes that makes the one "good carbs" vs. "bad > carbs." It's just that there's so little carb in broccoli that it's > "worth" the vitamins and minerals. To put it another way, we eat broccoli *despite* the carbs it has, not because they're "good" carbs. -- "Take what you need and leave the rest." From nobody Thu Apr 27 16:36:45 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: brain and carbs References: <1146165293.809743.283620@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 16:36:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7xq66qa.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "asdf" writes: > I heard that the brain only gets it's energy from carbs. I'm > starting a low carb diet and this has me somewhat concerned ... Yes, your brain will starve and die. I had mine preserved and shellacked, and keep it on the mantle as a conversation piece. -- "No one understands how important sex is better than someone who isn't having it." From nobody Sat Apr 29 09:46:18 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Splenda (sucralose) warning AAARGH! References: <5pO3g.3096$TT.1934@twister.nyroc.rr.com> <1146090418.976866.81170@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <1146147188.361635.117660@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 09:46:18 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejzgign9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Aramanth Dawe writes: > Things are getting better, slowly and with help, and I decided to > come back. Given how 'easily' my depression gets exacerbated, > though, I don't know how long for. Do you find that low-carb helps your depression? It seems to help mine, mainly because of the extra energy, I think. I don't think it's going to eliminate it like it has my heartburn and headaches, though. -- From nobody Sun Apr 30 08:38:59 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Is sausage a good low-carb Diet? References: <1146336136.976503.193090@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:38:59 -0500 Message-ID: <86vesrfaj0.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Gil" writes: > Jsut want to know your opions. I am a sausage maker and I want to > make more low-card freindly sausages. Are sausages at this point are > low-carb but if someone has any adivce would be happy to hear it. I'd advise hiring a proofreader for your advertising copy. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Apr 30 08:49:39 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low-carb values... References: <1146371874.684041.70810@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1146379644.872311.9290@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2006 08:49:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86r73ffa18.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 "MaxMustermann" writes: > I'm on no diet but I was wondering what makes a recipe low-carb. > Obviously it's low on carbs, but how much low... that's the tricky > question? There's nothing tricky about it, but it depends on what you mean by "a recipe." If you're talking about something like a one-dish casserole meal, it can afford to have more carbs per serving than a side dish that will probably accompany other dishes that may also have carbs. Also, what's low-carb enough for one person's eating plan may not be acceptable to another's. It's just not possible to put a number on it like that. However, 30gm/day is acceptable for most low-carb plans except for Atkins Induction, so if your recipe comes in at under 10gm per meal per person, I'd say it's safe to call it low-carb. But the best thing to do is to simply state carbs/serving on your recipe, and let people decide for themselves. > Why is there a different where carbs come from? Isn't it carbs just > the same? Yes, a carb is a carb. However, some people try to get their carbs from sources which cause them to be absorbed into the blood stream more slowly than others. The long-term effect on ketosis and weight loss should be the same, but the theory is that the slower absorption helps to keep blood sugar from spiking in people who have problems with that. > Does the FDA recommend an average? If it does, I'm sure it's wrong. You're not talking averages when you talk carbs, anyway; you're talking maximums. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon May 1 13:32:43 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dr Bernstein's Diabetes Solution alternative References: <1146416124.895635.247510@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com> <1146439066.356858.140480@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 01 May 2006 13:32:43 -0500 Message-ID: <86odyhegtw.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 funkygran2@btinternet.com writes: > I am amazed at this discussion about diabetes. I understand that a > diet to suit your aunt's intake of insulin should be arranged by a > hospital dietician. Her doctor or nurse can advise on the amount of > carbohydrate that she requires.and advice a low fat intake.Yes > excercise is also important.and regular small meals every three > hours will keep sugar levels as they should be. Hi, good cop. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu May 11 13:24:08 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Frustration! References: <%ZS7g.36$G22.22@fe11.lga> <1147224972.274195.228800@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <23c8g.384$UN4.285@fe11.lga> <1263l9c1qc15094@news.supernews.com> <1263q1fo8eht111@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:24:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86u07wpghj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I think in a world without "juice in bottles" and other concentrated > everyday sweet items, an occasional sweet treat isn't so bad....I > think the problem starts when it becomes an everyday common sort of > thing with many regular sources of sweet. Yeah, there's a big difference between the icing on graham crackers that we used to have for an after-school snack, and a kid nowadays drinking soda all day. Some of our food wasn't healthy, but it's gotten exponentially worse. I didn't develop any of the health problems that go along with a high-carb diet until after several years of punishing my body with a constant diet of pizza, chips, and Mountain Dew. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu May 11 13:31:57 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins controversy References: <1147240990.112508.262160@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 13:31:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86psikpg4i.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Ophelia" writes: > I think he has written it in his own language and translated it > using an on line translater such as Babelfish. Unfortunately this > has redered it meaningless. > From what I was able to decipher of his post's meaning, I'm not sure the untranslated original was much better. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Nov 29 18:10:22 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: To Make Better Pizza At Home Than You Can Buy At The Pizzeria References: <1164534687.836679.244790@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1164688396.372293.199100@l39g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <12mos0u6v5ep527@corp.supernews.com> <12mppimbn82gb17@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:10:19 -0600 Message-ID: <86mz69pzf8.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Jackie Patti writes: > I don't even preheat the oven, let alone the skillet. 350 is what I > do it at. I have gotten to tell when it's done by eyeballing, the > cheese is melted and the pepperoni is just sorta sweating it's grease > a bit when the tortilla is just the crunchiness I like. YTMV. I'm lazier than you; often I just put it together on a plate and cook the whole thing in the microwave a few minutes. You definitely get a more pizza-like consistency in the oven, though. Hard to get a crisp shell in the microwave without overcooking the whole thing. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Dec 3 17:20:33 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Seeking low carb 'bread' recipe with no flax (allergy) References: <3gGch.413876$5R2.71069@pd7urf3no> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2006 17:20:32 -0600 Message-ID: <86irgspnwf.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 "Display name:" writes: > I hope you get the info you are seeking here. I would be interested > in the same. I would also like to see what you have come up with for > cheese cake recipes. I bought a bread maker a while back as a > defense against dwindling low carb produsts. I also have some books > on bread making, but upon first glance no low carb insight jumped > out at me. The chart from my Protein Power Life Plan says that two cups of boiled amaranth grain has the same number of carbs (10.8) as two tablespoons of ordinary white flour. I don't know what the flour-form equivalent of that much whole amaranth would be -- whole amaranth is tiny, so there isn't much air space in a cup of it -- but it'd surely be a lot more than two tablespoons. > I am still finding good bread and wraps here in Austin, but I know > these fade away. I picked up some Healthy Life whole-wheat bread the other day, which claims to have 5 net carbs per slice. It's very soft and the slices seem a little small, but then I guess it doesn't claim to be sandwich bread. Since two slices pretty much use up my per-meal carb allotment, I can only have one sandwich, which means trying to hold an awful lot of meat and stuff between these two limp pieces of stuff. Ends up just as messy as wrapping with lettuce leaves. So for sandwiches, it's probably not worth it -- low-carb tortilla shells work much better -- but I might get my toaster out and start having a slice of buttered toast with my eggs in the morning again. Having a few carbs at breakfast might keep me from getting to the other meals and thinking, "Oh, I can go a /little/ over; I was under at breakfast." -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Dec 4 06:41:27 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Seeking low carb 'bread' recipe with no flax (allergy) References: <3gGch.413876$5R2.71069@pd7urf3no> <86irgspnwf.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 06:41:27 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejrfq1e0.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "eleaticus" writes: > http://www.calorie-count.com/calories/item/20001.html > > says 1 cup (195g) dry of amaranth has 129.0g gross, 29.6g fiber, > 99.4g net carbs. Hmm, PPLP says two cups boiled has 10.8g net; this says two cups dry has 198.8g net. So either it expands twenty-fold when boiled, or one of them is wrong. I'd guess that PPLP is wrong. Now that I think about it, if amaranth were that much lower in carbs than other grains, we'd be seeing it used in low-carb products by now. I happen to have some whole amaranth, so I suppose I could boil some and see just how much it swells up. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 5 09:36:19 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "You on a diet" References: <4KKbh.234$ej3.207@newsfe16.phx> <1165265248.698759.126450@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1165328034.593812.291860@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:36:18 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt56nyml.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 "Hollywood" writes: > You on a Diet is from the same people who brought you You an Owner's > manual. They are regulars on Oprah and they are the same people > behind the RealAge test, which makes suggestions that are centered > around a traditional low fat, calorie restriction longevity formula. Something I've noticed over the last couple years is that more and more of the so-called experts and diet companies are trying to weasel their way into recommending lower carb consumption without saying so openly. I think that, on some level, they know that cutting carbs will help people lose weight -- after all, everyone knew that until thirty years ago. The evidence couldn't be clearer, and five minutes of reading about the glucose-insulin-fat storage relationship explains the simple biology at work. A child with a box of crayons could explain it: "The yellow circle is an insulin molecule; the pink cell with the antennas is a skin cell sticking its receptors out...." They can't let go of their anti-fat orthodoxy, though, because it's tied up in vegetarianism, animal rights, progressivism, and all the other Age of Aquarius stuff that was going on in the Sixties and Seventies that led to the fat=evil myth in the first place. No one likes to admit to being wrong, especially when one's wrong ideas caused millions of people to struggle with their weight and health and ultimately go to early graves. Also, your low-fat diet book might get you on Oprah or recommended by the Surgeon General. You'll have to flog your high-fat diet on AM radio, web sites, or infomercials. So they try to sneakily reduce the carbs in their recipes and packaged meals, while keeping out the fat at the same time. (When was the last time you saw a diet expert recommend a baked potato, formerly the pinnacle of diet foods?) Of course, we all know that means they're left with mostly protein, and probably not enough calories to stay truly healthy, but at least it's an improvement. I choose to take it all as a good sign. Low-carb-low-fat isn't the healthiest option, but it's far better than the corn syrup diet that's been encouraged for the past couple decades. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 5 09:49:57 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New beginings! References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 09:49:57 -0600 Message-ID: <86slfunxzu.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "Ophelia" writes: > I would appreciate comments. For breakfast I have 2 boiled eggs. > For lunch, cold meat and a little cheese. For dinner, whatever meat > I am cooking for my SO. > I am taking some heavy cream with my coffee and some alcohol in the > evening. You don't mention any vegetables. You don't actually need them, but you might keep them in mind for variety if you get bored. Make sure you eat plenty, especially in the first couple weeks, so you don't get hungry at inconvenient times, like when there's a vending machine nearby. Two boiled eggs isn't very much, unless you have a very small lean body mass and are fairly sedentary. Always have low-carb snacks on hand: nuts, cold meat, cheese sticks, broccoli florets, pork rinds, jerky, celery sticks, etc. When cravings hit, they can be sudden and POWERFUL. The first time I started low-carb, I found myself one time eating raw macaroni by the handful, because I wasn't prepared. If you're in a house with carb-eaters, it's especially important to make sure you always have an immediately-eatable low-carb option handy, since you can't clean all the cow food from your cabinets. Good luck! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 5 19:11:25 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New beginings! References: <1165337202.874201.303430@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1165338205.529752.278990@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:11:24 -0600 Message-ID: <86odqhomkj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > It does sound strange and I don't believe substituting fatty meat > for lean is going to result in faster weight loss. Substituting > meat with more fat adds calories, which, at the end of the day, do > matter. Yes, calories matter. If you don't get enough of them, your metabolism suffers and your body tries harder to store fat the next time it gets a chance. I find that I have to work at getting enough fat in my diet when I'm vigilant about low-carbing. It's simple math, really. I eat 120g of protein each day, for 480 calories. Thirty grams of carb (at most) give me another 120, for a whopping total of 600 calories. That means I need to get another 1750 calories from fat, or nearly 200g of fat, to maintain the healthy 10 calorie/pound ratio that I met or exceeded while losing the first 50 pounds. So I have to eat meat that has 3 grams of fat for every 2 grams of protein. The 75% lean burger I buy comes close to that, but of course quite a bit of the fat cooks away, so unless I use it in something where all the fat is retained, like a casserole, it's still going to fall short. I don't think any chicken or fish has ever been that fat, and you're not going to get it from vegetables. Since it appears to be impossible to maintain that ratio with meat alone (short of eating nothing but bacon every day, anyway), I try to supplement by putting plenty of butter on things, frying my eggs in homemade lard, and so on. Of course, I could just increase my calories from protein, but that would give my body an opportunity to convert the extra to glucose, producing more insulin and possibly causing cravings. That's the last thing I need. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Dec 7 10:16:13 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New beginings! References: <28cbn2lsjkqrbcill5bkkaa1am1a8fljvn@4ax.com> <1165418604.960684.141250@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> <1165428575.652095.312620@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:16:12 -0600 Message-ID: <86d56vr8ab.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 71 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > I hardly find FAQ, which came from God only knows where or who's > interpretation to be compelling. Atkins never required any such > calc, did he? I hardly find "Atkins said/didn't say" to be a compelling argument either. The Atkins diet is popular because it's simple and because he called it the _New Diet Revolution_ instead of something less pointed like _Protein Power_, not because it's gospel. To someone browsing through a bookstore looking for diet books, the first one is an obvious candidate, while the latter sounds more like a book for weight-lifters. I also think Atkins attracts more people because it *sounds* like the diets they're used to: "Don't eat this stuff." People expect diets to require sacrifice. Atkins didn't know everything, and he may have even been wrong (gasp!) about some things. > And how do you square the idea of adding more fat to a diet when one > is already satiated at say 1800 calories, with many posts here over > the years advising those that are stuck to take a look at how many > total calories they are eating, because they may be consuming too > much? Two reasons. First, if you're satiated, adding fat presumably means subtracting carbs or protein, consciously or not. No one's recommending that you get satiated and *then* stuff a stick of butter down your gullet. I eat when I'm hungry, and I stop when I'm not. Adding fat means that I'll eat less protein and carbs, which is a good thing, as long as my protein level doesn't go below my body's requirements, which is unlikely since I eat plenty of meat and eggs. Second, the situation you're talking about -- person follows the diet correctly, doesn't cheat, stays away from the "iffy" foods that give many people trouble, and still doesn't lose weight because of too many calories -- is so rare as to be almost unimportant. It's far more likely that the person who says "It just doesn't work for me" is simply doing something wrong -- not realizing a favorite food is high in carbs, eating sugar substitutes that cause an insulin response in some people, etc. Yes, it's possible that someone could be following the diet perfectly and not lose weight because of a very high calorie intake. (Although I suspect it'd take a lot more than 2000 calories.) Enough extra protein converting to glucose could keep insulin up and glucagon down, preventing fat from being removed from your cells. (Trading fat for protein would still help in that case.) I might put calories on the list of things to check for someone who's in "troubleshooting" mode, but they'd be at the bottom of the list. Cutting calories is such an extreme measure, leading to hunger, cravings, lowered metabolism, and most likely abandoning the diet. Before recommending it to anyone, I'd want to be very sure he was actually getting a surplus and could cut back without any of those problems. When people in real life mention calories, I often pipe up with, "Calories are irrelevant." After they say, "What?!" I'll go on to say, well, not entirely irrelevant, but almost completely so. Maybe calories matter in a theoretical sense or in certain very specific circumstances, but for most people trying to get healthy and lose weight, they aren't that important. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Dec 7 10:36:47 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New beginings! References: <1165337202.874201.303430@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <1165338205.529752.278990@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com> <86odqhomkj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1165444360.232795.309610@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:36:47 -0600 Message-ID: <868xhjr7c0.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 56 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > That's the deal - Run the numbers and the amount of fat it takes > to get to those levels isn't easy. Without putting in any effort > most folks will eat more protein and less fat. Getting to those > high fat intake levels takes work. Stop trying and it stops > happening. Yes, I've definitely had that problem. It's easy to eat a lot of protein by going to the butcher's counter, and it's easy to eat a lot of carbs by going....well, anywhere else in the grocery store. High-fat, low-carb, low-protein foods are mostly ingredients: oil, butter, mayo. Even a steady diet of pork rinds would only give you 56% of your calories from fat, and most people think that's *all* they are. > Think pepperoni, salami, pemmican. Sounds good, but unfortunately expensive. For now I'll have to make do with the 75% ground beef (my small grocery doesn't have any less lean than that) and five pounds of pork steak that I got for $1.19/lb yesterday. (Suggestions on a crock-pot use for those pork steaks would be most welcome. Maybe some very LC BBQ pulled-pork thing?) > There is an old saying "bring home the bacon". In times past > people actually did eat a lot of bacon, salt pork, even fatback. > And sure enough they weren't hungry. But ugh what greasy > food. That reminds me of when I listened to Rush Limbaugh several years ago, and he had his grandfather on the show on his hundredth birthday. His grandpa said when he was growing up, they ate pork every day, except for Sundays, when they had chicken. My own grandparents grew up on the same farm diet, and all lived quite long. But yeah, awfully greasy. I still can't stand to eat the fatty trimmings on a pork chop or steak, even though I know they're good for me. > You must be very insulin sensative if the glucode from protein > triggers cravings. For most switching back to leaner meats simply > means less effort at maintaining the high fat ratio, lower levels of > glucagon, and easier maintenance. Yes, I think I am. Haven't been tested or anything, but the physical response is so strong and predictable. From the heartburn to the mental fog to the immediate need for a nap, I can tell when I've overdone something. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Dec 7 15:20:58 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New beginings! References: <28cbn2lsjkqrbcill5bkkaa1am1a8fljvn@4ax.com> <1165418604.960684.141250@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> <1165428575.652095.312620@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <86d56vr8ab.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:20:58 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt53pflx.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Brad" writes: > Dr. Michael Eades, who wrote Protein Power and recently gave the > Robert Atkins Memorial Lecture at the Assn. of Bariatric Physicians > convention, has a blog, > http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=299#comments (Where, btw, he > notes that he and his wife have tested meat-and-eggs-only to > positive effect.) I think his blog is an > incredible resource for low-carbers even if you're not doing PP. Thanks for that pointer. I went to their website a while back, thinking they might have printable copies of the worksheets in the book; and was disappointed to find none, but I never checked out the blog. Not that I need another blog to keep up on, really, but if it's good.... -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Dec 7 15:40:53 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New beginings! References: <28cbn2lsjkqrbcill5bkkaa1am1a8fljvn@4ax.com> <1165418604.960684.141250@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> <1165428575.652095.312620@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com> <86d56vr8ab.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1165517099.116141.216210@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 07 Dec 2006 15:40:52 -0600 Message-ID: <86slfrpeor.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > Then again I firmly believe that he left out fat and protein > counting because if you count carbs well there's so little to > be gained most of the time by most people that it wasn't worth > including in his books. Leaving something out isn't a > mistake in every case. Right, that was my point. Atkins sold more books (I'm guessing) than all the other low-carb books put together, because of that simplicity, not because his methods are necessarily superior to the others. Look how many people own his book and still think it's all about Induction. They read far enough to get the "Don't Eat This Stuff" part, and that's it. And in many cases, that's probably all they need to know to get the job done, so good for them. > Counting protein exceeds what's in the Atkins process. That > doesn't mean counting protein is a bad idea. If you go through > the chapter in Protein Pwer to figure out your daily minimum > protein grams, chances are a meat eater will be well over that > amount most days. Yeah, I don't really count protein. I know that I need to get 6 oz. of meat, 5 eggs, or some equivalent of that per meal. That happens automatically. My focus now is on trading some of the extra protein for fat. Make a smaller burger and put more mayo on it; make a meatloaf stuffed with cream cheese and horseradish; put more cheese on things in general. There have been some other good ideas in this thread that I'm going to try. (I've never had an avocado before; 'bout time to try one.) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Dec 8 07:49:14 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "You on a diet" References: <4KKbh.234$ej3.207@newsfe16.phx> <1165265248.698759.126450@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1165340964.785894.178560@16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> <8eqdh.12693$B42.7613@newsfe12.phx> <1165421424.222660.310640@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 07:49:14 -0600 Message-ID: <86odqepkf9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 49 "AKA gray asphalt" writes: > Do you guys take multi-vitamins? Some do; some don't. I use Morton Lite Salt for potassium, and that's it. If you eat nuts, cheese, eggs, herbs, spices, and some of the more nutrient-dense vegetables, you'll get a good range of vitamins and nutrients. After all, it's not like the processed grains we're giving up have much of that stuff. If you just eat a lot of meat, you may need to supplement it. > How do you get your fiber? I've seen claims that you don't need fiber on a high-fat diet because the fat lubricates things. I don't know if that's true, but I do know that I've rarely had issues with constipation on low-carb, and when I did, it was right when making the switch, and cleared up right away. I make no special effort to get fiber, and probably go for days without getting any at all, so there's a bit of anecdotal evidence. > Can you take flax seed oil, another thing I'm supposed to try? Check the label, but oils are generally zero-carb, and thus fine. > Maybe there are some commonalities that we can discuss. I guess we > both don't like simple sugars. My literature says that 40 years ago > there was no such thing as 'high fructose corn syrup" and that now > the average intake is over 60 lbs/ year. Some people are pushing the idea that HFCS is more harmful than other sugar. I think that's mostly wishful thinking. It's getting harder and harder to not recognize the damage that's being done, with the way obesity and diabetes are climbing, but the experts don't want to admit that they've been wrong and all the "cranks" have been right and we really *aren't* destined for a Roddenberry future where the only people who still eat animals are the backwards Klingons. So they're hoping if we just go back to using other sugar in our products, that will all go away, and we can go on eating all the cookies and drinking all the soda we want. That's simply not true. HFCS may be more harmful than cane sugar in some way, but that's like saying that getting hit by a bus is worse than getting hit by a car. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Dec 8 08:39:42 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "You on a diet" References: <4KKbh.234$ej3.207@newsfe16.phx> <1165265248.698759.126450@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1165328034.593812.291860@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> <1165433728.743383.261570@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:39:42 -0600 Message-ID: <86k612pi35.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 110 "AKA gray asphalt" writes: > Someone said that a lot of the weight loss was from muscles losing > water and not real fat loss. Sort of, at first. Your body uses water molecules to bond glucose molecules into storage, at a 2-1 ratio, I think. So when you switch from high-carb to low-carb, that excess sugar is released and burned over the first several days, and the water that was with it is released too. It can amount to as much as several pounds, and is often called the "whoosh." After that initial whoosh, subsequent weight loss has to be fat or muscle, because you don't have any more spare water to lose. So if you go back to high-carb, naturally your body will start storing that sugar again, and storing water with it, putting that "water-weight" back on. This also means it's easy to get dehydrated if you go off plan for a couple days and aren't drinking much. I wonder how much the "whoosh" affects the studies of diet failures. If someone goes low-carb, loses 7 pounds in the first week, and then gives it up, he'll put the 7 pounds right back on. 100% failure rate; 100% weight regained, yet he never lost or gained a single pound of fat. I assume that a serious study would focus on longer-term dieters and separate out real loss from whooshes (but I could be assuming too much) but polls and surveys probably include these incidences under the heading of, "95% of dieters put all the weight back on." > I kinda gotta think, though, that if a low carb diet was really bad > it would have been pummeled by now. I guess there isn't any proof or > we all would have heard about it ... you you agree? Well, not necessarily. Read _Inventing the AIDS Virus_ by Peter Duesberg for some good examples of how resistant the health establishment can be to facts. (The jury isn't entirely in on AIDS, but his other chapters on pellagra, SMON, and virus-hunting show just how desperately the health experts will hold onto theories that have been completely debunked. In the case of pellagra (niacin deficiency), people were still trying to find a contagious cause after it had been eliminated through diet.) But in the case of low-carbing, you're right, since it's not a mainstream belief. The press would trumpet to the heavens any proof that low-carbing is harmful or doesn't work, and in fact they do just that with any small germ of an anti-LC anecdote that looks like it could be nurtured into something convincing. > And do you think the same can be said about other diet categories? > How long has low carb been around? Since there were people, basically. For the first few millions of years, our ancestors ate other animals, supplemented with the occasional fruit or berry or root that they ran across, which were far lower in sugar than the ones we grow today. Then 10,000-25,000 years ago, depending on location, we invented agriculture, and started growing grain. Still, it was hard work, and only a few kings and such were able to pig out, so it wasn't a big problem yet. Only in the last century or so has processing and shipping gotten so cheap that common people can stuff themselves with grain and sugar. As for when it became an official diet, a Frenchman wrote in 1825: ...as it has been clearly shown, it is only because of grains and starches that fatty congestion can occur, as much in a man as in the animals; this effect....plays a large part in the commerce of fattened beasts for our market, and it can be deduced, as an exact consequence, that a more or less rigid abstinence from everything that is starchy or floury will lead to the lessening of weight. -- Protein Power, p9 Others followed suit, so while the most popular books today weren't written until the 60s and 70s, the information has been out there for a couple hundred years. For that matter, I wouldn't be surprised if the Romans knew this stuff, since they had a sizable elite class that didn't exactly work too hard. They got a lot of olive oil, but they also got a lot of grain, so I'll bet they were some porkers, just like the Egyptians were on their Mediterranean diet. > Another thing we probably all agree on is exercise. That I don't > have any success with at all, yet. After I explain to people that calories are irrelevant, I like to tell them that exercise is irrelevant too. ;-) That's not true, of course. Exercise is very good for you, and does help you lose weight -- but not in the direct burning-more-calories sense that people think it does. Exercise does burn calories (although not that many; look at a chart sometime), but if you burn more calories than you eat, what do you call that? *Starvation*. It's bad for you. The thing is, unless you're a very strict dieter who counts every calorie religiously, you're going to make up the couple hundred calories you burned off jogging this morning without even realizing it, because your body will want it. So either you replace the calories, in which case the run-more-eat-less plan falls apart; or you don't replace them, in which case your metabolism suffers, you get cravings at bad times, and all that good stuff. Exercise helps because it builds up your lungs, heart, muscles and other organs so they'll run better, so when you eat right, your body can burn fat more efficiently. It also releases helpful hormones like human growth hormone. Everyone should exercise. But can you lose weight without a bit of exercise? Yes. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Dec 8 22:08:28 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lorenzo's Oil yoad References: <12nj0cuiejlqf82@corp.supernews.com> <12nja68j9i5v722@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:08:28 -0600 Message-ID: <86fybppv7n.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Jackie Patti writes: > In actual humans, it depends on which pathways are taken exactly how > much energy goes in-and-out during anabolism/catabolism. In no case > that I'm aware of are there metabolic processes that are 100% > efficient, though some are better than others. So I don't know any > way for a human body to actually extract 3500 kilocalories of energy > from a lb of fat. I never have understood why people buy that calorie=calorie idea. If you've ever seen a pile of cow manure, you can tell by the kernels of corn in it that they don't digest every calorie they take in, and they've got three more stomachs than we do! Also, there are so many chemical reactions that have to take place to get food into the right forms for absorption, and no chemical process is 100% efficient. > Details can be seen in any basic biochemistry textbook, assuming a > basic chemistry background for the mathematical bits of kilocalorie > calculations. The effects of insulin and glucagon will be found as > well, and do not require math to "get". That's what's the most frustrating thing about this stuff: it's not esoteric knowledge that's hidden away, or only available in out-of-the-mainstream diet books. It's basic biochemistry. I learned the basics of fattening hogs with grain or slimming them up with protein from my 4-H Swine book when I was 10, for cripes' sake. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sat Dec 9 08:06:04 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cherry juice? References: <4tu21nF159rubU1@mid.individual.net> <1165634356.033760.17780@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 08:06:04 -0600 Message-ID: <86bqmdp3jn.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "Ophelia" writes: > I assumed that alcohol was the same as taking sugar. From your > comments about it would seem I am wrong. Please would you comment? No, alcohol is sort of the fourth musketeer of the energy sources, after protein, fat, and carbohydrate. When there is alcohol in your system, your body burns it first, but doesn't convert it into fat or sugar for storage. So guys with "beer bellies" get those not because the alcohol in the beer is making them fat directly, but because they're burning the alcohol for energy while the carbs in the beer are being converted to fat and stored. On a low-carb diet, you won't have that carbs->insulin->fat reaction happening while you dance naked on your coffee table with a lampshade on your head. Of course, the carbs in the drink still have to fit on your plan, which means you're pretty much limited to distilled stuff like vodka or gin, watery low-carb beers like Michelob Ultra, or very dry wine. No Long Island Iced Teas, unfortunately. The Eadeses say in _Protein Power_ that some research shows that a moderate amount of dry wine improves insulin sensitivity, and that distilled alcohol worsens it. Other people say alcohol doesn't matter, as long as you understand that during the hours your body spends burning off the alcohol, it's not burning off fat. Personally, I can take it or leave it, so for now, I'm leaving it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 12 09:46:43 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lorenzo's Oil yoad References: <12nj0cuiejlqf82@corp.supernews.com> <12nja68j9i5v722@corp.supernews.com> <86fybppv7n.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <12nll9mnoh3sd3f@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:46:40 -0600 Message-ID: <86psapi0bj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Jackie Patti writes: > I think it's just that veterinary science is more *practical* in the > sense if it doesn't work, the patinet's owners lose money. There's > no such criteria for medical science, because humans don't have a > dollar value in the same way that cattle or racehorses do. Absolutely. Also, vet bills are paid out-of-pocket by the owner of the animal, so customers have an incentive to be sure that the care makes sense and has value. (That's true even if the animal is a beloved pet, where there's no profit issue.) Third-party comprehensive health coverage takes away that incentive, leaving people with a "What the heck, I'm not paying for it" attitude. At least with auto insurance, driving safely and avoiding tickets helps keep your premiums low, but with health coverage, you have very little incentive to try to keep the cost of your coverage down. If you do a bunch of research and figure out that a change in diet will serve you better than surgery, for example, you may save your insurance group thousands of dollars, but spread out across millions of people, it's meaningless to your wallet. So the only reason to go to all that trouble is if you're convinced the conventional care options are *harmful*. As long as you believe the medical and health establishments pretty much know what they're doing, it makes sense to go along with the flow of the system. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 12 09:49:35 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Another dish recreated: hot dogs and beans References: <1165689973.080808.320750@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:49:35 -0600 Message-ID: <86irghi06o.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > Expanding on the wonders of soybeans, I just made some hot dogs and > beans for lunch. Boy, was it good! Here's the recipe, which I just > came up with for the first try: > > 1 Pack Hot Dogs > 2 Cans Eden Black Soybeans (these have 1g net carb per 1/2 cup) I haven't spotted black soybeans in the stores around here yet, but I keep watching. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 12 09:56:54 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cherry juice? References: <4tu21nF159rubU1@mid.individual.net> <1165634356.033760.17780@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <86bqmdp3jn.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1165678138.685722.242530@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:56:54 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejr5hzuh.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > Depending on what you're trying to do, frozen cherries, which are > readily available could be a choice too. They are moderately high > in carbs and you need to add some Splenda, but they can make a > tastey way to get some of the same thing. I prefer my cherries tart, so I just buy them canned in water. (Even before low-carbing, most cherry pies were too sweet for my taste.) They're still one of the carbier fruits at 21g/cup, similar to apples or pears and worse than peaches or melon, but mixing a half-cup of them into a batch of sugar-free jello that's going to make 2-3 servings works out pretty well at 4-5 grams/snack. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 12 10:17:17 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cherry juice? References: <4tu21nF159rubU1@mid.individual.net> <1165634356.033760.17780@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <86bqmdp3jn.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:17:16 -0600 Message-ID: <86ac1thywj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 "Ophelia" writes: > That fits in very well for me:)) I like to drink G&T and Gaelic > coffee which contains whisky and cream:)) I think your jynnan tonnix should be fine with sugar free tonic. Check the label on your whiskey; I think some of them can have quite a bit of sugar. > I don't understand the insulin reference. Obviously something I > need to learn. PP does a good job of explaining it in detail, but here's a quick summary. Your cells have these little things sticking out of them called insulin receptors. When an insulin molecule strikes a receptor, it tells the cell to do certain things, one of which is to grab glucose from your blood and store it. When carbohydrates enter your blood (as glucose (sugar)), your body reacts by creating more insulin to get the sugar dealt with before it all piles up in your liver and kidneys and you die. More carbs = more insulin = more cells being told to sock away fat. Where insulin resistance comes in is this: modern grain and sugar diets work this system much harder than it was designed to work. About 25% of the population has a strong enough pancreas and receptors that they're able to keep up. (Those people you know who eat nothing but junk food and never gain a pound. And they still suffer from the other poisonous effects of a constant insulin rush.) For the rest of us, our receptors get worn out and stop triggering as well as they should. When that happens, the pancreas desperately increases the insulin even more to compensate. This becomes a vicious circle, with your receptors becoming less sensitive and your pancreas working harder and harder, until something gives up, and you find yourself officially a Type II diabetic, eating pasta and baked potatoes like the ADA tells you to, and shooting yourself up with large quantities of insulin to keep triggering your worn-out receptors. Type II diabetes used to be called "adult-onset," because it used to take most of a lifetime of bread and potatoes and noodles to break the system down to that point. Now that we've upped the ante with kids sucking down sugar water all day -- and then feeding them more low-fat packaged meals when they get chubby -- it's showing up so early that the term "adult-onset" doesn't make sense anymore. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 12 16:08:45 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Another dish recreated: hot dogs and beans References: <1165689973.080808.320750@j72g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <86irghi06o.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:08:44 -0600 Message-ID: <8664cgix77.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "FOB" writes: > http://www.edenfoods.com/store/ Thanks. I assumed I could order them, but one of my personal low-carb goals is to keep it simple and inexpensive. (Although those beans aren't terribly expensive.) That means no ordering stuff, no using big complicated recipes on a regular basis, no buying expensive Atkins-approved products or high-priced novelty foods. That's just a personal choice, that helps ensure that I'll be able to stick with the plan in the long-term, and encourage other people that it's not too weird or complicated to try. Do black soybeans taste like regular soybeans? The couple of times that I've tried soybeans, they tasted horrible, so I hope not. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 12 16:26:21 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lorenzo's Oil yoad References: <12nj0cuiejlqf82@corp.supernews.com> <12nja68j9i5v722@corp.supernews.com> <86fybppv7n.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <12nll9mnoh3sd3f@corp.supernews.com> <86psapi0bj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1165952689.589786.241750@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 16:26:20 -0600 Message-ID: <861wn4iwdv.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 81 "Hollywood" writes: > This is why insurance companies invented copayments and coinsurance. > The idea is to spread the risk and provide incentives to people to > manage themselves better. If I need surgery, I will have to pay > something and my insurance company might have to pay more (assuming > they approve it, which is not a guarantee), but our incentives are > aligned. In some theoretical sense, sure, but I've seen far too many people go to the emergency room on a Sunday for something that could have easily waited for a much cheaper Monday visit to believe the incentive is very strong. If those people were paying out-of-pocket, they would have waited; but since their health coverage shields them from the true cost, they go when it's convenient, and a much larger cost gets passed on to the million other members of their group through premiums, or to the taxpayers through state aid. > Insurance companies have other tricks to align incentives and make > you, the insured, think about your health like an insurer. For > instance, my dental plan gives me free preventative services, > partial coverage of more major proceedures and a 25% discount on > crowns, dentures and something else that escapes me right now. Since > it's free to get cleaned, I will get cleaning and x-rays and all > that. I have a lot of incentive to avoid needing a crown. It's a > weak incentive (drink sugar coke today vs. maybe pay for major > dental tomorrow) but it's exactly the type of incentive you are > suggesting doesn't exist. I never suggested that it doesn't exist, simply that it's very weak, as you say. An incentive to avoid paying a co-payment on a root canal is much smaller than an incentive to avoid paying the whole thing. That's simple math. > Any rate, there are incentives and incentives, and healthcare is not > as simple nor as easy as you make it out ("What the heck, I'm not > paying for it"). Insurers don't just rubber stamp expensive medical > procedures and people don't just opt for them either. I suppose some > do, but for the most part, the cost control mechanism is going to > keep most people from having a lot of elective surgery. Sure; I wasn't necessarily talking about elective surgery either. Here's an example: I know two people who had surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome. Both had serious pain and complications afterwards, which their doctors warned them were a possibility. I told them both beforehand that I once had carpal tunnel, and got it fixed with a couple $30 chiropractor visits, but they decided not to bother giving that a shot before going with surgery. I submit that if they'd had to pony up the full thousands of dollars for the surgery instead of a small percentage (or in one case, nothing, as it was paid by worker's comp), they would have been much more interested in seeking alternatives first. > -Hollywood, who is pretty sure the insurance industry knows what > it's doing, since it's the safest business, revenue stream wise, > this side of casino ownership. I don't doubt that at all, but I'm not sure why the fact that a business is routinely making piles of money means that it's surely good for its customers. Not that that has anything to do with what I was saying. I wasn't attributing sinister motives to anyone; I was just saying this is what we've come to. We've decided that we're willing to pay far more for our health coverage over the long-term, in exchange for insuring ourselves against big costs in the short-term. Just like most people have decided they'd rather pay $20,000 for a car over 7 years than save up first and pay $10,000 cash for it. That's a personal choice everyone has to make, and there are valid reasons for going each way. In the case of health coverage, though, the third-party-payer system, especially combined with automatic paycheck withdrawal, has made it feel like a free or almost-free service to many people, which naturally has driven costs skyward. It's just the way it is. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Dec 13 05:38:09 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Idiot with high cholesterol that sued Atkins, looses References: <1165965540.160974.138590@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <12nug041eelut41@news.supernews.com> <12nujtd8p0jbhee@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 05:38:08 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt4wgh5r.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Roger Zoul" writes: > And that's a good thing because "common sense" usually isn't too > good. "Common sense is what tells us that the earth is flat." -- John Ross -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Dec 13 14:23:42 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New study finds that Splenda has Carbs! References: <1165963170.825004.94410@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 14:23:41 -0600 Message-ID: <86slfjh7ea.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 DK writes: > You see, there are over a billion people a year who consume massive > quantities of aspartame daily in their diet cokes and not one has > ever been found to suffer. The ones who complain are actually > psychotic and the problem is strictly in their head. "It never happened; and if it did, it was in your head." Way to cover your ass. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Dec 18 00:46:26 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Boiled eggs: a problem... References: <458559aa$0$7054$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 00:46:26 -0600 Message-ID: <86mz5lhfb1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "readandpostrosie" writes: > i find that the older the eggs (before hard boiling) the easier it > is to shell them. That's definitely the main thing. When I get fairly fresh eggs, I'll sometimes leave them out on the counter for a day or two to age before boiling them. They also seem to peel better if I steam them instead of boiling, for some reason. -- From nobody Mon Dec 18 09:40:20 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Boiled eggs: a problem... References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 09:40:20 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcvtgql7.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 14 David Ranc writes: > The water has to be at a temperature of 70°C before you throw the > FRESH egg in, and between 69°C and 70°C after the egg is in. That's between 156 and 158 degrees, for those of us in civilized countries. ;-) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 19 14:11:30 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Chinese grapple with obesity, herbs not a solution - Scientific American References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:11:27 -0600 Message-ID: <86d56flk7k.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 Jbuch writes: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Chinese grapple with obesity, herbs not a solution - Scientific American > By Tan Ee Lyn Funny how an article about Chinese obesity never mentions the Asian diet -- heavy on rice, vegetables, and fish, and low on red meat -- that we're constantly told would be so healthy for all of us. > Apart from eating too much, doing too little and smoking, experts > say Asia's weight problem is more pronounced than in the West > because of a genetic predisposition to obesity. Couldn't be what they're eating. Never! (Although I'm impressed to see any mainstream journalist admitting that race exists.) > "If the heart muscles are stuffed with fat, it can't store glucose, > which then stays in the bloodstream, causing diabetes." Wow, that's a twisted way to try to hang onto the low-fat, high-sugar logic. "It's not the huge amounts of sugar we eat; it's the fat that keeps us from finding places to store the sugar so it can't poison us." -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Dec 19 14:39:14 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Anti-Atkins HI Carb diet References: <4f4do2dptsb4t80ak1mj67klrc2al3jlmh@4ax.com> <1166546744.296252.303550@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 14:39:14 -0600 Message-ID: <868xh3lix9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 72 tunderbar@hotmail.com writes: > I was in the library the other day and saw a book entitled something > like "Eat Carbs and Lose Weight". Of course, I had to have a look. > Straight to the recipes. No bread, no pasta, no added sugars, all > nutrient-dense whole food carbs. The title was just a way to pretend > to not be a "dangerous" low carb diet while pushing what was > obviously a relatively low carb diet. I'm becoming convinced that most people who are knowledgeable about nutrition and biology "get it" at this point. It'd be hard not to, unless you were very dedicated to avoiding all information about the benefits of cutting carbs. There's just too much of it out there now. But they can't admit it outright. For one, no one likes to admit to being wrong, especially when that means you've been giving advice that's been bad for people. I'm not even talking about from a liability standpoint; just from a being able to live with yourself standpoint. Also, they'd be pilloried by the influential people who still *don't* get it: the TV talk-show hosts, the journalists, the politicians. They don't have the first clue about the biology, and they don't have any desire to. To them, everything is politics: the truth is decided by which group is biggest and yells the loudest. There is no truth; there is only opinion. Try to explain to them that an insulin molecule does /this/ and then a sugar molecule does /that/, and they'll just look at you funny like you're speaking a different language, and say something like, "Well, that's great that that works for you, but everyone's different, so any diet can be good if it works for someone. Don't be so judgmental." Which actually means, "I really, really like pasta, and besides, Oprah wouldn't steer me wrong." So if you're going to write a diet book or sell packaged meals, and you "get it" but you don't want to be labeled a kook, what do you do? You come up with a mix of foods that's low-carb enough that it'll help many people to lose weight, but you include enough of the "better" carbs to disguise it as a non-LC plan (or simply lie about it by calling it high-carb when it's not at all). That way you get rich, people get healthier, and if we have to wink and nod and use a little doublespeak here and there, what's it hurt? > Marketting does more to confuse people about nutrition than > anything. I think it is time to regulate what marketters can claim > about their products. I don't know; most of the disinformation about fat and carbs nowadays isn't coming from products; it's coming from the general media. True, I grind my teeth when I see a Cheerios ad blather on about how great it is for your heart, but it's not like they're lying outright. They managed to get it to work out that way in a study, so they can claim the results. As more and more studies show the value of cutting carbs, I wouldn't want laws making it difficult to trumpet those studies on product labels. Historically, the whole anti-fat, high-sugar thing may be a fad that collapses of its own weight (pun intended). It's lasted about 30 years, but we're already seeing chinks in the armor. Less than a century ago, eugenics was hugely popular, and we've all but stricken that from the history books now. Maybe people a century from now will look back on the Diabetes Plague in the same way: "What were they thinking?" -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Dec 20 12:58:35 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Anti-Atkins HI Carb diet References: <4f4do2dptsb4t80ak1mj67klrc2al3jlmh@4ax.com> <1166546744.296252.303550@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> <868xh3lix9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1166628345.013204.202950@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:58:34 -0600 Message-ID: <861wmul7hh.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 96 tunderbar@hotmail.com writes: > You know why they don't get it? The TV talk shows depend on their > advertising. The journalists work for TV networks and media > conglomerates that depend on advertisers. The politicians depend on > political donations from corporations. The biggest advertisers and > and political donors are the food industry and the phamaceutical > industries. I agree that money plays a part in it, but I really believe that for many of the clueless elites it's become almost a religious issue, that they'd stick to even if the money didn't follow. After all, there's money on the pro-fat side too, but what does the Dairy Council (for example) spend much of its money on?: Developing lower-fat dairy products and trying to convince people to eat them despite the fat, not because of it. Even the people with profit reason to "get it" have a hard time with it. If you read a lot of science fiction, as I have, you notice some common themes in stories about humanity's future. One is that births are never unplanned, and often highly controlled by the government. (Zero-pop is very popular in sci-fi.) Another is that future humans don't eat meat. Look at Star Trek: they may replicate meat (although they rarely even do that), but it's not real animals. The Klingons eat animals, which is how you can tell they're barbarians. For people who have a progressive or Marxist view of the future -- that humanity is evolving into a better creature, not just physically and mentally, but socially and morally -- (which includes pretty much everyone in the media/politics/education fields) those themes are very persuasive, and after a while, they're simply accepted as fact. "OF COURSE we won't still be eating meat by the time we have spaceships; are you crazy? We do it now because we don't know any better and we haven't developed alternatives, but as soon as we can get all our nutrition in a pill, OF COURSE we'll stop the barbarism." That's a belief or meme, not a logical conclusion, so it's a hard thing to defeat. The idea that the future will be more Heinlein than Roddenberry, that we'll still be eating meat and owning guns and making profits far into our future, is extremely depressing and downright unacceptable to many people, including most of our opinion-makers. So yeah, the advertising dollars are there for high-carb campaigns, and that makes a difference, but it's not the main problem. How many times has a friend or family member tried to convince you low-carbing is bad for you? That person presumably doesn't have a profit motive for hassling you, but he does anyway, because he *believes*. > We can only hope. But the big lie seems to work so well. How do you > educate the masses when they are so damned gullible and close minded > to even the most sensible ideas in the face of constant public media > distortions about diet. Well, somehow you and I got educated, so others can too. I liken it to home-schooling: 10 years ago, people thought only religious nuts and anti-government crazies home-schooled, so they could keep their kids away from other humans as long as possible. Nowadays, millions of families are doing it, and it's no big deal; around here they join 4-H groups, put together sports teams, everything you'd expect normal kids to want to be involved in. Home-schooling sure didn't get any help from the government or the media; just the opposite. Many states still put roadblocks in the way as much as possible, thanks to heavy donations from the education unions. The press painted them as crazies, and peer-pressure to send your kids to school is intense. Yet somehow, entirely through word-of-mouth and personal research, people have discovered it as a viable option. > We've come this far with bad high-carb nutrition, I fear to > contemplate how far it's going to go before we see a revolution in > mainstream nutritional beliefs and see people turning on the SAD > diet en masse. It could take decades; it might never happen. Grain and processing are so cheap that producers AND consumers have a big incentive to keep believing in the status quo. I wouldn't be surprised if, long before many people shift back to a hunter/gatherer diet, someone invents a no-carb carb -- a Splenda flour, so to speak. They've done it with fats and sugar, so I don't know why it couldn't be done with other carbs. Or an additive that truly does block carbs in your system, like so many already claim to do. If that's how it happens, fine. That wouldn't stop people who want to keep eating a healthy low-carb diet from doing so; but if it allows others to keep eating their junk food and escape diabetes, that'd be great. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Dec 22 08:32:09 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I need a NO Carb diet References: <1166781742.455388.66830@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:32:08 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzzoj91z.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 71 grant.casci@gmail.com writes: > Slight problem. Carbs are the most efficient fuel to run the human > body... I don't know if this is true (I'm not even exactly sure what it means), but even if it were, why do people say it like it's a point in favor of carbs? From a dieting standpoint, shouldn't we eat the *least* efficient fuels possible? The less efficient the fuel, the more of it we'll waste, or the more energy we'll have to burn to process it, so the less we'll have free to turn into fat. This reminds me of the other night at a Christmas party, when someone asked me, "Don't you get most of your energy from carbs?" I didn't want to go into a ten-minute summary of the whole concept and put everyone to sleep (like I do here, heh), but I told them it depends on what you eat. If you eat mostly carbs, then yes, you'll get most of your energy from carbs. If you eat mostly fat (or protein), you'll get most of your energy from fat (or protein). As far as which one is "better" for energy, my impression is that fat is better in general, although glucose may have an advantage for quick bursts of muscle activity. > My understanding is that the danger focus is on hi density > carbs, and particularly those that hit my blood sugar levels too > quickly (Glycemic Index). It depends on what you're concerned about. If you're trying to avoid diabetic shock, then low-glycemic foods are good because they spread the sugar load out over a longer period of time, so you don't need to produce so much insulin all at once. You still have to produce the same amount overall, but if you can add the sugar to your bloodstream slowly enough that your pancreas can keep up with it, you can avoid damaging your organs without needing to inject insulin. As far as dieting goes, there's less clear advantage. Every molecule of glucose has to be dealt with, by releasing insulin to trigger insulin receptors, which tell the cells to store fat. A certain amount of glucose means a certain amount of insulin-triggered reaction to it, regardless of the timetable. You could even make a reasonable-sounding argument that if you have to eat X grams of carb, you're better off to eat high-glycemic carbs, so the insulin process can get over with more quickly and you can get back sooner to glucagon production and burning fat. I'm not making that argument, but it makes some sense at first glance. The main reason I can see to stick to low-glycemic carbs is that by spreading out the insulin rush, you're also spreading out the cravings, so you don't suddenly find yourself elbow-deep in a bag of not-so-low-glycemic potato chips an hour later. If cravings are an issue for you, that's certainly something to consider. Of course, cutting back on both high- and low-glycemic carbs is even better, but that means less variety. > I've been low carbing by focussing on low GI foods and that has > improved my diabetes control and helped me lose weight. The carbs I > do eat are pretty much high fibre... no starches and a lot of bulk > so I don't get hungry. That's excellent, and congratulations, but high-fiber isn't the same thing as low-glycemic, at least in the low-carb lexicon. If you're counting fiber as a low-glycemic carb, you may not be digesting as many carbs as you thought. That's always good news! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Dec 22 13:02:53 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I need a NO Carb diet References: <458c111b$0$24651$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:02:53 -0600 Message-ID: <86psabkb36.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 52 coonskin@amestwp.com writes: > I have just read this thread so don't know what points others might > have made. Carbs are not as you describe. A basic form of carbs is > used by the body as its basic energy source. Carbohydrates are one of the three energy sources (protein and fat being the other two). Your body doesn't have *A* basic energy source; it gets energy from whatever combination of those three sources you feed it. > If we eliminate carbs as intake the body would convert fat intake > into that basic carb form instead. What? I think what you might be trying to say is that if your body wants glucose for something, it can convert dietary fat into glucose. This is true, although the conversion rate is poor, burning a lot of energy in the process, which is a GOOD thing for dieters. For the most part, though, your body won't convert anything to carbs, because it doesn't need them for anyting. It'll function quite happily burning fat and protein for energy. > In a sense fat is stored carbs, the animals we eat have their fat > from carb intake just as we can store excess carb intake as fat for > later use. Fat is stored energy; it doesn't matter where the energy came from. It's true that most of the animals we eat are fed a high-carb diet, but that's because carbs are cheap and they MAKE ANIMALS FAT in a hurry. If you want to eat a steer when he's a year old, you feed him corn. If you want to raise him to be an ox and pull a wagon, you put him on pasture and feed him a lot of roughage and maybe a protein supplement, so he'll grow strong and healthy, but not fat. > There is one group of people who must watch carb intake and that is > diabetics. They must match available insulin to carb intake. For > some that amount of carbs can be low and others more moderate > amounts. Patient: Doc, every time I hit myself with this hammer, I get a headache. Doctor: Ok, from now on, every time you hit yourself with the hammer, take one aspirin. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Dec 22 13:14:02 2006 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Anti-Atkins HI Carb diet References: <4f4do2dptsb4t80ak1mj67klrc2al3jlmh@4ax.com> <1166546744.296252.303550@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> <868xh3lix9.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1166628345.013204.202950@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <861wmul7hh.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1166646772.351495.251210@48g2000cwx.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 13:14:02 -0600 Message-ID: <86lkkzkakl.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "Hollywood" writes: > This is a question of economics, not necessarily of marxist ideals. > Forget morals, forget ethics, forget all the ickiness that vegetarians > bring to a discussion of what to eat. Think instead of Star Trek. Take > a crew of a thousand people on a five year mission light years from > earth and supply stations. Build them a war ship with full scientific > capability too. Then find a space for cows on board. Sure, there are practical problems with cows in space. (Although you haven't lived if you haven't seen the Square Pigs in "Space Truckers," starring Dennis Hopper, a Christian Slater knockoff, and a Marissa Tomei knockoff.) But that's not why there's such a visceral reaction against killing animals for food in the standard futuristic/progressive mindset (what Thomas Sowell calls the Vision of the Annointed). It's much more than practicality; it's a belief system that says certain things are good and inevitable, and not moving toward those things would be evil. > Of course, there is always the replicator, but it could be that they > have converted all space faring crews to an Ornish looking diet before > they invented the replicator. And will a replicated kobe beef steak > really have all the advantage of a beer fed, massaged, wagyu cow? Star Trek replicators are supposed to duplicate the original down to the sub-atomic level, so presumably so. There's a running joke on Trek that replicated food doesn't taste as good as the real thing, but that's either in their heads, or because replicated food always tastes exactly the same way while human-made food varies. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Jan 4 11:03:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Ketostix References: <1167771856.079580.137590@a3g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:03:18 -0600 Message-ID: <868xgi7mi1.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "alex.barr" writes: > Thanks a lot for the reply. Is it smart to use them as a beginner? > Also, what "mints" are you referring to? Finally, if I were to do > induction stage 1 for more than 2 weeks (possibly up to 6 weeks) is > that bad? If you don't want to follow Atkins exactly, don't. It's not the only low-carb plan, just the best-known. _Protein Power_, for example, has three stages: Intervention Stage I, Intervention Stage II, and Maintenance. It recommends staying in Stage I as long as you still need to lose 20% of your body weight, or are suffering from any insulin-caused illnesses, like high blood pressure, diabetes, or bad cholesterol ratio. Most low-carb books, like any self-help books, are readily available in libraries and thrift stores. I just picked up _The Carbohydrate Addict's Life Plan_ for a dollar. It's a little out of date on some of the science, but I got it anyway for the recipes. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Jan 4 14:11:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: idiot experts References: <1167852218.129221.220750@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <1167928953.795191.101670@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:11:06 -0600 Message-ID: <867iw28sdh.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 tunderbar@hotmail.com writes: > It is so frikkin' ridiculous that those within our society who are > the highest educated in the field of nutrition would be the most > ignorant of what nutrition actually is. Here's the scary part: You know all those fields of knowledge where you *haven't* done a lot of personal research, so you're forced to rely upon conventional wisdom like most people do with diet and nutrition? They're often just as bad. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 5 17:15:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: test...ignore References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:15:46 -0600 Message-ID: <86lkkh6p5p.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Marengo writes: > On 04 Jan 2007 11:04:05 -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > | > |"Brad" writes: > |> 174/174/160 monthly-goal: 5 since: 1/4/2007 > | > |I think you meant 4/1/2007 (Jan 4th) not 1/4/2007 (April 1st). > > In the U.S. 1/4/2007 = January 4, 2007 Which is why I always use 2007/1/4 (or 2007/01/04). No one misunderstands that format. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 5 17:44:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: It's a New Year and the Fat Ladies are Singing References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:44:42 -0600 Message-ID: <86fyap6nth.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > Just wanted to say "hi" -- it's that time of year when all the "new > folks" pop in. I guess the fat guys are singing too. I've been low-carbing badly for the past couple years. I'd binge on carbs for a couple days, until all the symptoms of hyperinsulemia came back and I felt like death warmed over, then I'd get serious for a few days until I felt better for a while, then I'd blow it again. Luckily the cycle averaged out to a sort of "maintenance" as far as my weight is concerned -- just not the healthy kind -- so I didn't gain much weight back. I've often been ashamed at what a poor example I've been to the unwashed, because most everyone I know knows I low-carb, and yet they see me not losing any weight, so I know they consider me to be proof it doesn't work. I always tell them, "It's worked every time I've done it right," but they'd rather believe the diet failed than I did, of course. I'm trying to use that as additional motivation. Obviously I have to be doing it for myself first, or I'll fail, but there are also a lot of tubbies in my family who are really suffering from bad information. So, I've been very strict since a bit before New Year's Day, and I'm starting to feel great. I'm sleeping less, and feeling more energetic and happy and ambitious (which didn't take much, since those things are at zero when I eat high-carb). I've started to get that almost-pleasurable hunger, where your stomach tells you it's empty, but it's not an overwhelming force; you can act on it or not, as you wish. I'm hungry right now, and I'm going to go eat because I should; but if I'd had a bunch of carbs for lunch, I wouldn't be able to focus enough to sit here and type until I'd satisfied that craving. So far so good. In addition to hanging out here (a big help), I'm going to blog daily about it this time. I've been wanting to blog regularly anyway, and eating is something I know I'll be doing every day, so it'll be a good reminder. I have to do this. Not just for my weight, but because if I don't, excess insulin will be the death of me. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 5 19:34:44 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Vitamins on South Beach? References: <1168036784.917292.106810@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 19:34:44 -0600 Message-ID: <86vejl545n.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "john" writes: > I am in Phase I of South Beach and am wondering if it's OK to take a > daily multi-vitamin while in this phase? I can't imagine why not, as long as it doesn't have too much sugar for flavor or starch for binding or something, but what's the book say? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Jan 8 17:12:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Time to stock up on broth References: <50aehpF1ffia7U1@mid.individual.net> <50f1kgF1fvf7hU1@mid.individual.net> <45a25b33$0$9564$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <50fd4vF1fq6rvU1@mid.individual.net> <50fiuvF1fsnfjU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 17:12:27 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt3x3yg4.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Pat" writes: > On the other hand, I called my doctor this morning and she won't > call in a anti-diarrhea prescription for me. She said, "Eat > bananas." Did you tell her bananas are ugly bags of mostly sugar? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Jan 9 19:51:48 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fuller Story Including Lack of Vitamin Pills Re: Could low-carb diets lead to birth defects? References: <12pslb9m2b287b6@news.supernews.com> <12q7sfljn4ank51@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:51:48 -0600 Message-ID: <86bql74pjf.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Bob in CT" writes: > I think the theory is that a lot of commercialized farming takes out > a lot of minerals and vitamins (in particular, trace minerals like > selenium) from food. That's the theory, and it may or may not be > correct. It makes sense. Farmers don't rotate crops as much as they used to, and chemical fertilizers like anhydrous ammonia don't have the range of trace minerals that old-fashioned manure adds to the soil. If the minerals that are used by the plants aren't replaced somehow, the plants will gradually be able to produce less of them. That's one good reason to have a vegetable garden: if you use lots of compost and/or manure, your vegetables should be better for you than the ones in the store. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Jan 10 22:36:10 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: is cholestrol something to worry about References: <1168483148.326426.286280@77g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:36:10 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzyy2n9h.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "farseer" writes: > One of my good friends went on a strict low carb diet for two weeks. > She consumed under 20grams of carb/day. She did drop about 10lbs, > but his cholestorol jumped from 290 to 350. They reason she went on > the diet was not only to lose the weight, but to lower here > cholesterol, which here doctor said was extremely too high. I think your friend should be more concerned about the way her gender switches back and forth. Seriously, though, I can't imagine making any sort of decision about the "dangerousness" of a way of eating based on two weeks. Especially since we don't know how perfectly your friend really stuck to the diet. As your friend is apparently aware, cutting carbs is well-documented to improve cholesterol numbers. Make sure she pays attention to the good/bad ratios instead of focusing on the totals, which aren't that relevant; and give it a decent amount of time to work. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 12 11:04:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Giving up Soday all together. References: <1168552052.192592.36130@k58g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 11:04:32 -0600 Message-ID: <86ps9k18in.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 65 actorkent@yahoo.com writes: > I am making the rounds of things to get my weight loss going right. > (long story. not here) Has anyone heard of or experienced anything > good on giving up soda for good? I am on a 3-5 can a day habit, > mostly diet rite sometimes diet dr. pepper. I kicked it years ago, although I never drank much diet. Back then, I was trying to get away from the caffeine, although I know now that the sugar was probably the main thing bringing down my health. After the caffeine withdrawal headaches stopped, I don't think I ever missed it much. I drink a couple a year now, just to see if I'm missing anything. The first sip always tastes really good, but by the time I finish the can, it feels like I'm drinking something I found in a chemistry lab. I've noticed that when indulging in a lot of high-carb foods. If I start eating a bag of chips, I'll finish off the whole thing, but by the time I get to the bottom of the bag, I'm not eating them for the flavor anymore. I've actually caught myself shoveling them in while thinking, "Ugh, these things aren't really that good, and I don't feel so good either. " That NEVER happens with low-carb foods, does it? It never bothers me in the least to have meat or vegetables or cheese in the fridge that I haven't eaten yet. If I get full on those things, I have no problem with storing the rest as leftovers; and sometimes I forget about the leftovers until they get moldy. If I try a new low-carb recipe and I don't like it, I have to make myself finish it or give it to my dog. There's just no chemical compulsion to eat it. One pork chop never leads to two, three, four, six; but that can and does happen to me with bowls of ice cream! > Of cousre there is no HARM in doing it.. duh.. so I am going to try > for one week. Eat fingernails instead at work... ugh... but only > going to drink water for fear of even lemon flavored water or > seltzer still having an impact.. even stevia flavor (sweet) might > have some unknown impact. I think that really depends on the person. I was just reading "The Carbohydrate Addict's Life Plan," and they believe that artificial sweets can fool your body into the same insulin reaction as real carbs. There seems to be some evidence of that; I recall reading about a study where people simply tasted foods without ingesting them, and found that their insulin levels or blood glucose levels changed. I personally find that artificial sweets tend to spur cravings for more, although I have no idea if the cravings are physical or mental. But some people are able to low-carb and lose weight quite successfully while drinking diet soda and using other artificial sweeteners, so it varies, maybe based on the severity of a person's insulin resistance. You'll just have to find out how it works for you. As you say, it can't hurt to quit. Diet soda may or may not be harmful to you, but it's certainly not beneficial. As a very healthy and active 80-year-old priest once told me: vodka is good for you; it's the mixed drinks that'll kill you. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Jan 17 07:49:38 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please give advise if you can. References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:49:37 -0600 Message-ID: <86irf5kbke.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 122 I feel a rant coming on.... BipolarBear writes: > I am a 44 year old male. I am 5'11 and now about 311 LBS. Yup, I > have gotten to be a fat boy. > Now, I have heard one story to another about what to eat for a heart > health diet, much less for a diet to loose weight. In the American > Heart Association stuff I have here, they are pushing for the most > part a Low Fat, high carb diet. In another place they have on the > net, it said something like, if you can not drop the fat like you > should, exchange saturated fat with a non saturate form, like Conola > or what ever. The AHA will kill you, and feel righteous about it. Sorry to be so blunt, but it's that simple. A few decades ago, for reasons having to do with politics, faith, and economics -- but little to do with health or science -- they and other organizations went down the high-carb path, and there's no turning back for them. The psychic cost of admitting their advice has been killing people all these years would be too high, so they just can't do that. Also, they simply *want* it to be true that we'd be better off if we released all the cows and pigs into the wild. I do think they'll eventually come around some day, individual by individual, until the group as a whole has changed direction; but it's hard to say whether groups like the AHA and ADA will actually shift that far or whether they'll gradually be supplanted by rival groups made up of people who have admitted the truth. It doesn't really matter to you, because it sounds like if you keep following their advice, you won't live to see it anyway. > Now from my little research, and I also have a DVD here done by > Atkins and his people, I get the idea from them its the high carbs > and low fat thats my problem, not just with eating and my weight > problem, but also with my CAD. That seems likely. I don't know anything about that DVD, but if you're not ready to trust a single source, pick up a copy of Protein Power. It gives a good explanation of the biology at work here, and talks a lot about why carbs lead to bad cholesterol and heart problems. There are several good books on the subject worth reading; I imagine they're listed in the FAQ which is posted here regularly. Speaking of the FAQ, read it, and check out the things it links to. Read back through this newsgroup. It shouldn't take you too long to get the picture. > My numbers are bad, but have been much worse. They have been high > all my life, even when I was a lot thinner. MY Cholesterol is high, > but not super high. But my bad cholesterol has been much worse than > my good. And my Triglycerides are just disgusting. When I had the > stents, they were like 612. Now they are 468, or were a few months > back at last check. THis is one area that I remember that was high > back in my early 20s then it was first checked. I was a lot thinner > then. And you're someone who's been taking the drugs like a good boy? Sounds about right. > So I am confused a hell about everything, and kind of frozen with > what the "experts" have been saying. The key is to stop thinking the politicians and bureaucrats and journalists are experts. The Drs. Eades and Atkins and others are experts -- people who have dedicated their careers to helping *actual patients in their clinics* on an individual basis, and seen carb restriction work time after time after time in real people. There are also many experts on this group -- people who, often out of desperation, discarded conventional wisdom and the advice of friends and family and did their own research to fix their own health, and have been able to help others since. As I often say, none of this is hard stuff, and none of it is particularly new. You just have to clear away a lot of political and mystical clutter and get down to the biology. Why do we feed animals grain to fatten them; and a higher-protein/lower-carb feed to make them leaner? Why did Eskimo tribes that lived on blubber, as well as other meat-eating societies, have no heart disease? Why were ancient Egyptians obese and afflicted with modern health problems, as we know from their mummies, when they were eating the "Mediterranean" diet that's supposedly so perfect? Those questions have a simple answer. > Diet is really important as I have had 3 spine operations, and a > fused back now, and have limits on some of the activity that I am > able to do. Luckily, this isn't one of those diets that says in the fine print, like a Cheerios commercial, "assuming you run five miles a day and work out like an Olympic weightlifter." Exercise is good for you for many reasons, but it's not a prerequisite for losing weight. For many people who are fat and out of shape, telling them they have to start an exercise regimen is dooming them to failure, because they just aren't up to it. Drop 20 pounds through diet, and you'll *want* to take your body out for a walk, just to enjoy how much better it feels. > Can any of you all help with your insight? I think you'll get a lot of insights here. This group isn't as busy as it used to be -- a year ago, it wasn't really possible to read every message -- but there's still some quality traffic, and of course you can read messages from the past at groups.google.com. One last thing to add: low-carb isn't a "trust us" diet. It's not one of those things where the science is murky at best, and people are saying, "I can't really explain it, but it worked for me, so what do you have to lose?" We *do* know how it works, and can explain it, but don't trust us, and don't trust the AHA -- learn the truth for yourself. It shouldn't take long. A common mantra on this group is, "Your body, your science experiment." It sounds like you've been letting the medical establishment experiment on your body for a while, and it's probably made them a lot of money in drug sales and surgeries, but it hasn't gone so well for you. Time to take over. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Jan 17 16:03:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A cereal for your consideration References: <516r9dF1fq28tU1@mid.individual.net> <1169048600.451421.319500@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <517hrlF1jatgaU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:03:00 -0600 Message-ID: <861wltjoq3.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "Pat" writes: >> Corn, especially refined and manufactured corn based cereals, are >> not the best foods around. They tend to be low in nutrients and >> high in carbs. >> >> TC > > I take your point, but some people cannot process wheat... I like to call those people "humans." (Or say it like a Ferengi: "hooo-mahns." If this cereal has 18 net carbs per 3/4c. serving, then I'd have to have about 3/8c. to keep under my 10g/meal limit. That's not worth dirtying a bowl. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Jan 18 13:21:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A cereal for your consideration References: <516r9dF1fq28tU1@mid.individual.net> <1169048600.451421.319500@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <517hrlF1jatgaU1@mid.individual.net> <861wltjoq3.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <1169138637.936790.134500@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:21:04 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzyo3zvj.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 70 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > The fact that there are many humans who cannot process wheat > does not mean that none can. Sure; I was kidding around; you can't be serious if you mention the Ferenghi. I do sometimes say things like, "Don't eat that; it's cow food," but that's just to get a conversation going. > The fact that grains are one of the most common staple foods of > most of humanity also doesn't mean grains are actually healthy. > There are no ill effects whatsoever to anyone who switches away > from all grain consumption to veggies and other types. The idea > that grains for "one of the four food groups" and are therefore > needed for health is false. The idea's roots go back into ancient > times so they aren't a USDA/agribusiness conspiracy but being > ancient doesn't make them true. The Agricultural Revolution made grain cheaper, easier, and more storable than other foods, so it makes sense that people came to depend on them. Without grain farming, we probably never would have had the Industrial Revolution or civilization as we know it today. Grain wasn't necessarily good for individuals, but it was good for progress. But two things happened in the last couple centuries to turn that upside-down. We became so prosperous that now practically everyone can afford to eat way more than he needs to stay alive; and we started processing the heck out of things, breaking food down into pure or nearly-pure carb forms that are much harder on a person than a loaf of bread made out of ground whole wheat a century ago. John Ross made a good point in an article about how in Little House on the Prairie times, families used to go to great effort to put up a few jars of maple syrup or sorghum for the next year. (My family grew and processed sorghum once; it's hot, hard work.) Now, for the price of a minimum-wage worker's daily salary, you can buy more sugar than you'd want to carry home. It's a huge difference. Take the amount of sugar your average kid gets just from soda: a few centuries ago, the only people who could afford that kind of indulgence were kings and queens. > There's no downside to avoiding all grains completely for anyone > who can afford the other food types, but that is not a step that > is worth the effort for most and it is only necessary for a tiny > percentage. I'd change "most" to "all" and "tiny percentage" to "minority." I wish I could remember the source, but I read somewhere that nearly half of men now are expected to develop some sort of insulin-related illness, when you count all the heart trouble that arises from the carbs-cholesterol connection. I think cutting out grains would benefit almost everyone. Maybe it wouldn't have a noticeable effect on that small percentage of the population that seems to have excellent insulin response (those people who never gain weight no matter what), but even they might benefit in the long run. On the other hand, I'd also insert "almost" in front of "completely." It's true that it's very difficult to eliminate grains *completely* from your diet, in the sense that someone with a strong allergy to something is forced to; and it shouldn't be necessary for anyone who doesn't have a strong reaction to them. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 19 06:46:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Another new cereal I found References: <51a57hF1jd2aaU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:46:02 -0600 Message-ID: <86ps9b422d.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 "Pat" writes: > Evidently, both Target and Wal-Mart have decided to drop the South > Beach cereal line. I did find some new ones, though: Weight Watchers > cereals. > > "Flakes 'n Fiber with Oats" and natural cinnamon flavor, has, in a > 1/2 cup serving: > 17 g total carbs > 9 g total fiber > 1 g sugar. The problem I have with claims like these is simply: how do we know if they're true? In a recent issue of Consumer Reports, they tested some canned soups and found that one soup had four times the sodium it claimed to have. Now I don't care about sodium, but that makes me wonder how accurate the labels are when it comes to high-fiber and low-carb claims on foods that are traditionally high-carb. I'm lucky that I like eggs better than cereal anyway, because I *know* my eggs are low-carb. I do enjoy seeing WW easing toward lower-carb foods, though they'll never admit that's what they're doing. "It's all about the fiber. Really! Carbs are great! Especially the complex ones!" -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 19 06:58:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Not diabetic but feel better on low carb References: <51a7shF1jf98cU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 06:58:43 -0600 Message-ID: <86lkjz41h8.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Martin Barrett writes: > So - forgetting blood sugar for the moment - is it still reasonable > that I feel better on low carb wen i am in no way diabetic? Sure. All "not diabetic" means is that your pancreas is still able to keep up with however much sugar you throw at it. The sugar still has to be dealt with by producing a corresponding amount of insulin, though, leading to all the side-effects of increased insulin in the blood. Insulin kicks your body into storage and healing mode, and it's just not designed to stay in that mode 24/7. Cutting carbs improves that balance, even in people who are still processing the carbs just fine. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 19 08:47:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Another new cereal I found References: <51a57hF1jd2aaU1@mid.individual.net> <86ps9b422d.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> <12r1jml3dcjkjfc@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 08:47:36 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcun3wfr.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Also, label info for similar common foods can be all over the > friggin map. Look at nuts. Go to that section in the store and pick > your fav nut. Then look at every brand sitting there. All over the > map. Especially with processed foods. I normally buy the generic peanut butter, unless the natural no-sugar kind is on sale. It has added sugar, but it's minimal; something like 5-6g of carb per serving. One day Jif or one of the fancy brands was on sale really cheap, and I almost grabbed some, but thought to check the label first. It had something like 17g for the same serving. Are they really adding that much sugar to make it a bit tastier and more addictive, or are the labels just educated guesses? > Of course, even with the inaccuracy, the label info is important and > helpful. One simply needs to understand that it's not exact. For > weight loss, one simply needs to allow margins and make adjustments > based on progress achieved, rather than expecting exacting numbers > to give exacting results. The mere effort of tracking food intake > against activity over time can produce weight loss in those who > understand the process. It becomes a problem if you're counting every gram because you're trying to squeeze under a limit without giving up your comfort foods, though. If you eat that bowl of cereal thinking it has 8 net grams and it really has twice that many (or four times, like with the sodium in that soup), that's a huge difference. Multiply that by three meals (cereal for breakfast, some "low-carb" sandwich bread at lunch, low-carb muffin mix at supper), and you could think you're under 30g and really be closer to 100g. It could make the difference between being in ketosis or not, or having cravings or not. If I were going to eat those kinds of foods, I'd either stick to ones that people here have reported good results with, like the low-carb tortillas, or start monitoring my own blood glucose levels so I could tell when a food was giving me a reaction not accounted for by its label. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 19 19:10:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Almonds? References: <1169125710.310896.188920@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12qv24mbs5fsre5@news.supernews.com> <51c4i3F1j63j4U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:10:35 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzym33lg.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Pat" writes: >>> I'm a nut fiend. >>> >> >> If only all nuts you have the same fate as almonds.... >> >> -- >> Rudy - > Sorry, I don't understand what you just wrote. Can you explain? It's a haiku, just badly formatted: I'm a nut field. If only all nuts you have the same fate as almonds. See? Now it's poetry. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Jan 19 19:27:57 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What can I drink in Britain References: <51acp0F1jkta2U1@mid.individual.net> <1169231924.540475.284470@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:27:57 -0600 Message-ID: <86ps9a32si.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 Big Bill writes: > I read it about five years ago, is that enough, do you think? Does > anyone know of an online list of lo-cal drinks I could peruse at > all? I'm not sure there's such a list, because it's too simple to bother writing down. Drinks with sugar (including fruit juice): bad. Drinks without sweetener: okay. Low- or no-carb alcohol, or drinks with artificial sweetener: maybe okay, use at your own risk. So unsweetened tea and coffee are fine; your choice on the caffeine. Tisanes (tea made from herbs, flowers, whatever else is growing nearby) should be fine too, unsweetened. Milk is pretty carby, so some people mix water into heavy cream to get a similar consistency with far fewer carbs. Fruit juices are out, as well as anything that's been sweetened with sugar: Kool-aid, eggnog, etc. Vegetable juice like V8 might be okay; check the labels like any food. Hard alcohols are zero carb, so drink them straight; just remember that while you're burning the alcohol you aren't burning fat. As for all the diet stuff, some people have trouble with it, and some don't. If you don't already have an addiction to it, there's no point in starting one. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sat Jan 20 10:48:38 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: REC: How to cook meat References: <12qvfmrm3mmk8a2@news.supernews.com> <12qvie4feqsfbf@news.supernews.com> <1169152684.992739.120170@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1169225840.820794.148820@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <51ccj8F1jolpgU1@mid.individual.net> <1169237775.123513.192890@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <51cp7kF1jk7b5U1@mid.individual.net> <1169305060.726149.299470@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2007 10:48:38 -0600 Message-ID: <86irf1zlsp.fsf@cail.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Hollywood" writes: > I can pretty much promise you that every now and again, you eat some > heifer, even in Texas. No question. Not every heifer is saved back for breeding. They can be sent to slaughter for having inferior udders, slow growth rate, or a range of other physical differences from the herd that make them poor cow candidates, but they're fine for eating. A very important animal trait for the large-scale farmer is uniformity -- they select as much as possible for animals that will all breed, calve, and grow at the same rate, so large groups of animals can be kept together without conflict and needing to be sorted often. Oddballs have to go. Also, although most older cows probably do go to burger, cows kept on concrete lots don't stay productive very long, so some of those may be sent to slaughter not that much older than a steer, still young enough to make a good steak. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Jan 22 10:05:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What can I drink in Britain References: <1169152505.868946.173000@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <1169236347.284176.17050@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <14t4r2ddeitf6p3titmr07ougccgocdh5q@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:05:10 -0600 Message-ID: <861wlnavyh.fsf@cail.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Big Bill writes: > Jeez, you go in the wrong pubs. Most places don't do anything like > that now, not out here (Hampton Court, Surrey area). In town they > might all be trying to go gastrofoodie, but not out here, there > isn't the trade. It's not just your country, either. In my part of small-town rural USA, bars (pubs) that serve food aren't exactly low-carb havens. We're talking frozen pizzas, chips, tacos, fried breaded things, sandwiches.... In some cases, you can turn a high-carb meal into a low-carb one, like eating the burger without the bun, but until you get familiar with a place, it's hard to know what your options are going to be. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Jan 22 10:10:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What can I drink in Britain References: <51acp0F1jkta2U1@mid.individual.net> <1169231924.540475.284470@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com> <86ps9a32si.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:10:27 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt3f9h58.fsf@cail.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 Big Bill writes: > On Fri, 19 Jan 2007 19:27:57 -0600, Aaron Baugher wrote: >>As for all the diet stuff, some people have trouble with it, and >>some don't. If you don't already have an addiction to it, there's >>no point in starting one. > Addiction to diet stuff? To the caffeine, presumably. I know many people who claim they can't give up caffeine, because they tried once and were afflicted with all manner of ills. To my mind, that only indicates a greater need to end one's dependency, but we all have to pick our own battles. But I think there can also be a mental or emotional addiction to sweets. Not the chemical cravings that you get with carbs, but just the "I need something sweet after a meal to cleanse my palate" habit. If you don't have that impulse, it's that much easier to stay on plan. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Jan 22 10:30:56 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please give advise if you can. References: <86irf5kbke.fsf@cail.baugher.pike.il.us> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:30:55 -0600 Message-ID: <86sle39g74.fsf@cail.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 BipolarBear writes: > Yup, I am on drugs. I was put on them in the hospital. But to be > honest, I had no idea what else to do. I did not know alot about > what was going on. I mean, after all, they are Dr.s, right? Unfortunately, doctors are as susceptible to fads and myths as anyone. > But your thoughts on the subject are important. And I want to learn > as much as I can. I really want to do whats best for me. And I have > really been honest about wanting to do the right things for myself. That's really all you can do. If you could go back in time 100 years, or even fifty, you'd find yourself in a world where everyone understood that sugars and starches made you fat, rotted your teeth, etc. We just happen to live in a wacky time, diet-wise. Look at it this way: you can probably pick up a used version of Atkins's book at Goodwill or somewhere like that for a dollar. I think I've paid a total of $10 for several low-carb books and cookbooks, and that includes the Protein Power Life Plan tape series. (Which I can't use, because I no longer have a VCR or cassette tape player!) Once you've made that tiny investment, the only other thing you have to buy is food, and you were going to do that anyway, right? Also, you don't have to buy any "low-carb products"; in fact, my personal recommendation would be that you don't mess with that stuff while you're getting started. No super-duper-fibrous cereal, no Ketostix, no chewy bars, no Splenda -- just go around the outside of your grocery store and pick up meat, eggs, cheese, and vegetables. Then hit the canned and frozen isles for stuff like veggies or mushrooms that you didn't buy fresh, and the spices isle to liven up your meals. (Grab a can of Morton Lite Salt for potassium, just in case you have any cramps or muscle tightness.) Then eat. Try it for a month or two, and see how you feel. You can't lose; how could it be BAD for you to eat a lot of fresh, unprocessed food? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Jan 22 10:35:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: diet scams References: <1169373252.270805.64550@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2007 10:35:40 -0600 Message-ID: <86odor9fz7.fsf@cail.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "Erick" writes: > I paid and tried the Diets For Idiots/Idiot proof diet with my > girlfriend. > After paying the fee you have access to a menu generator the gives > you a 11 day plan with 3 cheat days at the end. That sounds like the way I ate for the last year or so, which maintained my weight (luckily), but didn't cause me to lose any. I didn't pay anyone for the plan; I was just lazy and caved in to cravings every week or so until feeling miserable got me back on track. As a way to maintain my current size, it worked fine; but the side effects of running my insulin level up and down drastically like that were pretty rough on me. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Jan 25 08:01:18 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Take a Tip From the Amish References: <7d1gr2d8gpnnk42g8kt1qq0b4ft23qb1c3@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 08:01:13 -0600 Message-ID: <86irevw6hi.fsf@cail.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 JMW writes: > I don't know that I have ever seen an Amish person, male or female, > who was morbidly obese, but nearly all adult Amish females are > "pudgy" fat. I notice this among many farmers I know, Amish or not. Also construction workers and other people who do a lot of hard, physical labor. They don't get really obese, because they work like dogs, getting as much exercise as any gym rat; but they're still able to get pudgy and develop health problems, because they fuel themselves for all that work with large quantities of potatoes, pasta, and bread -- usually followed with home-cooked pie, cake, or cookies. They tend to fatten up a bit over the winter, when there's less physical work to do, and then burn back down to "stout" in the spring. The ones I know personally also exhibit the signs of insulin resistance that we're all familiar with, like crashing for a nap after a high-carb meal, or fighting acid reflux. For the minority who have naturally great insulin sensitivity, all that work makes them very lean, and those are the guys who live into their nineties or longer, often after a life of plenty of smoking and drinking. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Jan 29 07:00:51 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "Corn Sweetener" on label References: <1169746191.926932.14230@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <45b8ff0d$0$266$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu> <1169846114.030744.247050@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12rkup9hk7i5laa@news.supernews.com> <1169849322.545619.200800@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> <12rl1dum0h42feb@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:00:49 -0600 Message-ID: <86odoioum6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "Roger Zoul" writes: > helena wrote: > :: If I feel like :: drinking a soda with HFCS, I don't see any > :: problem with it. It's not gonna hurt me. > > How do you know that? No kidding. Besides, being hit in the head with a shoe probably won't hurt me long-term either, but if you throw one at me, I'm still going to duck. I always hate to shoot down someone who's trying, so if someone tells me she cut back from three sodas a day to three/week, I'm going to congratulate her, even though I know it's not going to make much difference in the insulin/weight-loss sense of things. Or like a couple people I know who cut out all carby solid foods like pasta and bread, but still drink a regular soda every day -- they're almost wasting their time, but bluntly telling them that isn't going to help. I try something like, "Wow, that's a great start; are you feeling a difference yet? Maybe it'll be easier giving things up gradually like that instead of all at once." I know it won't be, but that introduces them to the idea that low-carbing doesn't work on a scale like all their other Oprah diet theories -- if you've been eating 400g of carbs a day, going to 200g doesn't give you half the weight loss. People who picked up low-carbing by word of mouth -- a co-worker's friend's aunt lost 50 pounds on Atkins -- usually don't know that, so it's best to break it to them gently. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Jan 30 11:26:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Another Newbie to the group, but not new to low carb References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:26:50 -0600 Message-ID: <861wlco279.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 63 K-n-D writes: > Hi folks, I have been lurking here for a few weeks and finally > decided to introduce myself. I have been low carb for about a year > now. My start weight was 265 and my doctor thought I should have > surgery to do something about it. I have a lot of physical ailments > and surgery just didn't sound like the right idea. That's impressive. It has to take a lot of guts to decide against a doctor who's telling you you're in desperate enough straits to need surgery. Bravo. > I started out with Protein Power, the went more toward > Atkins....then went to a dietician and settled for a type of > mix-plan, I guess. You found a dietician who created a low-carb plan? Wow, that has to be a rare breed. Maybe things are changing. > It has taken me a long time to lose because I cannot do many > exercises--so it's mostly down to diet. I do have a recumbent bike > but can only do max of 15 minutes a day because my legs won't work > past that. But it's something, eh? Sure, any amount of exercise is good for you. > I have slowly dropped down to 205, which is something because I > plateuad at 206 for 2 whole months. I hit plateaus a lot but I > think it's from the lack of exercise. What do you all think? You didn't mention your goal weight, so I don't know how close you're getting to it. It's normal for weight loss to slow down as you get close, and I think many people's bodies pause for an 'adjustment' period now and then before losing more. It's possible that more exercise (and specifically resistance exercise; if you still have Protein Power, read what they say in there about how pushing your muscles to the limit stimulates the production of HGH and other hormones that help you burn fat and build muscle) would help you break those plateaus, but you can only do what you can do. If there's any way you could add some heavier exercises, it might help. Are you physically unable to do push-ups and the like, or are you simply too weak to finish many? > I thought I would pop in and say hello. Oh, I am 33 and live in > MI...and am married to a very high-protein diet supporter. That is > about all he ever eats and he is skinny as a rail. LOL So anyway, I > do not talk much....probably will pop in and out to see what new > info you all have. :-) That's great, that you live with someone who's on the same page, so you don't have to watch him eat things you miss, and don't have to stock your cupboards full of temptations. All the best; sounds like you're doing great! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Jan 30 11:29:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: lean cusine References: <45be20fc$0$1345$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1ftgvgts3n0yp$.d56aktkp0nbv.dlg@40tude.net> <1170172571.341804.242790@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:29:14 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt34mnit.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 wrush68@yahoo.com writes: > I love them fo rthe variety, the portions, and they're good. Even > the pizzas are good. In your judgment, are the low-carb ones really as low as they say? I don't have much faith in the labeling of this kind of stuff, so I'd rather trust the experience of people who have tried it and found that it didn't slow their weight loss. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Jan 30 15:36:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: a couple of relatively low carb alcoholic drinks References: <1170178615.189325.299260@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:36:06 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5z4mc3d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 tunderbar@hotmail.com writes: > Anybody else with *relatively* low carb drink recipes? I stick with vodka on the rocks if I'm out drinking. Zero carbs, so no messing around with counting grams or worrying about whether I can afford to have one more. Who wants to keep track of numbers when you're drinking? (Not that I've been even tipsy in a long time, but you never know....) Is there any such thing as a low-carb amaretto? I used to love amaretto sours, and I'm sure you can get diet sour mix, but I'd guess the liqueur is pretty sugary in itself. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Jan 30 15:52:19 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Another Newbie to the group, but not new to low carb References: <861wlco279.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 15:52:19 -0600 Message-ID: <86fy9smbcc.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 53 K-n-D writes: > I didn't mention my goal because I do not yet know what it is. I > know I need to drop at least 50 more pounds, I would prefr a bit > more but won't fret if I stall out completely there. I am big boned > anyhow, so 150-ish wouldn't be the end of the world. You mentioned having looked into Protein Power. If you still have the book, or can borrow a copy from your library, it has instructions for figuring out your ideal body weight. Of course, ultimately the "ideal" is the point where you like the way you look and feel, but sometimes it's nice to have a number to shoot for. My ideal weight is 199 pounds, but another number I'm keeping an eye out for is 32 -- my waist measurement the last time I was in good shape as a high school basketball player. > So far, this and walking (in warm weather only) is all I am > permitted to do via my doctors. It's still more than nothing and I > can always tell when I do not keep up a decent schedule. I have > multiple spinal conditions along with fibromyalgia...and some other > things that make moving around difficult at most times. Winters are > the worst! So, I guess my answer to your question would be both; > fibro makes me too weak yet my spine does not allow for it? How is > that for an answer? It sounds like you're doing all you can, then. Fortunately, low-carbing isn't a diet that cheats by putting in the fine print, like a Cheerios commercial: "Only performs advertised miracles if you also work your buns off in the gym." You can lose weight low-carbing without a bit of exercise, if necessary. The insulin/glucagon system still works when you're sitting still. Exercise is more of a companion process than part of the dieting process itself. > Thanks! I think it gets easier and time goes by, actually. I don't > even crave those horrid sugary things...and if I ever break down and > try one I am sick for days! So not worth it. That finally hit me too, after my last lengthy carb binge around Christmas, when I had heartburn and depression and bloating and all that other fun stuff. I asked myself, why am I doing this? I know exactly what I'm doing when I eat that stuff, so I can't blame it on ignorance. It's bad enough now, when a few days back on plan fixes me up. What am I waiting for: waking up from a diabetic coma one of these days to some doctor telling me how to inject myself with insulin? No thanks. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Jan 31 05:04:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Why on earth... References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 05:04:07 -0600 Message-ID: <86bqkfmp94.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "AutomaticDripCoffee" writes: > What the hell - 5 carbs? Should be 1 or 2 at most! Ingredients - > CORN SYRUP SOLIDS! AHHHH! Why on earth would you add corn syrup > solids to an omlette? Just guessing, but: A) As a preservative, coloring agent, or thickening agent. B) To make it a little bit "tastier" to the average consumer, who expects everything to be a notch sweeter than normal. C) There's so much corn syrup in food processing plants that some naturally gets picked up by everything, whether it's in the recipe or not. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Jan 31 15:24:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Can you cook BONE-IN chicken thighs in a George Foreman grill? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:24:02 -0600 Message-ID: <86sldqkhzh.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Utter Simpleton" writes: > Can you cook BONE-IN chicken thighs in a George Foreman grill? If > so, any tips? I've never tried it, but you probably could as long as they were fairly uniformly thick. You could try it, and test with a meat thermometer to make sure they get done all over. The Foreman Grill cookbook, of course -- because they want to sell a lot of units -- makes a big honking deal about taking the fat out of everything. So every recipe calls for boneless, skinless chicken breasts, but those would often be as thick as a bone-in thigh. Speaking of which -- why is it that so many recipes claiming to be low-fat insist on *boneless* chicken? Do they think taking the bone out somehow makes them less fatty? I guess that'd make as much sense as most of the low-fat dogma. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Jan 31 16:51:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Excerpt: SUGAR SHOCK References: <1170282107.014408.78820@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 16:51:11 -0600 Message-ID: <86odoekdy8.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Steve O'Keefe" writes: > Tragically, people who suffer from hypoglycemia are often > misdiagnosed for years. Many are told that they have a > mental illness, and they're often advised to seek therapy > or take psychiatric drugs. But, usually the best treatment > for hypoglycemia is quite simple: Just cut out all sugars > and processed carbs and eat modest amounts of nourishing, > wholesome foods. Unfortunately, I know several people who do just the opposite. They think: problem, low blood sugar -> solution, eat some sugar. Makes sense, right? Their answer to dizziness, mood swings, or other symptoms is to have a candy bar or soda. Which makes them feel better at the moment, of course, but it just worsens the cycle over time. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Feb 1 07:40:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Excerpt: SUGAR SHOCK References: <1170282107.014408.78820@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <86odoekdy8.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12s3m9r32j5ibdb@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 07:40:39 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5z2j8rs.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Sometimes carbs are the right answer (ie, exercised-induced hypos or > insulin OD), but very likely not in the average case, as discussed > here. Oh, absolutely, in emergencies you do what you have to do. I'm talking about people who use them that way daily, at least. Get that intense mid-morning hunger pang accompanied by an inability to focus, a couple hours after you had that big heart-healthy bran muffin with margarine for breakfast? Have a Snickers and a Coke! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Feb 1 21:43:45 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I need food ideas.. References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:43:45 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7nhi5qm.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 63 "Tara Legale" writes: > Being new to low-carbing I am already thinking about what to use in > place of things like tostadas and taco shells. I love Mexican food > and love making tostadas. Any ideas for a substitute to regular > shells? There are low-carb tortillas that are pretty good, usually having 3-5 net carbs depending on the size. I tend to be wary of low-carb claims in packaged foods, but I think LC tortillas have been pretty well vetted by the folks here. > Also ideas of things to use in place of bread. I always liked > pitas. Love gyros, but what can I put gyros meat on instead? A plate? Not to be facetious, but anything you can wrap with bread can be eaten with fork or spoon. One trick to successful LC eating is to forget some of your old eating habits. There's nothing wrong with eating meat and cheese without putting it between pieces or bread, or making beef stew without potatoes. Many recipes that include pasta or other carbs have them because A) they're cheap and easily stored, and B) people got suckered into that Four Food Groups crap that the Food Pyramid people pushed before they caught low-fat fever, and tried to "balance" every meal. The only reason my mom's goulash recipe calls for macaroni, for example, is to stretch the meat and cheese and "balance" the other three food groups. It sure isn't there for flavor. > Pizza. What can I use instead of a dough crust? I've had good luck with the aforementioned LC tortillas. They're thin, but I always preferred thin-crust pizza anyway. For a more 'real' pizza, heat up a large cast iron skillet, put your tortilla in the bottom, top with cheese and your other toppings, and put it back in the oven on high (maybe broil) until everything's bubbling. Some experimentation will help you find the right time and temp for getting the crispness you like. When I'm lazy, I just through the whole thing together on a plate, and pop in the microwave for a few minutes. You don't get the crispy crust that way (unless you really cook it a long time), but it still tastes good. This also works when I'm out of tortillas; just put all the same stuff on a plate and nuke until bubbly. > Thanks in advance for any ideas! Anything you suggest will just > help me not miss my favorite foods! Some of my favorites are ice cream and potato chips, so there's not much I can do about missing those. I just tell myself I'll be able to have them again in moderation after I reach my goal, although I'll never be able to go back to eating them regularly. In the meantime, pork rinds make a decent crunchy snack substitute, and I just found that the spicy ones go well with the French-onion dip I got on sale the other day. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Feb 1 21:51:34 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Swedish study shows fat good for children References: <1170366279.435718.9760@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <45c26dc6$0$262$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:51:33 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzy5i5dm.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 "Bob in CT" writes: > It's nonsense. What they did here was take a bunch of kids who ate > bad food, which happened to have a higher saturated fat, and > compared them to kids who ate better food, which happened to have > lower saturated fat content, then blamed the difference on types of > fat. Why not amount/types of carbs? You could just as easily have > reached the same conclusions, based solely on carb content and type > (i.e., high/low glycemic index and preferably load). As far as I can tell, to the health establishment and most of the press, carbs are metabolically inert. They're convinced that fat and cholesterol cause all sorts of reactions within the body -- without needing any evidence for how those reactions take place -- and they'll grudgingly admit that protein is used for some critical things. Yet they seem to think that carbs are magically converted into energy (in a one-to-one calorie ratio, of course; can't forget that), while neither they nor their conversion has any effect on the body whatsoever. Except that they're somehow necessary for brain function and keeping your kidneys from falling out, of course. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Feb 2 10:02:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I need food ideas.. References: <86y7nhi5qm.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12s5gg676k9qp27@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 10:02:42 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcu4im3h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "UsenetID" writes: > When I gotta have crunch, I slice daikon really thin on my mandolin > (almost see-through!) and drop them in the deep fryer. When they > get curly and brown - about 30 minutes at 425 degrees - I sprinkle > garlic powder and parmesan cheese on them. I'm sure you could > season them any way you wanted to, though. Excellent! Nice; I'll have to try that next time I see daikons in the store. I like radishes in general, but while they're crunchy, it's just not the same crunch you get with fried starchy foods. This idea might do the trick. I'm thinking fried onions with a Parmesan coating could be worth a try too, although the higher carb content of onions might require small servings. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Feb 2 18:08:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ... a George Foreman grill? References: <12s4gtdie0s947a@news.supernews.com> <12s6e80edr1de41@news.supernews.com> <12s6mg02oehdkf9@news.supernews.com> <12s78bb671vhk08@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:08:07 -0600 Message-ID: <861wl8hzmg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I guess I should have caught on when you mentioned the scapper > thing...I can't even find mine. I too start cleaning mine while > it's still hot...but I just use a soaked sponge to transfer hot > soapy water from the sink to the grill surface....using the trays to > catch the spill. That works well enough but I think it would still > be much easier to just lift the grill off into soapy water and > scrub. If mine cools off while I'm eating, I plug it in for a couple minutes, then pull it over and drop the front feet into the (empty) sink, letting it sort of hang on the edge of the sink with the back feet while I hold the lid up with one hand and take a soaked sponge to it with the other. It's not as complicated as it sounds, but removable plates would certainly be nice. The thrift store across the street always has a couple of the older models, but if they ever get the removable kind, they don't stay around long. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Feb 6 00:18:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ... a George Foreman grill? References: <12s4gtdie0s947a@news.supernews.com> <12s6e80edr1de41@news.supernews.com> <52jv52F1m0ev7U1@mid.individual.net> <12secgb15359c29@news.supernews.com> <1170688194.429579.148420@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <12sej85qf5v3j69@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 00:18:48 -0600 Message-ID: <861wl36c6v.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "Utter Simpleton" writes: > It was the entire product category when it started. The other > grills didn't compete - they were too complex. Their removable > plates were a PROBLEM the Foreman grill was trying to solve. I've seen a couple different pre-Foreman grills, and they suck AND blow. Heavy things that look awkward as heck to use, and would obviously be a huge pain to clean. They didn't have the slope of the Foreman grill, so you had to clean all the squeezin's out of somewhere in the machine. (The way everything runs off in the Foreman grill can make things too dry/lean if you overcook them *at all*, but it sure makes it cleaner.) I bought a big waffle maker (4 waffles at once) for $5 because it had removable, reversible plates (waffle surface on one side, flat with a trough around the edge on the other side). I figured I'd be able to make burgers on it, and the fat wouldn't run off as much as with the Foreman, and I'd be able to remove the plates for washing. That was true, but what I didn't foresee was how much splattering the Foreman prevents by having the sides curl around the food somewhat. The waffle maker cooked burgers, but it threw grease everywhere, and the whole thing -- and the counter and wall behind it -- needed cleaning afterwards. George is a big goof, but good for him. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Feb 7 05:28:30 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Study links gallstone to rapid weight loss References: <1170814873.787897.176290@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <45C93A9F.9030409@revealed.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 05:28:30 -0600 Message-ID: <86d54m436p.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Jbuch writes: > Yes, Atkins opponents will connect LC to anything they can think > of. It is emotinal, not logical. At least it's been a while since anyone asked me how I live without kidneys -- since low carb makes them fall out, you know. Maybe that particular bit of nonsense has died out. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Feb 8 07:35:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Roger? References: <12skme2chr62t14@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:34:59 -0600 Message-ID: <863b5gvkl8.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I still check the group everyday, though. And there are several > others who do as well. The volume of useful/meaningful posts is way > down though. It doesn't really bother me. You get out what you put > in. Keep posting, though. I don't really mind it, myself. A year or two ago, there was so much traffic here (good and bad) that I couldn't even read all the on-topic stuff. Now I can read everything that matters, and by low-scoring anything cross-posted into the fat-acceptance groups or posted by certain individuals, the group is pretty clean. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Feb 11 17:27:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Bad Aspects of Atkins True or False ?? --Re: I'm worried about you guys References: <1171205303.112296.56340@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1171212648.745745.307630@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:27:09 -0600 Message-ID: <86odo0jmwi.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > It amazes me that you guys would take the bait and waste time with a > BS post from a skunk like gray asphalt. It's good practice for when people in real life ask these kinds of questions seriously -- not trolling at all, just confused by all the misinformation about there. My grandma was telling me this weekend that I may get away with eating all this fat and cholesterol now while I'm young (sort of), but someday a doctor will tell me I have to give up my eggs and butter. I told her if that happens, I'll get another doctor. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Feb 11 17:35:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Mean people in this newsgroup References: <7bqss29gvllhvdkustlllja0b57js3d9dn@4ax.com> <1171227487.878861.201260@q2g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 17:35:41 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5yojmia.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "pbd22" writes: > i agree with the original poster. i joined this group just few days > ago and asked a question about dieting. the responses had nothing to > do with the post, but attacked the wording of the question (which was > not offensive in the least). seems like the people here aren't the > usual helpful, friendly types i have come to expect from google > forums. If you're hoping to get people to help you, it'd be a good idea to help them first. Writing without capitalization makes your posts hard to read and comprehend, and makes the people who do slog through them feel less inclined to respond helpfully. I don't expect perfect grammar and spelling (from anyone but myself); but to put it bluntly, if you can't be bothered to use the shift key, I can't be bothered to answer your question. If that makes me a mean person, I can live with it. And not that you need to know this to post well and get help, but this isn't a Google forum, no matter how much Google might like to obfuscate that fact. This is a Usenet newsgroup, which existed long before Google -- before what we know of as the Internet, even. Google is a web-based gateway to Usenet and an archive of it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Feb 12 07:55:34 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: update and thanks References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:55:33 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7n3o4yy.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Ophelia" writes: > At the end of November I asked for advice on eating very low carb > and had some wonderful advice. > I got on the scales for the first time and I have lost 28 pounds so > far:)) Wow, that's excellent; keep up the good work! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Feb 12 20:01:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: update and thanks References: <86y7n3o4yy.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <53bm7kF1r3l19U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:01:23 -0600 Message-ID: <86zm7iiznw.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 76 "Ophelia" writes: > No I am not doing Atkins or any other recognised plan so far as I > know. I eat only meat, fish, cheese, eggs, cream, butter, oil. I > eat no fruit or veggies. I am not conscious of eating carbs but I am > told there are a few in cheese and eggs. Yes, you're probably getting a few. (Not that it matters.) Each egg has maybe .5g, and cheese usually runs 1g/ounce or less, except for some of these flavored shredded cheeses I've bought lately, like "taco cheese", that claim 2g/ounce. Spices are condiments like mayo have some too, if you use them. No big deal, when you're not squeezing under a limit. I think I'm going to follow your example for the next week or so. I've stayed perfectly on plan since the first of the year, and have been feeling great, so I "rewarded" myself by gorging on cake and ice cream at my nephew's birthday party this weekend. Fortunately I nipped it in the bud today before all the symptoms of carb consumption could come back, but the cravings have been intense! I have a huge urge to run down to the store for some Potato Sticks right now; good thing it's sleeting out. I'm also starting a new job this week, so a week of simple meat/egg/cheese meals will be perfect for stomping those cravings and leaving me plenty of time and energy to focus on work. > I have never been constipated and I have loads of energy. Of course > my energy levels have risen because of the weight loss but I am > feeling very healthy too. I tried to add some nuts but they upset > my stomach so I cut them out. I drink alcohol ie Gin and low cal > tonic and I drink coffee with heavy cream. That is about it I > think:) You're getting a few carbs in the cream (6-7g/cup), but again, no problem since you're not pushing up against the limit. That's why I always recommend that people stick to very-low-carb foods at first, no matter what plan they're doing -- it's just easier. Yes, you can fit carrots into a low-carb plan, but you're going to have to be more careful than if you stick with broccoli and lettuce (or no vegetables at all). Better to keep it simple at first, and expand to include more borderline foods later. (Which is really the whole point of Atkins's restricted list of foods on Induction, for people who do that plan.) > I am never hungry and have to remind myself to eat sometimes if I am > busy. That's probably the best sign (other than weight loss) that you're on the right track. (The other one for me being the immediate cessation of acid reflux.) I find that even when I do get hungry on LC, it's almost a curious sensation. I'll be sitting here and suddenly realize, "Hmm, I'm hungry. Do I feel like eating, or do I want to finish what I'm working on first?" It almost feels *good*. When I'm eating carbs, hunger isn't a physical sensation; it's a compulsion. I have to eat, or I can't get any work done. I will *literally* find myself walking into the kitchen without having thought about what I'm going there for, and I'm useless until I eat. So much for a "reward," huh? Anyway, don't let people tell you you're doing 'it' wrong. You've made up your own plan, using your own judgment, and it's clearly working. Sure, vegetables are good for you, but getting your weight down and stopping the spiral to diabetes is the most important thing. If the best way for you to do that is to cut everything green out of your diet for a while, so be it. You can eat vegetables during all those extra years you'll be living, thanks to sticking to your plan now. :-) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Feb 12 20:10:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Roger? References: <12skme2chr62t14@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 20:10:33 -0600 Message-ID: <86vei6iz8m.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Beth Friedman writes: > That last one is me. I'll have been maintaining for two years at > the end of this month. Still read this group regularly, but don't > have much to say. A couple years ago, we were learning so much. There were new studies coming out every day revealing the advantages of low-carb. People were inventing recipes and finding new LC ingredients, and hunting for doctors that wouldn't try to get them committed for eating bacon. There was just a ton of new stuff happening in the field. There are still things to learn, but now most of the studies coming out are telling us things we already know; they're only news to the mainstream press. We have numerous recipe books and sites to choose from, and even small groceries carry things like low-carb tortillas. There just isn't as much constant interactive support needed on those things. This group is still a great resource when you do have a question, or just need to be reminded that you're not crazy, though. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Feb 13 14:11:48 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Roger? References: <12skme2chr62t14@news.supernews.com> <86vei6iz8m.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1171388160.368756.199190@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:11:46 -0600 Message-ID: <86abzhizr1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > It also had to do with how many people were starting. Now the > popularity of low carb is back down near what it was before the > short term fad. More people starting then meant more people > looking for and finding completely new info. A couple years ago, it was almost a little cultish, to be honest. Not that we were being brainwashed or had lost command of our faculties, but just the feeling that you understood something that no one else out there did -- and the more you talked about it, the more people looked at you funny like you shaved your head and were sitting in your backyard at night waiting for the aliens to pick you up. If you were low-carbing 3+ years ago, you probably didn't know anyone else in real life who was doing it, or maybe you had one friend who clued you into the idea, but everyone else thought it was a phase you were going through. Your doctor certainly wasn't on your side, and restaurants and grocery stores weren't any help either. Now I'm guessing most of us know other people who are low-carbing or did successfully in the past. I also know plenty of people who aren't doing it themselves, but they've seen the results enough to know it's not a stupid fad. (Generally, they think it would work for them, but they simply don't think they could handle giving up their pasta/soda/bread/whatever.) So there are other people to talk to about it besides the gang here at asd.l-c. But I'd say you hit on the main reason for the drop in traffic: it's not a fad anymore. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Feb 13 17:12:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Roger? References: <12skme2chr62t14@news.supernews.com> <86vei6iz8m.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1171388160.368756.199190@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <86abzhizr1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1171400721.863219.22260@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 17:12:34 -0600 Message-ID: <8664a5irdp.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > I've not had problems with restaurants. They take custom orders > unless there's a language barrier. I get the point of assorted low > carb products but grocery stores have always carried lots of > veggies and such so I haven't had troubles on that front either. I don't either, but I'd imagine that a person with "dieting" experience, on deciding to go low-carb, might go to the store looking for products stamped "Low Carb!" the way he used to look for things saying "99% Fat Free!" There didn't used to be any of that; then for a while there was a low-carb section and signs hanging all over the vegetable and cheese sections proclaiming those things low-carb. Now we're back to not much labeling (in my store, anyway) except for the products that label themselves, like the LC tortillas. > And right now we're in at the point were folks remember the fall of > the fad as recent. Give it another couple of years and how well it > works will see the popularity grow in a non-bubble manner again > I say grazing into a cheap and foggy crystal ball .... I figure the next big surge will come whenever someone comes up with a carb version of Olestra. We'll get a slug of new products, and all the people who "couldn't" low-carb because they'd miss pasta too much will decide it's their time. Then the question will be whether it really works, and whether it turns out to be harmful in some way. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Feb 14 10:14:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low Carb Frozen Dinners from Weight Watchers "Smart Ones" ??? References: <9utAh.771$dz7.393@newsfe09.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:14:23 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt2khg2o.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 Jbuch writes: > Do they explicitly define their Core Plan as Low Carb? Or is this > something that one deduces from looking at the Core Plan? I don't know what they officially call it, but I doubt they'll ever admit it's low-carb, because that'd mean admitting they were wrong for so long, and people might realize they don't need to pay WW to do it. They'll just quietly limit the overall carbs while covering it with some hand-waving about simple versus complex carbs. I've mentioned here before that in talking with people on WW, I've noticed that their diet is starting to sound a lot like a low-fat version of mine. Since it's also low-fat, they must be getting the bulk of their calories from protein, and the meals are probably low-calorie enough that I'd have to eat a couple of them to keep my energy up, so their carb level might not fit in my plan at that point. Still, it's good to see, even if it's a little frustrating that they'll never admit the shift outright or give credit where it's due. Just think, 10 years ago, a plain baked potato was considered the ultimate diet food. If dieters are eating fewer carbs, that means less diabetes and heart disease, so it's a start, anyway -- even if they don't know they're doing it or why. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Feb 14 10:15:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Ramen Noodles Diet References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:15:41 -0600 Message-ID: <86sld8hg0i.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 dhiller@dont-email.com writes: > Due to poverty all I eat is Ramen noodles. Is that considered a low > carb diet? Yes, Ramen noodles are the lowest carb form of all. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Feb 16 16:03:34 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eat Low Carb - Go To HELL References: <1171581293.508346.307270@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> <1171647482.890159.87260@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <12tbvp72qhf6967@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:03:33 -0600 Message-ID: <8664a1g3pm.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Opinicus" writes: > I've never heard of anyone eating a full-grown goat except out of > dire necessity however. I imagine the meat would be terribly gamey. If they're like other animals, I'd guess it'd be okay as long as they were female or castrated. An old cow never really gets gamey, although the meat does get tough. There's always sausage, though. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sat Feb 17 08:28:55 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ... a George Foreman grill? References: <12s4gtdie0s947a@news.supernews.com> <3f97s2d4th05ffalc4gl5dg4cnrabdsc37@4ax.com> <12sec9h4kchsu6f@news.supernews.com> <2bmdnerReYkOA0vYnZ2dnUVZ_oLinZ2d@bright.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:28:55 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejooeu3c.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Jake writes: > I like George Foreman. I have a closetfull of his clothes. That's not very nice; you should really give them back. :-) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Feb 19 06:06:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: MSG in Soup From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 06:06:29 -0600 Message-ID: <864ppicpx6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 Do you guys have trouble with MSG in things? For supper last night, I threw together cooked ground beef, a can of green beans, a can of cream of mushroom soup, and a small can of mushrooms. The whole thing amounted to about 25 net carbs, so since it looked like at least 3 meals, I should have been fine. After only a couple bowls (less than I expected to eat), I started feeling bloated like I'd eaten a whole bucket of mashed potatoes. The feeling stuck with me for the rest of the evening -- a few hours, at least -- and I even had some mild heartburn, which I never get on LC. It hit me after a while that it was the same feeling I used to get when filling up at a Chinese buffet: bloated yet still hungry in an odd way, and feeling like it's hard to take a deep breath. I never feel like that on low-carb, not even in the first week, when I'm stuffing myself with pound after pound of meat to stave off cravings. That made me think of MSG, which of course is an ingredient in the soup. I don't suppose it'll hurt me as far as diet goes (as long as the soup was correctly labeled as per carbs), but it was awfully unpleasant. I guess I'll have to start making my own cream of mushroom soup. That should make it lower-carb anyway, if I use something better than "modified food starch" as a thickener. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Feb 21 12:02:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Maintenance Shmaintenance References: <0y5Ch.64170$wc5.59422@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <1171988283.950772.158210@v45g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <1172076467.114794.165700@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:02:10 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt2bpexp.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Hollywood" writes: > so, what I'm talking about isn't cheating. It's making sure your > baselines are correct. My pop does holidays big, especially > Thanksgiving. He cooks stuff. He watches carbs, but he's not a slave > to it. In _Protein Power_, they talk about planned off-days. So instead of just saying, "I've done so well that I'm going to go have a bucket of ice cream," you say, "I've done so well that I'm going to go have a bucket of ice cream, and tomorrow morning I'm going right back on Stage I intervention." You plan ahead just how long this little "vacation" is going to last, so you don't have to decide when to end it after you're already on that insulin rush. You also go back to the strictest phase (Induction, for Atkins-ites) for a few days afterwards, to cut any cravings as quickly as possible and make sure you're back on track. It's like jumping into a freezing-cold swimming pool -- make sure you've got a bunch of warm towels waiting for you when you get out, and make sure you know where the ladder is first. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Feb 21 20:15:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Healthy Women With High Cholesterol At Increased Risk Of Stroke - Flawed Study ? References: <12topu54phn5gec@news.supernews.com> <12tor2e5ngl1b@news.supernews.com> <12tp0s9a4p68g67@news.supernews.com> <1172086682.410954.18880@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:15:09 -0600 Message-ID: <86slczos42.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Bob in CT" writes: > I think something potentially similar is that in the cholesterol = > bad (along with saturated fat = bad) debate is that the outcome was > already decided well before any real studies were performed. This > seems to be similar to the global warming debate, where it appears > that the end result (humans are causing global warming) has been > decided before there were/are any real studies on the issue. At > least this is my take, without knowing much about the global warming > debate. Yes, there's a interesting comparison there. We want to believe in global warming because we like blaming ourselves for things, and we like thinking we're that significant. We also want to believe certain things about food and how our diet will evolve in the future. With diet, I've thought for years that a lot of this stuff grew out of vegetarianism, veganism, futurism, etc. People -- even many people who eat meat today -- want to believe that meat-eating is immoral or at least backwards, and someday we won't eat meat anymore. Cavemen ate lots of meat; our grandfathers ate less meat than them; we eat less meat than our grandfathers. Therefore "progress" means less use of animal products, until we become Marx's Perfect Mr. Potato Head. Or something. So most of the dietary bogeymen of the past few decades have been things that are associated with animal products: cholesterol, salt, nitrates, fat, particular kinds of fat. It's possible that some of those things really are bad for you; but it's hard to tell, because it's belief that drives those recommendations, more than facts. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Feb 22 14:51:34 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: MSG in Soup References: <864ppicpx6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12tj99ogd0ctq20@news.supernews.com> <12trassnk9ral77@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:51:34 -0600 Message-ID: <868xepex0p.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Sam wrote: > :: interesting article purportedly on how there's nothing wrong > w/msg: :: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=535 > It doesn't change my opinion one bit, I avoid it. I'm having a hard time figuring out what else could have caused such a strong reaction. Even if the labels lied and the carbs on the soup and vegetables were double or triple what they claimed, the total still would've been lower than a typical American meal. I suppose it's possible that I had a mild case of food poisoning from something, or was just slightly sick; but that bloated, overfull feeling was very familiar. I'll definitely be watching to see what happens next time, since I still have one can of cream of mushroom soup in the cabinet to use. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Feb 22 15:05:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Healthy Women With High Cholesterol At Increased Risk Of Stroke - Flawed Study ? References: <12topu54phn5gec@news.supernews.com> <12tor2e5ngl1b@news.supernews.com> <12tp0s9a4p68g67@news.supernews.com> <1172086682.410954.18880@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> <86slczos42.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1172159549.804784.284660@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:05:06 -0600 Message-ID: <864ppdewe5.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > 2) When I discuss eating grain I understand that cultivating grain > enabled the growth of civilization, but humans aren't evolved to eat > grass seeds and it really isn''t healthy for us. Right. I wrote somewhere that grain is good for human civilization, just not for individual humans. > So I view grain as a temporary enabler where the "temporary" is on > an evolutionary scale of millenia. Humans started cultivating > grain, civilization grew to the point that more and more humans can > afford to eat meat and veggies and fruit and nuts and eggs and such. > At some point all of humanity will have that choice and grain can > fade to use as animal fodder and making beer and whiskey. Makes sense to me, but I think most regular people would see that as very improbable -- almost a dystopian view of the future. You can watch pretty much any science-fiction show, and if someone beams down to a planet and sees people herding livestock, you *know* immediately that it's a primitive and probably dangerous society. It's become a shorthand: eat animals == unevolved. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Feb 23 16:42:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Artificial sweeteners question References: <45ddef27$0$3999$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <45de0805$0$3485$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <45defcf5$0$28066$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:42:12 -0600 Message-ID: <86slcwbinv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 Joey Goldstein writes: > Jeri wrote: >> Joey Goldstein wrote: >> >>> BTW Is Splenda considered to be a sugar alcohol, and should 1/2 its >>> gram count be considered when calculating net carbs? >> If you're talking about Splenda in manufactured products then the >> answer is no. >> If you're talkng about Splenda in packets that you add to foods to >> sweeten them then the answer is yes you should count ~1g carb per >> packet. Understand though that it's not the sucralose that has the >> carbs. It's the maltodextrin fillers that the sucralose is cut with >> that contain the carbs. > > Geez. "That it's cut with". Reminds me of buying cocaine. *Reminds* you? How long has it been since you've been clean? ;-) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Feb 23 16:46:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Artificial sweeteners question References: <1172172321.676250.121880@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> <1172185339.213097.78830@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> <1172249282.027457.79870@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:46:24 -0600 Message-ID: <86odnkbigv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > I figure splenda will end up being less problematic than sugar, but > no magic bullet. I grew stevia a couple years ago. I think two of the five seeds I bought sprouted, one died soon after that, and the one that survived was always week-looking and never got very big. I ended up getting at least a leaves from it, but after all that trouble for what little I got, they're too precious to ever use. :-) I don't like sugar in my tea anyway. I guess I could use them to sweeten some pure chocolate or whipped cream or something like that. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Feb 26 08:01:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diabetes Diet Semantics Discussion Thread References: <1172420230.123763.57720@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <12u3ed7je3h6693@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:01:01 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5y59fxe.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 "Roger Zoul" writes: > As one who has had diabetes for 26 years, I know I'm not cured, but > I live with good control. I tend to agree, but I can see the usefulness of the other side of the argument. If you eat arsenic, you will be afflicted with headaches, lightheadedness, vomiting, and a couple dozen other symptoms, including eventual death. If you stop eating arsenic, and those symptoms go away, have you "cured" them? Obviously, if you start eating arsenic again, they will come back, so does that mean you are only "controlling" your susceptibility to arsenic poisoning by restricting your intake? I think that points out why people are resistant to the "control" attitude. No one would ever say he was "controlling" his arsenic poisoning by restricting it from his diet, because we don't think of arsenic as a food that you should normally eat. By talking about controlling diabetes, I think there's a certain amount of assumption there that eating diabetes-causing or -worsening foods is *normal*, and therefore we're doing something out of the ordinary by restricting them. Obviously, there's another difference -- arsenic will give anyone arsenic poisoning, while carbs will not give every human diabetes (at least not within each person's lifespan, although I suspect that if everyone lived long enough and ate enough grain and sugar, it would become near universal). Anyway, I don't see it so much as an argument with a right or wrong answer, once you get away from the semantics. I see it as a situation where a different attitude works for different people. The AA, "I'll always have this problem so I must maintain eternal vigilance" approach works for some people, but not others. Some people might be better off with a "Heck with vigilance; I should never even *want* to eat that poison!" attitude. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Feb 26 08:03:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I am biased in favor of artificial sweeteners. References: <54f2d7F1uss01U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:03:52 -0600 Message-ID: <86fy8t9fsn.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Pat" writes: > If it's overblown as you say, why do the states require newborns to > be tested?? I don't have a dog in this fight, but *surely* you're not whipping out "because the state says so" as an argument. Food pyramid, ya know? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Feb 27 07:33:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Garlic's effect on cholesterol References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:33:23 -0600 Message-ID: <86ps7v7mjg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Jbuch writes: > Bob in CT wrote: >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17346648/ >> Why didn't they test the effectiveness on prevention of heart >> disease, instead of using cholesterol levels? Idiots! >> > > Short term study to look at cholesterol levels. > > Long term study to look at prevention of heart disease. And they *believe* the two are the same thing anyway, so why not use the easier and faster test? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Feb 27 07:46:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins and Cancer References: <%3GDh.187759$dB4.44876@fe08.news.easynews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 07:46:06 -0600 Message-ID: <86lkij7ly9.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "B29" writes: > It is hard to understand how very low cholesterol readings are > related to pneumonia and suicide. It makes no sense to me. I don't have any theories, but it wouldn't be that surprising, since cholesterol is involved in more body processes than heart health. For example, exposure to sunlight causes the conversion of cholesterol to vitamin D to take place in your skin. So if you're on a typically modern nutrient-poor diet in the first place, *and* you avoid the sun out of fear of skin cancer, *and* you keep your cholesterol levels very low, it seems likely that you'd be low in vitamin D, which could have further effects not easily related to your cholesterol levels. There could be many such chain reactions. (When I first heard about this cholesterol + sunlight = D process, I wondered if the cholesterol fear-mongers would become tanning fans. Nope, and I should have known better. The sun is free, after all, and can't be patented like a new statin drug. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Feb 28 17:33:22 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LC Research References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 17:33:22 -0600 Message-ID: <86ps7t503h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: >> >>Research Volunteers Needed - ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL > "The first 2 weeks consist of a weight stabilization period, during > which subjects will be required to eat an average American > diet. This is followed by the 6 week weight loss period where > subjects will be put on a low calorie, low-carbohydrate-high > fat/protein diet. During the weight loss period, calories will be > cut by 50% compared to the weight stabilization period. This will be > followed by a 2 week weight maintenance period during which calories > will be added to the diet to maintain the new weight. Appropriate > adjustments will be made to keep the subject's weight stable." Why "low calorie"? Seems to me, if it succeeds, that'll just allow people to give the credit to the low-calorie part instead of the low-carb part. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 1 07:26:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LC Research References: <86ps7t503h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:26:28 -0600 Message-ID: <86d53t3xiz.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Jbuch writes: > But you forgot the part that if the study doesn't succeed, the blame > will go to the low-carb part. Which seems likely. Cutting calories by 50% certainly has nothing to do with low-carb eating, and starving the test subjects the whole time is just going to encourage recidivism and weight gain when they go into their maintenance (whatever that means to them) period. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 1 07:39:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Stupid Labeling From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:39:08 -0600 Message-ID: <868xeh3wxv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 I ran across an example of stupid labeling a couple days ago. I was making brats with kraut, so I grabbed a one-pound can of sauerkraut from the cupboard. Glancing at the label, I saw it had 3g carb and 1g fiber, for a net of 2g. Sounded great. Then I looked up, and saw there were *14* servings per can, a serving being 2 tablespoons. What the Hell? Who eats two tablespoons of sauerkraut? Are they assuming that most of it gets used as a condiment on hot dogs? It's still a low-carb food, obviously; you'd have to eat the whole can at one meal to exceed the limit on most plans. Still, divisions like that are annoying and stupid. The same is true of all the mayo brands that clearly list sugar in the label but claim zero carbs because the serving size is so small. What if you're making some sort of salad where you use a cup of it? Obviously it's still not zero carbs, but what is it? You can't know from the label. All labels should give the breakdown for the *entire* container. If they want also to break it down further into some theoretical serving size, that's fine. Here's why: Because of rounding, that can of kraut could really have anywhere between 21g and 35g net carbs, if you assume the per-serving amount is between 1.5 and 2.5. You always lose accuracy when you multiply rounded numbers. If the can said 33g/can, on the other hand, you could divide that by any serving size smaller than a whole can and still be accurate. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 1 13:39:03 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LC Research References: <86ps7t503h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <86d53t3xiz.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1172757244.616216.221710@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:39:02 -0600 Message-ID: <86vehk3ga1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "Hollywood" writes: > While I agree that calories are somewhat secondary given the > metabolic advantage, the insulin metabolism, and the hunger quashing > effects of LC diets, even Atkins wrote that at some point, calories > matter (Atkins for Life). The Drs. Eades concur. That may be true 'at some point,' as you say, but it becomes more important in the late near-goal stages of weight loss, which these people may never reach in the limited time of this test. The general attitude on calories that I get from Atkins and Eades is: *if* you're following the plan correctly, and *if* you've already eliminated foods that seem to stall some people like artificial sweeteners, and *if* you're eating until you're full, and you're still stuck, *then* you should start restricting your calories by a small amount and see if it helps. Calorie restriction is never the first step. I think if you wrote the Eadeses and told them you had to restrict your calories by 50% of maintenance to get the plan to work, they'd tell you you simply couldn't have been doing it correctly, or had some serious medical problems with your metabolism that should be looked at. This study seems designed to produce exactly the kind of post-diet recidivism that the experts like to claim is unavoidable. > By 50% seems like a Kimkins kind of thing. Lot of LC diets out > there, and not everything is Atkins-South Beach-Protein > Power(LifePlan). I wouldn't do Kimkins if it were the only thing > that actually worked, but that's me, I guess. I'm not familiar with that one, but I don't see the point. Sure, starvation at a 50% level will force me to lose weight, however unhealthy the process may be; but if I were going to do that, why bother with low-carb too? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 1 13:47:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Stupid Labeling References: <868xeh3wxv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12udqs86nkabg65@news.supernews.com> <1172766209.759641.308220@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 13:47:37 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6s83fvq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per > serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs > there are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it would > be a good idea to include the actual total number on the label. For > one thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty. Right. It's not that I can't multiply 14 by 2; it's that I don't know what the 2 really stands for. > In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious. > Saurkraut should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that high, I > would think it would have to have added sugar. Amazing; as much as I rant about added sugar in products, it never occurred to me to check the kraut. Sure enough, there it is: "cabbage, water, sugar, salt, caraway seed." Considering how much salt is in kraut, that must be quite a bit of sugar to come ahead of it in the list. Guess that's what I get for buying the fancy brand-name when it was on sale. I'm pretty sure the cheap stuff I usually get doesn't have any sugar. I should make my own anyway, next time cabbage is on sale. I made some a few years ago when I had a garden, and it was very easy and tasted great. You don't need a crock or anything with the recipe I used. You just mix the cabbage and salt, fill the jars and screw the tops on as tight as you can, and put it away to ferment with a tray under the jars to catch the juice that gets forced out as it cooks. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 1 16:15:30 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Stupid Labeling References: <868xeh3wxv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12udqs86nkabg65@news.supernews.com> <1172766209.759641.308220@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <12ue4c9bei14c9f@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 16:15:30 -0600 Message-ID: <86abyw3919.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 Jbuch writes: > It's almost a losing proposition. Partly because we are a NON-Metric > nation. It has nothing to do with metric/Imperial. This can of sauerkraut has both; I just wrote about the Imperial measures because they're what I use. If, instead of 2 tablespoons, I pay attention to the 30g serving size at 14 servings/can, I still have the exact same problem with multiplying a rounded 2g of carbs up to a realistic serving amount. The problem is with stupid serving sizes; not how they're measured. I don't really like the idea of setting a standard of 100g (or any specific number) either. For the most part, when we used canned or packaged food, we use it all, so it makes the most sense to give the values for what's in the can. If I use half a can, I think I can manage to divide by two. On the other hand, if a can contains one pound (454 grams) of food, and the label gives the info for 100g, I'll have to multiply everything by 4.54 to get the real totals. That's not exactly an improvement over multiplying by 14. When I was in grade school in the mid-1970s, my teachers assured me that we'd all better learn the metric system because the USA would be converting wholesale Any Day Now. We watched films showing how if we didn't learn it, live it, and love it, we'd all get speeding tickets when we started running into kph speed limit signs and assumed the state had raised the speed limit to 100mph overnight. Of course, we were also told that if we didn't use metric, we wouldn't be able to trade with the rest of the world, and the Europeans (later the Japanese, then the Europeans again, and more recently the Chinese) would leave us in the dust economically. I'm still waiting. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 2 08:51:03 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Stupid Labeling References: <868xeh3wxv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12udqs86nkabg65@news.supernews.com> <1172766209.759641.308220@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <12ue4c9bei14c9f@news.supernews.com> <1172779119.442881.112490@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <54ql31F22c7s4U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 08:51:03 -0600 Message-ID: <86slcn1yy0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 39 "Pat" writes: > IIRC, when the US was supposed to change to the metric system back > in the 1970's, it was thought to be "un-American" and so many people > opposed it. But, we were in the "cold war" back then, too. Despite my anti-metric-teaching rant, I'm enough of a science and math geek to realize the metric system *is* easier to learn. However, our own system works just fine too -- maybe requiring a few more glances at the "Measures and Conversions" page in the back of the almanac, but that's not enough incentive for a generation that grew up on one system to learn a completely different one. My objection was never to the metric system itself, but to the main reason we were given in school for converting to it, which was: "We must do it because everyone else is doing it." The same reason school kids learn to use drugs, basically. If they'd convinced me to look at everything that way, I wouldn't be sitting here eating sausage and eggs for breakfast; I'd be having a bran muffin and a glass of orange juice, followed by a handful of Rolaids for the heartburn and possibly a shot of insulin. > As for being "scientifically illiterate", that's just too funny to > take seriously. Well, it's not like most of the scientific advances in my lifetime came from one nation....oh wait. It does seem kind of funny to think that the people who learn the complicated and arcane system for measurement -- and often learn metric besides -- are somehow the dumb ones. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Mar 4 09:40:18 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: correct words DO matter References: <54r2kuF224orqU1@mid.individual.net> <1172854969.234007.210540@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:40:16 -0600 Message-ID: <86d53pyq3j.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 "Hollywood" writes: > On Mar 2, 11:45 am, "Pat" wrote: >> Today, I got to read a complaint by and irate person who claimed >> the new plans were a "loose-loose" situation. After I got through >> laughing, I realized that my estimation of his credibility and >> intelligence had gone 'way down. So, words do matter. If you open >> your mouth or write a letter and sound stupid, people tend to think >> you ARE stupid! (this is for all of you who think you are loosing >> weight.) > Sorry Pat > > "by AND irate" > > I don't think any less of you. I think there's a law of nature that says any time you point out someone else's writing mistake, you will make at least one of your own. I will now proofread this paragraph a dozen times to try to circumvent the law, and I'll probably still miss something. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Mar 4 09:47:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: correct words DO matter References: <54r2kuF224orqU1@mid.individual.net> <1172854969.234007.210540@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 09:47:24 -0600 Message-ID: <868xedyprn.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Cheri" writes: > And so many times even newspapers get *your* and *you're* > wrong. It's annoying to me, when they do it. There's so much apostrophe abuse now that whenever I correctly write "its" I have to think about it for a second because it just looks wrong without an apostrophe. Same thing with "lets." You can only see something repeated so often before you start to learn it, even when you know it's wrong. (My theory is that when people stopped using the final comma for things in a series -- one, two, and three -- the abandoned commas rose up and became extra apostrophes.) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Mar 4 16:37:20 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Stupid Labeling References: <868xeh3wxv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12udqs86nkabg65@news.supernews.com> <1172766209.759641.308220@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <86r6s83fvq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1172850589.763089.63470@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2007 16:37:18 -0600 Message-ID: <86hct0d49t.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > It doesn't matter what it stands for, ozs, TBSP, pounds, gram, etc. > If you multiply the 2g per serving times 14 servings per package, > now you know 28 is the total amount you're holding in the package in > your hand. Then, if you figure you're gonna eat about 1/4 that > amount at a time, it's 7 per your serving. No I don't, because I don't know if the 2g per serving is really 1.5 grams rounded up or 2.49 grams rounded down. A half-can might be 10.5g -- just barely acceptable on my plan -- or it might be 17.5 -- definitely too much. I can handle the arithmetic required, really; it's just that dropping down to smaller serving sizes gives up granularity in the numbers, to get technical about it. When you multiply by rounded numbers, you multiply the rounding error. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 7 05:23:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eat To Live: Atkins diet back on top References: <1173123330.821912.307830@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <556df6F23h2piU2@mid.individual.net> <9d0su2pktm4scmogo5s4rr3rvlcg1vdge0@4ax.com> <556g99F23dp2dU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:23:41 -0600 Message-ID: <86fy8hi9fm.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Tim writes: > Well look at the fattest states like West Virginia. What do they > eat in West Virginia? Well gravy is considered a beverage. Carbs > are hardly the problem there. You think they're eating the gravy with a bowl and spoon? I think they're putting it on carb-laden foods like potatoes. Besides, ordinary gravy itself often has a considerable amount of flour in it. A typical milk gravy, for example, might only have a couple teaspoons of fat, to which is added a bunch of flour and milk (probably 2% or skim). Potentially much higher in carbs than in fat. Carbs are exactly the problem. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 7 05:26:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eat To Live: Atkins diet back on top References: <1173123330.821912.307830@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <5574kqF23t2k5U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:26:33 -0600 Message-ID: <86bqj5i9au.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Matti Narkia writes: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 08:33:02 +0200, "Juhana Harju" wrote: >> >>I suspect that in this newer study those following the Atkins diet >>did get particularly good instructions. > > Why do you suspect that? Because that needs to be true, so her beliefs are not challenged. It's very simple: when a study showed Atkins didn't help, it was obviously a good study with righteous results. When a study showed that Atkins did help, there must have been something flawed or sneaky going on. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 8 09:33:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet wins for losing [weight] References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:33:02 -0600 Message-ID: <86lki7hhsh.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 44 Jbuch writes: > http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/..... > Study ranks the low-carb regimen No. 1, but critics weigh in. You don't have to go any farther to see the bias in reporting. If a study showed that Ornish was the #1 diet, would a reporter feel a need to go out and find some critics from the low-carb side to weigh in, and make that part of the lead? Of course not, because it would fit the reporter's beliefs. > The study's results cast further doubt on the benefits of low-fat, > high-carb diets, which have been touted for decades as the model of > healthy eating. So why go out and ask Ornish his opinion of the low-carb diets? Why not ask him what the heck's going on with *his* diet, and why adjusting our diet nationwide according to his theories hasn't lessened obesity or heart disease one bit? They should be challenging him with the new data, instead of treating him like he's some kind of unbiased expert above it all. He's a guy who wrote a book and made a bunch of money by convincing people he had all the answers, just like the low-carb authors are criticized for. He should be sweating these studies, not critiquing them. > Hu cautioned against using the study as an excuse to indulge in > sausage and bacon at every meal. A lifetime of eating large amounts > of foods rich in saturated fat could increase the chance of heart > disease, he said. Why? The reasons they used to give us are no longer valid, so why is this still spouted without challenge? Gah, it's frustrating. I guess the bright side is that the more Ornish and that crowd talk, the sooner people will realize they don't make much sense. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 8 09:44:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A six-pack of good news re Atkins and LC in general References: <45eef047$0$28126$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1173305610.282623.246550@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:44:27 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcsvhh9g.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 Jbuch writes: > We don't know how determined they were to make the diet plan work, > because they were randomly assigned to the diet plans. That's a *huge* point. Many of the overweight people I know got that way because they love carbs. I'm not sure why, but they tell me they could never give up pasta, for example; they just love it. If they all signed up for a diet study, they'd be expecting low-fat, which they're used to -- it's how they've been eating to become that size, after all. If they were suddenly handed the Atkins Induction list of foods, they wouldn't know what to make of it. Some of them don't cook, so being told to eat eggs and meat would be a hassle that they're not used to. Even if they were willing, they'd have to learn new dishes. I'd bet some wouldn't even try for long; the whole thing would just be too foreign and scary. It'd be interesting to compare the diets if you just looked at the people who reported that they stuck to the diet for the entire year. (Or say 90% of the year, to allow for some slip-ups.) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Mar 8 09:56:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dean Ornish on the attack! References: <1173278327.246991.237500@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:56:09 -0600 Message-ID: <86d53jhgpy.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > Here's my take on some excerpts from the Ornish article: The dieters > lost about 2X as much on Atkins as on LEARN. Ornish is lying. Apparently he's defining "insignificant" as "less than double." The Atkins dieters lost slightly less than double what the Ornish dieters did, so it's "insignificant." It's easy to always be right when you get to define the terms. It's funny how he takes a pot-shot at the Zone in there, though. I guess he couldn't resist taking a moment out from obfuscating to put down a competitor, even though the Zone did nearly as well as his own diet. > And to then have the nerve to bring one dead man's autopsy report, > misconstrue it, and use that as supporting evidence? What a jerk. Yes, that's really cheap. If your theories can't stand on their own, throw mud at the other guy, I guess. "Jerk" is right. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 9 17:56:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eat To Live: Atkins diet back on top References: <1173123330.821912.307830@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> <06f1v25050p24mv5q9vm2ouip8nedinkgu@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 17:56:40 -0600 Message-ID: <861wjygedj.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 Jim Chinnis writes: > Are the nutrition scietists and MDs just afraid to admit they are > wrong? This is a rhetorical question, right? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 9 18:18:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Statins Reduce Blook Pressure - SLIGHTLY References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:18:41 -0600 Message-ID: <86wt1qeyse.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Jbuch writes: > Does the wording of the press release below strike you as promoting > statins..? > > "Cholesterol Busting Statins" Heh. Just think, if that four-diet study had been reported with this level of objectivity, the headline would have been: "Atkins Pwns Ornish Yet Again." -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 9 18:40:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A question: Who's gonna eat all that Corn... References: <1173378719.224905.185540@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 18:40:00 -0600 Message-ID: <86slceexsv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 54 "Hollywood" writes: > Just read this as part of work today, and was struck by this > thought: Since the future is low carb (same as the past, it's just > the middle part that's confused), and some of us are looking to opt > out of corn fed meat products, who's gonna eat all the corn to power > these cars? Cows and hogs, of course. Mmm, bacon cheeseburgers. > I suppose we can make ethanol out of the kernels, then methane > briquettes out of the rest. Ecology solution for ecology problems. I live right in the middle of corn country, so we're crazy about ethanol here, but it's just not that great. Some studies claim that it actually takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than what you get out of it, once you consider the amount of energy that goes into planting, fertilizing, weeding, harvesting, and processing the corn. (The answer to the coming energy crisis is nuclear power, preferably fusion someday. Nuclear is the only source that can come close to replacing fossil fuels for most of our use, whether we like it or not.) A lot of fields wouldn't be planted to grain today if not for subsidies like the Loan Deficiency Program. Most people are aware of the conservation programs like CRP that pay farmers to take ground *out* of use (it's usually ground that wasn't good for crops anyway), but there are also many other programs like the LDP that encourage farmers to put ground *into* service. There are programs that will pay part of the cost of terracing and draining steep hillsides, for example, so they can be planted to row crops. I've seen the same farmer have one field in CRP, while he's got bulldozers pushing trees out on the other side of the road to make a new field, paid for by the state. If not for those programs, a lot of ground that's currently in corn and beans would be in pasture, trees, or some other crop that might turn a profit without a government check. Almost all the alternatives would be better than corn for lessening erosion and chemical application, too. Plant all those hillsides to pasture again, rebuild the fences, and raise more meat. The farmer makes more money, everyone's healthier, and government spending on subsidies goes down. The only people who would suffer would be the owners and employees of companies like ADM. I can live with that. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sat Mar 10 10:27:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A question: Who's gonna eat all that Corn... References: <1173378719.224905.185540@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <45f21a6f$0$16910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2007 10:27:09 -0600 Message-ID: <86bqj1f4iq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 Noway2 writes: > I just saw a blurb on MSN that food prices, especially beef, pork, > and chicken are expected to skyrocket because of corn being turned > into ethanol. It seems that the consumer can't win for loosing. Won't happen, at least not for that reason. Farmers are constantly being told that such-and-such new market for their produce is going to bring prices up. (The people who run the checkoff programs always trumpet these things to the skies, to make farmers less likely to rebel against the fact that they're forced to pay the checkoff.) Soy ink was supposed to make soybean growers rich, for example. It didn't happen (although the checkoff people would insist that things would suck even *more* without their efforts). In reality, the supply rises to meet the demand, or other products expand to fill the gap. I think most of these proposed ethanol plants are vaporware anyway. Seems like I'm hearing about a new one being planned in my area every week, but no one's breaking any ground. In the one place where a company got serious about starting one, the suburbanites in the area went to court to block it legally, because they didn't want that eyesore and all those big trucks cluttering up their neighborhood. (Of course, when the company suggested going across the river to a less populated area, the same people got upset at the loss of theoretical tax receipts and jobs for the county. So they wanted it in their county; just in someone else's corner of it.) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 12 06:40:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A question: Who's gonna eat all that Corn... References: <1173378719.224905.185540@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <45f21a6f$0$16910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 06:40:25 -0500 Message-ID: <866496k7va.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Brigid Nelson writes: > Yes it is,I didn't mean to insinuate that there was enough fryer oil > to equal the amount of petrol we use. Only that at least we could > use the end product again. It appeals to me. It appeals to me too, but I like the BP commercial I saw yesterday, which talked about bio-diesel and said, "It's a start." It is indeed a start, and if some of these waste products can be used as fuel for a small percentage of our total use, that's a good thing. It's just not a solution for the main problems that we're worried about, of high energy costs and dependence on foreign sources. Certainly better than dumping it in the trash, though. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 12 07:55:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A question: Who's gonna eat all that Corn... References: <1173378719.224905.185540@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> <45f21a6f$0$16910$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1173627248.891297.161150@q40g2000cwq.googlegroups.com> <1173651355.806192.92770@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 07:55:41 -0500 Message-ID: <861wjuk4du.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 62 "Hollywood" writes: > What's it mean? If petrol prices go up, there's more incentive to > figure out something else, or several something elses. Exactly. People have been predicting energy shortages for as long as there have been people. When the first caveman discovered fire, I bet another caveman -- probably wearing a press pass -- warned him that there were only so many sticks in the clearing, so he'd better not burn too many or he'd run out and they'd all freeze to death. We have plenty of energy. It's just that the forms we're using now haven't gotten expensive enough to give us the incentive to look past our prejudices about where and how we get more. If the gas price is $10/gallon tomorrow, we'll cut back on our driving (not a bad thing), insulate our houses better (also not a bad thing), buy more efficient cars and trucks (ditto), start shopping more locally and importing less cheap food and junk from overseas (..), and put more effort into developing alternatives. I don't really see a downside, other than the short term hassle for certain industries or the insane people who currently drive an hour to work. In the long run, though, those all sound like healthy changes. > I like methane, as long as you can stable store it efficiently and > safely. Biodiesel is cool, but it's a supplement, not the > solution. Nuke cars scare the bejeezus out of me, though if you can > make electric cars that refuel on nuke generated electricity, rock > on. Yeah, I don't think anyone is seriously recommending nuclear cars, unless you're talking about fuel cells, which aren't nuclear in the scary sense at all, but might get labeled that way because they involve pure hydrogen, I guess. They just combine hydrogen and oxygen to make water and power, and it's no less safe than the way your engine currently combines gasoline and oxygen and spark to produce power. I don't know if they're really the answer, though, because guess what the most economical source of hydrogen is? Natural gas. Oops. That doesn't help much. My guess is we'll eventually move mostly to electric cars, recharged mostly with power from nuclear plants. For now, the plants may continue to use fission (for all our fears, Three Mile Island happened, what, thirty years ago?), but fusion creates far less radioactive waste and is much safer, so we'll eventually go to that. Fusion offers exponentially more energy than any of the methods we currently have, although we may need to gather fuel from the moon to do the cleanest, most efficient process. > Methane be cheap, cheap cheap and abundant. And it come from > here. Nice. Yep, might as well use it. If nothing else, some of these alternatives will help tide us over until research makes things like electric cars economically competitive for the average user. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 12 08:07:05 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm trying to start again References: <45f2c32a$0$18917$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 08:07:05 -0500 Message-ID: <86wt1mipae.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Carol J" writes: > But your body does need some healthy low glycemic type carbs in > order to do it's work of fixing the damaged cells in our bodies and > to give us the energy we need to live our lives. This is how I see > it. My opinion only. Take it or leave it. Is that strictly the impression you get from your own experience, or have you seen specific claims to that effect? As far as I'm aware, the body uses carbs for nothing but energy, and no one's found that they have any healing use at all. If you seemed to heal better when you got a few carbs, that's interesting. The main thing is to do what works for you, of course; so I'm not putting down your methods, just curious about it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Mar 13 10:14:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm trying to start again References: <45f2c32a$0$18917$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86wt1mipae.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1173722071.342305.168180@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:14:56 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqix5g5r.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 "Doug Freyburger" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> "Carol J" writes: >> >> > But your body does need some healthy low glycemic type carbs in >> > order to do it's work of fixing the damaged cells in our bodies and >> > to give us the energy we need to live our lives. This is how I see >> > it. My opinion only. Take it or leave it. >> >> Is that strictly the impression you get from your own experience, or >> have you seen specific claims to that effect? As far as I'm aware, >> the body uses carbs for nothing but energy, and no one's found that >> they have any healing use at all. If you seemed to heal better when >> you got a few carbs, that's interesting. The main thing is to do what >> works for you, of course; so I'm not putting down your methods, just >> curious about it. > Low glycemic index carbs tend to come from low carb veggies. Low > carb veggies tend to be high in vitamans and/or minerals. Not much > down side to that. It's all I can think of for healing. That's more or less why I asked. When I say "carbs," I mean carbohydrates specifically, but people sometimes use it to mean "carbohydrate food sources." If it's the carbs in the food that you think are beneficial in some way, then a spoonful of sugar should be just as helpful as a head of broccoli. I spent a long weekend away from home, so I didn't have my Morton Lite Salt for potassium, and I woke up with a very mild cramp in one calf this morning. I could fix that with a high-potassium vegetable with a few carbs, but I can also fix it with some zero-carb potassium salt. It wouldn't be the carbs in the food that would help; they'd just be along for the ride. So I was curious if there are examples where the carbohydrates themselves seem to be necessary to healing -- other than the psychosomatic effects you feel when satisfying the craving, of course. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Mar 13 10:29:32 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 1st day of Atkins, SO hungry References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 10:29:31 -0500 Message-ID: <867itl5fhg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 49 "Tara Legale" writes: > Wholy cats am I hungry. I'm at my 20 carbs for the day and I spread > them throughout the day in 5 meals and/or snacks. All day I was > hungry. Two hours after dinner I'm hungry. Now its bedtime and I'm > starving. I hope my body adjusts to this 20 carb a day idea fast! > :( First of all, good job! The first day I tried to low-carb, I wound up eating raw macaroni out of a box, the cravings got so bad. I didn't get over the hump until I cleared all that junk out of my house. Now for some ideas: Pace yourself better. Shoot for a daily max of 15g for now, so if you need a snack in the evening, you aren't so limited. 20g is the maximum, not a minimum. The minimum is zero. Keep some zero carb or very low-carb food around for snacks: leftover cooked meat you can heat up; boiled eggs (cut one in half, put a spoon of mayo and a bit of mustard on top for a lazy-man's deviled egg); sliced meat wrapped around cheese sticks; pork rinds. Jerky is great, but you almost have to make your own if you don't want a bunch of added sugar. That's not too hard, though. You didn't mention what you're eating, but if you're eating 'borderline' foods like low-carb bread, cut those out for now. They may tweak your cravings even when you're staying under your total, and they'll make it harder for you to eat enough to avoid hunger. Stick to meat, eggs, cheese, oil, mushrooms, green vegetables. (Asparagus on sale for $1.49 today; excellent!) Add more calories to what you're already eating, so it'll satisfy longer. Melt butter over everything. Use more mayo (real mayo, not salad dressing). Stir some hot sauce into mayo and dip stuff in it. Calories aren't important right now; breaking the cravings and shifting your body chemistry are important. There'll be plenty of time to fret about calories someday in the future, when you've lost 30 pounds and seem to have stalled. (You might find that you never have to at all.) Tell us what you're eating, so we can offer specific suggestions. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Mar 13 13:53:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm trying to start again References: <45f2c32a$0$18917$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:53:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86odmx3rgj.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 63 "Ann in Houston" writes: > Hi, all. I have been reading a little bit, here, with the idea to > start reading and posting regularly again. I don't know who here > will remember me. I lost about sixty pounds back in 1999/2000. > Now, I need to lose about eighty. I am trying to recapture what > worked before, without repeating the part that caused me to gain it > all back. Here are the things I remember that seemed negative when > I tried to maintain, before. > 2. I wore a size six to eight, and was in a size thirty waist > jeans, but when our vacation pics came back, they were strangely > disappointing. I don't want to try to analyze you over the net, but if you could lose 60 pounds, wear a size 6, and still be disappointed, that might indicate self-image issues that exist independent of the weight issue. That happens to be something I've been studying or running across lately, whether it's the internal self-image map of Maxwell Maltz's _Psycho-Cybernetics_, or the "Law of Attraction" in "The Secret," or any number of other similar concepts. There's an enormous amount of power in how you see yourself. It occurred to me that my current weight is pretty much what I've typically weighed most of my adult life, and it's what I see when I close my eyes and picture myself. I think when I was 50 pounds heavier, it was easier to stick to the diet, because my self-image didn't match reality, so my mind and body worked together (or God or the Universe provided, however you look at it) to keep me on plan. Now that I'm where I'm "supposed to be", according to my self-image, I'm finding it a lot harder to avoid cheating. Even though I intellectually want to lose more weight, some part of me is saying, "Bah, why bother, you're normal now?" The diet isn't failing me -- it's worked every time I've stuck with it -- but I'm failing the diet. So I'm starting to work on my self-image, doing visualization exercises where I picture myself in great shape, happily going shirtless at the beach, being swarmed by bikini babes.... :-) Until I change that self-image, I'm going to be fighting myself, and even if I manage to force my weight lower, I'm not going to be happy with what I see in the mirror. Anyway, that's my two cents. I don't know if it applies to you, but I wanted to get it out there in case it might help someone. > I notice public moves toward some major tenets of low-carb eating > without associating them with any particular eating or diet plan. I > haven't noticed much posting about that. Has it already been hashed > out? We discuss it now and then. I mentioned recently that I was talking to a couple friends on Weight Watchers, and they're definitely eating a much lower-carb diet than the food pyramid. Truth may be winning out, quietly. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 14 11:27:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm in love with fauxtatoes. References: <1173879448.683951.168210@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <12vfvcmdrmc5e1@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:27:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86slc73i52.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I like the cauliflower dish very much and frankly, don't see the > need to refer to them as fake potatoes! One can make all kinds of > tasty dishes from cauliflower. Cauliflower is a great LC food. Yeah, I enjoy cauliflower, but mashed cauliflower tastes like....mashed cauliflower. I don't think it tastes like potatoes at all, and it certainly doesn't have that starchy texture. If I had to compare it to a grain, I'd compare it to rice. Cook it until it's still a little crunchy, chop it up, and it has a somewhat similar consistency in a casserole-type dish, at least. But mostly I just eat it steamed, with butter or cheese melted over it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 14 11:38:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: H E L P P P P P P P!!! References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 11:38:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86odmv3hly.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 39 "Ophelia" writes: > I am sticking to my usual WOE during the day but in the evenings I > am needing to eat something sweet:( That's the mind-set you have to break. You don't "need" to eat something sweet, you "want" to eat something sweet. It can be a very powerful want, complete with chemical cravings, but it's still just a want. So which do you want more: some jam, or a slimmer, healthier body? Throw/give the jam away, or if you have it in the house for other people, hang something inspirational up on the refrigerator door, so you'll see it when your insulin system says, " go get some sugar ." Maybe a couple pictures: one of you now, and one of the last time you were in good shape. Or write down your goals and a promise to yourself, and hang that up and read it whenever you open that door. Whatever you can do to remind yourself of your long-term goals at that short-term moment. Make sure you always have some low-carb snacks on hand, so you can grab them *immediately* when you get a craving, and get them in your mouth before you have time to talk yourself into cheating. Something that requires 5 minutes to prepare may take too long. Always have a block of cheese, some boiled eggs, jerky, nuts, or something quick like that. Don't worry about the calories; better to eat 3000+ calories for a few days, rather than stay on that sugar-in-the-evening cycle, if that's what it takes. Most of all, don't be too hard on yourself. 28 pounds is great progress, so congratulate yourself and get on with the rest! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 14 18:29:19 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm in love with fauxtatoes. References: <1173879448.683951.168210@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <12vfvcmdrmc5e1@news.supernews.com> <86slc73i52.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12vgap2gqdss886@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:29:18 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm6ftne9.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Depending on how you season the mashed cauli, and how well you mash > it, it can taste very similar (but slightly different) to mashed > potatoes, but obviously without the starchy texture . Of course, > what makes mashed potatoes really good is the rich and favorful > stuff you add to the potatoes, rather than the potatoes. In a real > sense, cauli is as tasteless as potato, but both hold the favor of > other stuff well. Hence, they can be made to taste very similar in > dishes. That's where you lose me, because to me, cauliflower *does* taste like something. It's got a green vegetable-y flavor that a potato doesn't have. It's not that strong, so you're probably right that by the time you put a rich sauce on it, the difference isn't going to show very much. On the other hand, I don't mind eating my meat and cheese concoctions with a spoon, and simply forgetting about the need for a bed of something white to put them on. :-) > Rice is another matter, IMO, since the kernels don't "mash" up so > nicely. That's what I meant; if you cook cauliflower until it's still sort of crumbly instead of soft, it's almost entirely not unlike rice. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 16 21:05:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm in love with fauxtatoes. References: <55r3k4F2652mmU1@mid.individual.net> <55r71vF26085mU1@mid.individual.net> <55ronrF26jjo8U1@mid.individual.net> <55ssnsF26ad5uU2@mid.individual.net> <1173966650.545230.53870@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:05:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqistyj1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > There is a lot of discussion going on about taste and texture of > fauxtatoes without defining a particular recipe. For example, Aaron > compares them to rice, which to me, would indicate that they weren't > run through a food processor. Yeah, I'm too lazy to clean all the parts of my food processor. I just kind of crumble it a bit with a fork. Of course, like I said, I'm not even trying to duplicate potatoes when I do it; I'm just looking for something to throw into a casserole with stuff like meat, cheese, and mushrooms. I can see where whipping it and adding other ingredients could get you a lot closer to potato-like, but I don't miss potatoes enough to go to that much trouble. Now, find a way for me to make fauxtato-CHIPS, and I'm all ears. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 16 21:30:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: H E L P P P P P P P!!! References: <86odmv3hly.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <45f97a6b$0$16991$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:30:31 -0500 Message-ID: <867itgtxdk.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 72 "Ann in Houston" writes: > Aaron, please forgive me for highjacking this thread, but this > question is the crux of why I am back, at square one and worse. > Sometimes I want sugar more than I want to be thin and fit, right at > that moment. I firmly believe in the science behind low-carb. I > have done it and it works for me, as long as I do it. Hey, it's not my thread; hijack away. I know what you mean. When I've cheated, my thinking went something like this: "Well, it's just this one meal. So I'll hit my goal X+1 days from now, instead of X days; is that really such a big deal?" Paradoxically, I think the fact that I *know* the diet works, and works so well, makes it easier for me to talk myself into putting it off. It doesn't help that I've always been a terrible procrastinator. What's finally waking me up is that the last few times I binged, the side effects hit me a lot harder than they used to. The heartburn, the fogginess, the ennui; it was all back stronger than ever before. I'm pretty sure I also developed or worsened a yeast infection, and high blood sugar is the main cause of that in men under 60. If I'm one weekend of ice cream and chips away from serious diabetic complications, then I can't really screw around anymore, saying I'll get serious "someday." > BUT - I often have the wrong answer when I ask myself that $64,000 > question. Part of it is the "not a diet, but a way of life" thing. > It just crushes me that if I ever resort to having something just > because it is divinely delicious it may take me off the maintenance > track and result in the weight coming back. I know that just once > won't do it, and a person should be able to indulge ONCE in a while, > but since maintenance involves no milestones or fresh achievements, > the lines start to blur and before I know it, I'm on the > gain-it-back track. I'm not trying to be pessimistic, but if I''m > going to be successful in the long run, this time, I have to get a > handle on this part of it ahead of time. Well, I rambled on about self-image in another thread you started, I think, so that may or may not be of use to you. I think you're on the right track, though. Maybe it would help to invent some maintenance milestones. Instead of "X pounds away from my goal," your new milestones could be "X days staying at my goal." That might keep you focused, and help you catch yourself if you start to stray upward. Something they talk about in Protein Power is planned indulgences. If you're going to a birthday party, and you know they're going to be serving your favorite cake and ice cream, plan to blow off that day. Heck, write it on your calendar: "March 20: Pig Out Day!" But plan the next few days too: 2-3 days of strict Induction (or whatever), so you know exactly how you're going to get out of the hole before you even start digging it. It's tough, though, and you can't always plan ahead. A few days ago, I went to a restaurant and ordered a particular dish, partly because it said it came with wild rice, which is pretty low carb. Well, there *was* wild rice on the plate, but I'd say about 5% of the rice was wild, and the rest was white. Oops. So my always-clean-your-plate side and my I-paid-for-this-dammit side ganged up on my low-carb side and beat it fairly into submission. Fortunately, it still wasn't *that* much, and it didn't trigger any cravings or further mis-steps over the next few days. It's hard to maintain that constant vigilance, though, especially when you're not always doing the cooking. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sat Mar 17 13:27:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Just How Low Carb are Black Soy Beans ? Doubters Have Spoken??? References: <12vinov1hqn5nc7@news.supernews.com> <1174050227.979395.124310@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <12vlg26kklko6c2@news.supernews.com> <1174082098.004909.163670@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <12vm9eidjc1e1bc@news.supernews.com> <1174093751.271978.255800@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <7DPKh.17662$zJ1.3454@newsfe24.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:27:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkhvsp2a.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "PB" writes: > They are simply black soy beans. If you think about it why wouldn't > they be low carb? Soy flour, powder etc is. THey are all made from > Soy beans. No one's arguing whether they're low-carb or not. That's a relative term anyway. We're just trying to figure out how many net carbs they actually have, so people can accurately fit them into their plans without going over their limits. If the fiber has already been deducted from the carb total on the label, then people who deduct it again will think the beans have fewer net carbs than they do, and possibly use them in meals that end up too high in carbs. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sat Mar 17 13:34:54 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Simple LC Recipes References: <1174091770.247530.312380@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:34:54 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcsjsoq9.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Tom" writes: > * Saute some ground beef with a little onion, garlic, whatever. > Chop up some cukes and tomato into bite-sized pieces. Put beef and > veggies into a bowl and stir. salt and pepper to taste! Eat! Yum! I do this quite a bit with various things. Brown some combination of ground beef, venison, turkey, and/or pork with onion, celery, and any other herbs or spices that sound good that day. Toss in mushrooms, some cheese or mayo to kind of bind it together and make it smoother (and add fat), and maybe some leftover veggies like green beans, or something that'll cook down quickly like shredded cabbage. Or skip the cooked veggies, and pour the meat mixture over a bowl of lettuce. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sun Mar 18 09:48:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm in love with fauxtatoes. References: <55r3k4F2652mmU1@mid.individual.net> <55r71vF26085mU1@mid.individual.net> <55ronrF26jjo8U1@mid.individual.net> <55ssnsF26ad5uU2@mid.individual.net> <1173966650.545230.53870@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86bqistyj1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12vo6p2quiscmbd@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2007 09:48:59 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm6ar4is.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "UsenetID" writes: > I won't claim these taste exactly like potato chips - but > thinly-sliced (on my mandolin) daikon, in the deep fryer at 375 > until browned, then seasoned with parm cheese and garlic salt are > incredibly good! And dipped in chip dip, even better! I keep forgetting to try that. My small grocery doesn't normally carry daikons, but I bet I could find them down the road at the vegetable market, especially in season. Sounds good. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 19 10:12:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I workout 5x a week - why don't I lose any weight? References: <1174274578.445541.211610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:12:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86vegxqnc4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 66 nancyburns@gmail.com writes: > I feel much more fit. I can jog 3 miles now when I couldn't walk it > before without being winded. I can lift 25lb. weights in both > arms.... > > BUT... > > I have only lost 3 lbs. THREE. My clothes don't fit any better and > the scale doesn't get any lower. my doctor would like me to lose 20 > lbs. Exercise is very good for you, for many different reasons. It's also almost completely irrelevant to weight loss, at least taken by itself. Since you don't mention diet at all, I assume you're expecting exercise alone to do it, boot-camp style, while you eat a "normal" diet, but that takes several hours of working yourself to exhaustion every day. A couple years ago, my sisters and I started a "Couch Potato to 5K in 9 Weeks" plan one of them found on the net, where you ran three times a week, gradually increasing from 60 second running/walking intervals the first week to the full 5K by the last couple weeks. My sisters were both considerably more overweight than me, by percentage of body weight anyway, but we all stuck to it. This was a major increase in exercise for all of us, and when we started, it seemed impossible that we'd be able to run 5K within a couple months, but we did. We also bicycled at least a few miles on the days we weren't running. Ten weeks after we started, we ran in the Hannibal Cannibal, a very challenging 5K/10K run held every year in Hannibal, Missouri. We all finished, not with great times (I took just under 10 minutes/mile), but we were certainly proud of our achievement. Here's the thing, though: none of us lost any weight. This was a huge jump in physical activity for three straight months (we continued running for a while after the race), and we certainly got stronger and better conditioned, but we didn't lose a bit of fat. I was on sort of a vague maintenance at the time; not eating a lot of carbs, but not really avoiding them either, so I certainly was never in ketosis for any extended amount of time. My sisters were avoiding eating fat, of course, and getting plenty of potatoes and pasta. Here's the cool thing, in your case: You're already exercising and seeing the benefits of that, which means you're already producing a lot of the hormones that will help you burn fat, as soon as you start providing the right fuel and building blocks for that process -- protein and fat -- and turn off the insulin faucet by cutting back on carbs. You're fighting a very simple chain reaction -- carbs turn into blood sugar, and you produce insulin in proportion to blood sugar. One of the main functions of insulin is to trigger your cells to grab that sugar and store it as fat. As long as that chemical process is happening, you *can't* remove fat from your cells. There are two ways to stop that storage process so the removal process can kick in: bring down the intake of carbs, or starve yourself. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 19 10:20:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Any Reason Why LC is.... References: <45fdbc50$0$5811$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 10:20:01 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6rlqmzi.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "2Phat" writes: > Harder the second time around? That is if you have been off for > awhile? For whatever reason, I've never gotten the same big initial water-weight loss that I got the first time, when I think I lost 7 pounds in the first week. When LC kicks in now, I feel the difference more than I see it on the scale; so I don't get that exciting "Woo hoo, at this rate, I'll hit my goal in three weeks!" feeling. Of course, when I've restarted LC, it's been following a period of maintenance or a binge weekend, not 30 years of high-carb eating, so the difference isn't that drastic. It also could be that, if you failed to keep the weight off last time, you already have an expectation of failure in the back of your mind this time. It's pretty hard to get gung-ho about something when you expect to fail at it. If that's the case, it might help to spend some time thinking about what caused you to gain the weight back, and make up a plan *now* for dealing with that, so you can be confident that you'll be ready when the time comes. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Mar 20 11:47:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I workout 5x a week - why don't I lose any weight? References: <1174274578.445541.211610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <86vegxqnc4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <45fecf30$0$24759$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2007 11:47:24 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6rjq2ub.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 67 "Ann in Houston" writes: > I have to ask whether this little episode made your sisters face any > facts regarding low fat dieting. Not especially. I wouldn't say they're low-fat dieting, but if they're still hungry after a meal, they'll think a piece of cake is better than cheesecake, because of the fat in the latter. > If they were ratcheting up their exercise level and avoiding fats, > and maybe obvious sweet goodies, but still eating plenty of 'food' > carbs, it had to say something about low fat diets. Did it raise > any interesting conversations about low fat vs LC between the three > of you? Again, not so much. For one thing, I've been maintaining my weight at about goal+30 by doing LC badly for the past couple years, so I haven't been setting a great example. From their perspective, I'm proof that it *doesn't* work, or at least doesn't work completely, since I did lose 50+ pounds three years ago but haven't lost the rest. Of course, I can tell them the failure has been mine, not LC's, but all they can tell is what they see. When I chime in with an opinion about how there's no difference between a baked potato and table sugar, the eyes start rolling; "there goes Aaron after his windmills again." It also doesn't help that my brother discovered LC, lost about 100 pounds, got a job where people were constantly bringing in candy and ordering pizza, fell off the wagon, and gained the 100 pounds back. There are also all the outdated health concerns people still have about eating fat. Even if people are forced to admit LC brings down weight somehow, they may still be afraid to try it for fear of heart disease or whatever. There's a lot of FUD to overcome there. Also, they have a strong reason not to want to believe it: they really like carby foods. One sister loves to bake and is very good at it, so she turns out cakes, cookies, and pies almost every day. You and I know that she could turn those talents toward LC cooking, but sweets are what she knows best and her family enjoys them, so she's in no hurry to give that up. My other sister insists that she loves pasta and could never give it up, so she balks at even trying anything that would outlaw that. > You don't say that it hurt any of you to increase exertion so > drastically, so that is good news. Did it lead your sisters to > remain more active than they were before? They've continued to do some running when the weather is good, but I think knee and foot problems have made it more difficult to keep up. The funny thing is that one sister has four kids and runs a small farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far more than I do), without the running. The other sister has no kids and a sedentary job. Yet this huge difference in exercise doesn't show up in their weights; it's just that under the extra weight, one has more muscle mass and strength. Of course, one could just claim that the first one is eating that many more calories, but that's not what I see when I'm around. It's *what* they're eating that matters. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 21 06:56:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I workout 5x a week - why don't I lose any weight? References: <1174274578.445541.211610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <86vegxqnc4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <45fecf30$0$24759$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86r6rjq2ub.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1300abp1qlmle67@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 06:56:02 -0500 Message-ID: <861wjiq08d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Part of the equation is motivation. If you're happy at goal+30 who > is to say there's something wrong with that? True, but I'm not happy at goal+30. I don't like what I see in the mirror; I don't like feeling like a big ball of sweat in the summer; and I don't like setting a crappy example for people I care about who could really stand to get on board LC. So I've got plenty of reasons for motivation; I just have to keep translating them into action. > What about fear of diabetes? LC kicks ass in controling that. According to whom? According to us, sure; but I haven't heard the ADA saying that, and they're the ones most people are still listening to. > :: The funny thing is that one sister has four kids and runs a small > :: farmstead, so she burns a *lot* of calories anyway (far more than > :: I do), without the running. > I bet you're overestimating how many she really burns! That would > be what's typical. Well, I'm not trying to put a number on it, but she takes care of four kids (including a 4-year old boy who's not in preschool, thank goodness), feeds a dozen or so dairy calves a couple times a day, has a large garden and a flock of chickens, and does various other chores. I've watched her buck hay bales and carry buckets of feed and water enough to make me tired just watching. So I don't know exactly how many calories she's burning compared to me sitting at my desk all day except for a couple walks with the dog, but if it's not a significant number, than all the "you need to move more to lose weight" talk is crap. If she's not exercising enough to lose weight, then no one outside boot camp is. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 21 07:17:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cucumbers References: <4600b25a$0$8959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 07:17:30 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzweoko5.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 80 "Ann in Houston" writes: > Are they not in season yet? Depends where you are. Nothing's in season yet here in west-central Illinois. Cucumbers aren't at all frost-hardy, so they won't be in season here until June, probably. My grocery store carries them all year long, though. > I couldn't find them at HEB tonight. I had posted a long list of > foods I like and don't like, and I don't remember listing these but > I have decided to make a project out of them because I think they > are likely to be pretty low (haven't found my way back to the USDA > site yet.) and I could probably learn to like them relatively > easily. Yes, cucumbers are very LC. Dill pickles (made from cucumbers) are also LC, but if you buy them, you'd better check the label for added sugar. You never know. My mom makes something we call refrigerator pickles that I like a lot. You slice up some cucumbers, preferably small enough ones that they're solid all the way through without seeds, and also some onion and radish. Throw it all in a covered container with half vinegar and half water to cover it, and put it in the fridge for a few days. (She adds a little sugar, but I leave that out.) Presto -- sour pickles ready to eat anytime. > Also, my neighbor offered to plant some in my flower bed for both of > us to use. (tomatoes, too) Tomatoes are kind of borderline. Two medium tomatoes have 10g of carb, according to my PPLF chart, so that's probably more than most people would want in one meal, unless you're on maintenance. A slice or two as a side dish or in a salad should be okay, but if you start dumping them into chili or using tomato sauce or paste, the carbs can climb pretty quickly. Not saying you shouldn't eat them; just that they're one of the things where you have to keep an eye on the measurements. > I had some in a salad the other night and it was fine. Are there > any suggestions for using them with tomatoes? Maybe some kind of > relish? That soumds pretty good. Devilled eggs just occurred to me > as I was typing. Would cucumbers be good in the stuffing? Pickles > are. Watch the pickles (and relish). If those are sweet pickles, they have a *lot* of sugar. (My mom's homemade sweet pickles take *8 cups* of sugar for 5 quarts of pickles.) Relish can be pretty bad too, although if you're using a small enough amount, you might be ok. Cucumbers would probably work out in deviled eggs, although I'm happy with just mayo and mustard in mine (and a little dill sprinkled on top sometimes). Here's a cucumber recipe from the book _Eat Right or Die Young_ (which is pretty LC without knowing it): ------------------------------------------------------ Yogurt-Cucumber Salad 1 large thin cucumber or two medium ones, with few seeds 1/4 t. garlic power or 1 garlic clove, crushed 1/2 t. salt 1/2 t. dry crushed mint or 1 T. fresh mint leaves, diced 2 c. homemade or 2 small cartons plain yogurt Cut cucumber into quarters and slice. Add cucumber slices, garlic, pepper, salt, and mint; mix well. Mix in yogurt and serve. ------------------------------------------------------ -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 21 15:03:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I workout 5x a week - why don't I lose any weight? References: <1174274578.445541.211610@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <86vegxqnc4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <45fecf30$0$24759$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86r6rjq2ub.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1300abp1qlmle67@news.supernews.com> <861wjiq08d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1302bhpdeaog15e@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:03:23 -0500 Message-ID: <867itanz3o.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Roger Zoul" writes: > ::: What about fear of diabetes? LC kicks ass in controling that. > :: > :: According to whom? According to us, sure; but I haven't heard the > :: ADA saying that, and they're the ones most people are still > :: listening to. > The ADA has admitted as much, but I don't think most people are > listening to the ADA. Most people aren't listening to anyone. Well, I think most people are "listening" to conventional wisdom, which filters down slowly from sources like the ADA, through the education and entertainment industries, and eventually into common knowledge. It takes a while, though; so same vague admissions today from the ADA aren't going to make much of a dent in all the anti-fat pro-starch preaching they've been doing for decades. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 21 15:11:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cucumbers References: <4600b25a$0$8959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86tzweoko5.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <460147f5$0$1375$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:11:28 -0500 Message-ID: <863b3ynyq7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 "Ann in Houston" writes: > People mention seedless ones a lot, and they went to the trouble to > develop them, so are the seeds unpleasant in some way. I never > noticed them when I had them in salads and such. By the time a cucumber gets mature enough to develop seeds, the flesh around the seeds is usually starting to get mushy; so if you want your pickles to be crunchy, you'll prefer the seedless ones, or ones picked before they reached that stage. I don't know why exactly, but crunch seems more important in a pickle than in a salad cucumber. Seed catalogs for gardeners even sort them into two different categories: picklers and salad cukes. > Tomatoes are a lifelong favorite of mine. We used to have them > sliced up at dinner a lot. When I did LC successfully before, they > didn't ever seem to affect me at all. Maybe because most things > with the sauce also had pasta or something HC in it, so the sauce > was never an issue. I don't think I could have stuck it out if I > couldn't have fresh tomatoes. That's cool. I don't avoid tomatoes either, but they're one of the few foods where I actually count the carbs to make sure I'm not edging over the line. If I am going to push close to my 10g/meal limit, it makes more sense to do that with tomatoes than with a piece of light bread or a single piece of candy! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 21 15:15:32 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cucumbers References: <4600b25a$0$8959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1302gpgrbbkef8f@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:15:31 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7lqmjz0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "UsenetID" writes: > I'd always been borderline about cukes but now I LOVE chicken salad > boats. I partially peel the cuke (because I'm not crazy about the > skin but think stripes are pretty) and cut it in half the long way. > With a melon baller I scoop out the seeds and create the "boat" > which I then fill with chicken salad. (My own chicken salad is very > simple: chicken, mayo, chopped celery.) Then I sprinkle paprika on > top. I eat these nearly every day in the summertime, and they're > pretty and simple enough that I can put a platterful out for > company; everybody loves them. That's an awesome idea. Good use for those overripe seedy cukes too. I usually just eat things like chicken salad with a bowl and spoon, but I always feel like something's missing. I still have that desire to stretch the meat mixture with some sort of base or wrapper, I guess. I'm going to try this with tuna salad, too. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 21 15:22:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cucumbers References: <4600b25a$0$8959$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <13020qgf3r06v9c@news.supernews.com> <46014435$0$5728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1302k672c7kck76@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:22:36 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzwemjn7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I do think it's a good thing if you can train yourself to like > veggies. And I guess, as long as one eats plenty of veggies, not > eating the few that one doesn't like isn't any real big > deal. However, too many people, IMO, shun veggies too quickly just > because they don't like them. They give no regard to the fact that > eating them might be good for them. I think people are driven too > much by taste and that is one aspect of irreponsible eating and > lifestyle. I also think it's worth trying vegetables again after you've been LC for a while, because your tastes may change. I liked turnips and cabbage before, but they have a subtle sweetness now that I just couldn't detect before with my sugar-bombed taste-buds. I never used to eat cauliflower unless it was smothered in cheese, but now it tastes great with a little butter and salt and pepper. I doubt I'll ever reach a point where I like green peppers, but even pigs won't eat those things. :-) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 26 09:56:13 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: starting low carb diet again References: <2AFMh.7556$YD.934@trnddc06> <46034f9f$0$24773$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1307d6l24kjjv84@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 09:56:13 -0500 Message-ID: <86ircojboy.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 81 "ANTHONY DIODATI" writes: > Best thing for me to do is keep my mouth shut about it at work and > around town. Everyone has advice, "you will just put the weight > back on" "just eat smaller portions"(that's the best one) Like I > said,it's best for me to just be quiet. The thing I hated about > being on a LC diet was people always offering you things. Cake and > pie and the like. ALL THE TIME!! Then you tell them your on LC and > they want to argue with you. "you look fine" "you don't need to > loose weight" Then they want you to go to the bar for a few beers. > Then they argue with you again. The harsh truth is that most people don't really want you to succeed. Your fat friends don't want you to succeed because then they'd have no excuse not to do the same, of course. But in general, people have a certain image of you that they're comfortable with, and if you start looking or acting differently, that's uncomfortable for them. As someone else said, you may have to get new friends (or they may come into your life as part of the process). Or at least don't eat with the friends you have, because they'll try to sabotage you, whether they mean to or not. > Mean while there as skinny as a rail! People that never had a weight > problem. Or you go into a fast food place and order a cheeseburger > with out the bun and they look at you like your from mars, then they > ask you if you want fries. It's hard to find a low carb snack > anywhere. I guess I will have to just start bringing my own food to > work. Yep, that's really your only choice. Even the burger without the bun probably has more carbs in the secret sauce and processed cheese than you realize, and it just gets tiring to always remember to tell them to leave that stuff off (and a fast-food burger is fairly tasteless without it). Besides, it ticks me off to pay for something I'm not going to eat. Fries are basically free, thanks to the combo meals, so if you order a burger and a drink, you're paying for fries and a bun that you're not eating. Might as well take your $4 to the grocery store across the street and buy 2+ pounds of ground beef that'll make at least four nice big thick burgers at home. Or, if you're looking for a tidy snack to eat with your friends, some sliced meat and cheese that you can roll up together. If you don't have a place to refrigerate your work snacks, or are afraid you'll detour at your cow-orker's jelly-bean jar on the way to the break room, nuts or jerky are pretty good snacks to keep at hand. > I did do really well with the LC diet in the past, but then I went > back to eating what ever I wanted, I really was not too bad(heavy) > for a good while, but lately I have really started to gain. I have > always been on the heavy side, to stay thin(er) I always had to work > on it. So I want to read up a little and am going to start the 1st > of April. Sounds like you're on the right track. The books that have been recommended are very good, and will help you understand *why* you should eat this way, and how to handle keeping the weight off after you lose it. You might also want to do some reading about improving your self-image. "I have always been on the heavy side" sounds like something I could have written, because I've seen myself that way too. I remember hating to be "skins" in PE class, because I didn't want to take my shirt off in public. But you know what? My mom has all my school pictures, and when I look at those, I wasn't heavy at all! (I think the truth is I had bigger pecs than most kids from all the farm work I did, and I thought they were man-boobs.) So that wasn't reality at all; just a self-image I'd created. It may not be your reality either, but even if it was, it's your *past* reality, not your future. Your future is what you're deciding with your thoughts and actions now. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:17:57 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ng quesiton References: <4607e224$0$5282$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:17:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6rbj2cq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Ann in Houston" writes: > I read one other ng and people have, from time to time put a low key > blurb and a link in a sig line, for a business that they run. What > has been the feeling here, regarding this practice. I like to use > the sig in all my email correspondence, but I have been taking it > off when I post here. Would it be considered bad practice to leave > it on when I post here? Standard netiquette says your .sig can be anything you want, as long as it's a maximum of four lines and follows a correct signature separator (two hyphens and a space on a line by themselves, like mine below). So go for it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:26:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Xylitol toxic to dogs warning References: <1174686859.038465.283310@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:26:35 -0500 Message-ID: <86mz1zj1yc.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > Just a heads up for dieters with dogs. There was an article a few > days ago in the local newspaper about Xylitol being toxic to dogs. > Since it's a common sweetner in many LC sweets and treats, you > should be aware of this before you give something containing it to a > dog or leave it carelessly around where the dog might get into it. > The article said the amount contained in 3 pieces of chewing gum > could kill a 20lb dog. It didn't state the biology of why. If I ever pay the high prices they charge for LC treats, my dog sure isn't getting any of it! -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:36:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb recipes and food combining References: <1174825059.725596.263490@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:36:24 -0500 Message-ID: <86ircnj1hz.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 "Helen" writes: > What sort of combination of low carb vegetables and protein should I > be eating at dinner time? Whatever you like. Combinations don't matter, as long as you stay under your carb limit. Don't be afraid to include plenty of natural fats, either. > Does anybody have any good recipe tips? There are tons of sites. Look for a post called "Saffire's Weekly Tips" or something like that, and you'll find a bunch of them there. Or pull out your standard cookbook, and pick a recipe from the meat section (that doesn't have any obvious gotchas like breading), and a basic one or two from the vegetable section, and you're all set. Most LC vegetables can simply be boiled, baked, or steamed until as soft as you like them, and then topped with butter, cheese, or oil if you choose. Take any slab of meat and grill, broil, fry, bake, or slow-cook it, or chop it into small piece and stir-fry it with the veggies. As long as you avoid the dangerous ingredients (flour, sugar, prepared sauces like BBQ, etc.), you can toss together whatever you want and be confident that you're on plan. In fact, I think I just decided to have stir-fried beef and asparagus with mushrooms for supper tonight. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Mar 26 13:41:19 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ingestion of xylitol, a sugar alcohol - KILLS DOGS References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:41:19 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejnbj19s.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > I'm still wondering what people are feeding their dogs that they > discovered this problem in the first place? When I took my dog for a walk the other day, right there on the stairs of my building was an honest-to-God Girl Scout Thin Mint cookie (or something very like one), my favorite kind. I hurried her past it so she wouldn't snag it, and then a block down the street, we came to a full bag of Doritos just lying there on the sidewalk. I started to think maybe God was testing my dietary commitment; but if so, I passed. Not that I would ordinarily eat food off the ground, but the chips were still in the bag.... -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Mar 27 09:36:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: HAh! References: <4608294b$0$8921$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:36:11 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6rahhyc.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 Noway2 writes: > I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical > community has been fed "certain lines of shit" for so long that it > is believed without question. Exhibit A: All the ads running during the NCAA basketball tournament, with the American Heart Association shilling for Subway because their food isn't "greasy." Not that a Subway sandwich could ever be greasy anyway. The huge amount of bread in one of those things could soak anything up. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Mar 27 09:39:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Kroger Carb Master Yogurt -- Fantastic References: <1174991683.432514.35110@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <130i4b63asuecfa@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:39:31 -0500 Message-ID: <86mz1yhhss.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 Jbuch writes: > Are the claims about a low carb count of "aged" yogurt known to be > true? > In effect, the claim is that the carb count on the store bought > container aren't correct because bacteria metabolize the carbs. If I > understood the claim, that is. That's my understanding too, but I don't know if it's true. I've also heard that this effect is more pronounced with homemade yogurt, but I don't recall why. I'm also not sure how much of the carb count in a flavored yogurt comes from the yogurt, and how much comes from the stuff they added to make it taste good. I guess one could compare the plain version to a flavored version to get an idea. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Mar 27 09:55:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: HAh! References: <130fuejgddk28b0@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:55:14 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcs6hh2l.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 Jbuch writes: > It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to > prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X. Here's the analogy I tell people. Imagine that you came home from a trip, and your house was completely torn apart, as if by a tornado. As you inspected it, you'd see nails sticking out all over the place, wherever joints had been torn apart. There might even be loose nails lying around in the mess. So naturally you'd conclude that your house collapsed due to Nail Overload, right? Then you'd go around telling all your friends to have their houses checked for excessive nail placement, and soon we'd have an entire industry of guys with metal detectors charging big bucks to find all the extra nails in your house and remove them for you and replace them with screws. Makes perfect sense, right? That's what seems to have happened with cholesterol and heart attacks. Someone cut open some cadavers and saw that heart-attack victims tended to have high levels of cholesterol in their blood and near the heart. Being naturally disposed against cholesterol anyway because it tends to come from animals, they jumped to the conclusion that A caused B, and never considered that B might have caused A, or A might have been trying to stop B, or C might have caused A and B. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Mar 28 16:39:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Doh! I'm allergic to... References: <56vkstF2b2er3U2@mid.individual.net> <56vnf2F2af0nqU2@mid.individual.net> <4izOh.30325$s8.18224@newsfe21.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:39:05 -0500 Message-ID: <864po53v5y.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 "Bob in CT" writes: > And, I'm not allergic to everything on earth. He tested 54 items from > grains, fish, seafood, meats, dairy, and misc. items. Of 54 items, > I'm allergic to 22 items, of which the vast majority (13) are in the > grain category. A chiropractor tested me for food allergies back in 1991 or so, using samples and muscle-testing (kinesiology), which some people consider hoodoo. I don't remember the list exactly, but looking back, the ones I remember being allergic to were all carby foods: wheat, sugar, potatoes, onions. (Onions aren't real high, but they're higher than many vegetables; we just don't usually eat them in large enough quantities to matter.) I cut them out of my diet for a few months, felt much better, and lost quite a bit of weight. I was low-carbing (imperfectly) without knowing it. Was I really "allergic" to those foods, or was my body responding to the carbs and saying, "Please, no more"? Is there a difference? I'm confident that my chiropractor then believed the results were real, but exactly *why* those foods triggered a reaction might be debatable. If something makes me sick and tired, I guess it doesn't matter whether I have an allergy to it or am unable to process it correctly without unpleasant side-effects: either way I shouldn't be eating it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 30 18:07:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Doh! I'm allergic to... References: <1175177479.078365.296400@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <130nlfltkcjom73@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:07:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86slbmnxep.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I strongly agree with this. While the medical community is > seemingly out of whack on some things, they are not, as a rule, just > a bunch of bozos. Even if they are bozos, they still have access to tests that you can't easily do yourself, like having your blood drawn and tested for allergies or food intolerances. Still, you can't hurt yourself by eliminating a food from your diet for a while and seeing how you feel, especially when you're talking mostly about grains anyway. I did that with peanuts recently. I'd been eating a lot of them for snacks, maybe even enough to break my carb limit once in a while, but they seemed to be affecting me a lot more than just the carbs would account for. I cut them out completely for a month, and did seem to have more energy and less rumbling in my stomach. Of course, peanuts are a fairly common allergy, so it was an easy one to guess at and try. One of these days I'll have some again, and see if I can tell any difference. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Mar 30 18:11:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Banannas References: <0DROh.4096$Kd3.459@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:11:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86odmanx71.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Cubit" writes: > As I let maintenance lead me astray, I thought bananas might be a > good choice for a carb. My grandmother used to talk about the > potassium in them. The Banana Council must have the best marketing department in history. They're almost nothing but bags of sugar, but people talk about them like they're a multi-vitamin that grows on trees. I've even heard them called "the perfect food." I guess it goes to show: if you repeat something in enough commercials, people will eventually believe it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Sat Mar 31 10:36:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Junk Food Update References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:36:13 -0500 Message-ID: <86648ho26q.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "johnniemccoy@" writes: > I found the Wonder Lite White Bread at Walmart. I bought it. Just > got home and tried a slice. It has the good ole white bread look and > texture but still has a hint of fake...haha. All in all, pretty good > though. Advertises 9g of carbs. Actually has 18 with various > subtractions but is still low for bread. The last time I bought LC bread (don't remember the brand, but it was 5g/slice net), the slices were so small and flimsy that they would have been 10g if they'd been typical sandwich slices. The main reason I would ever buy bread (on LC or not) would be to make sandwiches. If the bread is so soft that the mayo soaks through onto my fingers before I'm done, what's the point? Make it LC by using higher-fiber grains, not by replacing most of the flour with air. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Apr 2 10:37:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LC Cereal References: <1175274688.670897.265300@p15g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <1175354751.505079.305640@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <130tfvibreqjsc8@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:37:26 -0500 Message-ID: <86slbiss7d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Roger Zoul" writes: > My issue with cereal is that it takes a lot of control to eat a > single serve. Ditto. If I can only eat a half-cup of something, it's a snack, not a meal. If eggs had 15g of carb each, I wouldn't have half an egg for breakfast and save the rest for later; I'd say "screw eggs" and just eat more bacon and sausage. It might be different if you're someone who only wants a little bit of food for breakfast, but mine always involves at least the 40g protein recommended by PP for my size. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Mon Apr 2 10:40:10 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I broke the cheap scale References: <460cad2e$0$5257$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <130psisp9nas290@news.supernews.com> <460d2022$0$24738$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <130qcb02p6ceeb1@news.supernews.com> <1175357222.794372.70740@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:40:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86odm6ss2t.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Lisa" writes: > Honestly does anyone know what is a good scale? I thought I had > bought a really good one (the weight watchers one) but almost > everytime I get on it within minutes of weighing and finding a > weight I don't like, I get on it again and the weight has changed. > I then try to make sure I am squarely on it and it changes > again. After about 8 tries with 8 different results, I just choose > the one that I like the best (the lowest one of course) but I really > would like an honest reading to keep me on track. Heh. Why does that seem so appropriate: that a WW scale would keep giving you different numbers until you got one you liked? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 11 18:22:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Blood Glucose Meter From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:22:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86irc21ool.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Anyone know anything about these free blood glucose meters I've seen advertised on TV lately? I saw one that claimed you didn't have to prick yourself, so I wrote down the name of the company and found their web site. It turns out that to get the free meter, you have to sign up as a customer, which requires that you give them your doctor's info so they can get your prescription for diabetes. I'd like to have a meter, but I'd rather not mess around with going to a doctor, and I don't know that I'd be diagnosed with diabetes yet anyway. Is it really possible to get a BG meter that doesn't require you to draw blood every time? If so, how does that work? Can you just buy one? Thanks, -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 11 18:34:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Sweetner Court Battle References: <1176131634.651255.143740@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1176212761.667433.18190@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <131n632rl9aik50@news.supernews.com> <131naufjugsuif6@news.supernews.com> <1176220922.727910.247850@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <131ndv4cl89sc07@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:34:36 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejmq1o4z.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Bob in CT" writes: > I don't deny it's sour grapes -- it is. It's also misleading in my > opinion, if they don't use sugar (i.e., table sugar) to make > sucralose. It seems to me that the phrase "table sugar" proves that the term "sugar" includes other kinds. With all the misleading and optimistic claims that you see on products, this seems like major nit-picking. If there weren't so much money behind Nutrasweet and a revolving door between Monsanto and the US government, Splenda would have been approved much sooner and something like this wouldn't be an issue. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 11 18:44:17 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Stevia References: <57ve3eF2e9r80U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:44:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86abxe1nou.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 jmk writes: > Speaking of sweetenerrs, are there any stevia users in this group? > I have started to play with it a bit -- stevia packet and a > truelemon packet in water, etc. and I'm interesting in your > experiences with this herb. I got some stevia seed a couple years ago, and tried growing it. I think the packet had 5 seeds, 2-3 came up initially, and one plant ended up making it. It was a sad little thing, that always looked half-dead. At the end of the season, I harvested a couple dozen leaves from it, but I haven't used them yet. They seemed too precious, after all that trouble! I've been brewing some spiced hot teas lately, and finding that they do a nice job of filling me up and taking the edge off my cravings. One is a dessert tea, which goes very well in the evening before bed when I once might have had a bowl of ice cream. I don't normally care for any sweetener in my tea, but some of these spiced versions are good. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 11 18:46:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Love those muffins References: <131mlfo1revkr2c@news.supernews.com> <-tKdnSws5ssnS4bbnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@comcast.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 18:46:33 -0500 Message-ID: <8664821nl2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Hannah Gruen" writes: > I think it depends on the LC'er. It is definitely important to "know > thyself" in this regard. I do agree, for myself, that too much of > this kind of thing can cause cravings. Balanced against that, > however, is the psychological benefit I seem to get from eating > something that seems like "normal" SAD food once in a while. The key > for me is - *once in a while*. Yeah, even a single slice of LC toast (5g/slice) with my sausage and eggs in the morning gives me a different feeling. Not a real strong craving, but there's something there. I'm starting to realize that I'm more sensitive to that stuff than most people, though. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Apr 12 08:51:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Blood Glucose Meter References: <86irc21ool.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 08:51:16 -0500 Message-ID: <86veg1zoob.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 Alice Faber writes: > The things you see advertised on TV are mostly from scam pharmacies. > They want you to transfer your prescriptions, for which they'll get > reimbursed by Medicare. Yeah, that's what it looks like. I kind of assume any "free" offer is some sort of scam until proven otherwise; but since I don't have Medicare or any prescriptions, I thought maybe I could scam the scammers and get a free meter from them. No such luck. > Also, what you probably heard them say was "no painful finger > pricks". Ah ha! I do believe you are correct. So not only could they have you test somewhere other than the finger, but if they can get a focus group to say it wasn't especially painful.... > So, if you want to test your blood sugar: (a) you don't need a > prescription; (b) you might be able to get a meter at low cost (or > free, with rebate), but meters are like inkjet printers in that the > profit is in the test strips; (c) you're going to have to get drops > of blood somehow; (d) doing so is generally not at all painful, if > you do it right. Thanks to you and everyone else for the info. I'm not such a sissy that I'm afraid to prick my finger, but I picture myself wanting to go all nerd scientist about it, checking my BG every five minutes for the first several days and making graphs and stuff, so I thought that might get a little painful. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Apr 13 09:23:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question from Newbie References: <8bcc6$461e3303$d066ef45$12218@FUSE.NET> <461e486a$0$5019$1c4686b2@selenium.club.cc.cmu.edu> <11bdd$461e5fb5$d066ef45$32236@FUSE.NET> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:23:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkgw9wv8.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Bob in CT" writes: > I have a massive thing of dutch-processed cocoa powder. (I couldn't > find it locally, so I purchased it online, not realizing how massive > it was.) This doesn't sound like a bad use for the cocoa powder, > but what do you put it on? Angel food cake? ;-) A spoon? Is this a trick question? :-) -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Apr 13 09:33:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Sweetner Court Battle References: <1176131634.651255.143740@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <585m7eF2c74p8U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:33:36 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcrk9we7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "Hannah Gruen" writes: > On the back of the package is written: "SPLENDA No Calorie Sweetener > is made from sugar so it tastes like sugar." > In terms of truth-in-advertising, I think it would have been safer > to say that it is made from sugar AND it tastes like sugar, leaving > that "so" out. But if they are making the stuff from one sort of > sugar or other (raffinose or whatever), then it seems like a > more-or-less valid claim. > Cooking is a chemical process. Stuff changes chemically when it is > cooked. In that sense, the ingredients that a food product is "made > from" are not always exactly what is contained (i.e. specific > chemical compounds present) in the end product. Yeah, it seems to me that to prove them wrong, you'd have to determine WHY sugar tastes sweet, and then determine WHY Splenda tastes sweet, and show that the two reasons aren't the same. In other words, if there's a "sweetness" arrangement of atoms that makes sugar taste sweet, and the process of turning it into sucralose preserves that arrangement, then it truly does taste like sugar BECAUSE it's made from sugar. On the other hand, if Splenda tastes sweet because of some arrangement that wasn't there in the original sugar, and it's just coincidence that the two products taste so similar, then their claim is false. And if refined sugar is a "natural" product, then so are car tires. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Apr 13 09:41:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Stevia References: <57ve3eF2e9r80U1@mid.individual.net> <86abxe1nou.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 09:41:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86d5289w18.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Big Bill writes: > What are the spiced teas you'd recommend please? These are Celestial Seasonings varieties that were given to me. Let's see: Vanilla, Coconut Thai, Peppermint, Bengal Spice, and English Toffee (Dessert). I think they're all decaf, and probably way more expensive than anything I'd ever buy for myself. I like them all, though, and they've been great in this cold spell we've had lately. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 18 09:54:34 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: low carb pizza - need help with ingredients References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 09:54:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86d5217mxi.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Buddy's Girl" writes: > About a year ago I was able to make a cheese & pepperoni pizza with > a whole wheat low carb tortilla for a net carb count of 4gr (4gr!) > Can only find whole wheat tortillas with a net carb of 10gr or a low > carb with a net carb of 8...anyone know of a lower carb tortilla? I put shredded cheese on a plate, topped with pepperoni, cooked meat, jalapenos, salsa, whatever, and pop it in the microwave for about 3 minutes. If you time it right, the cheese will get a bit crunchy, so it's sort of pizza-like. I've never had it stick to the plate very bad unless I downright burned it. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Thu Apr 19 07:16:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Friday Dinner at Restaurant References: <132cmonthkhrrcf@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 07:16:26 -0500 Message-ID: <864pnc7e5h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Cubit" writes: > The day came to 74 net carbs. The dinner had cauliflower, egg > rolls, and sauces as carb sources. Mostly, I ate the meats and the > cauliflower dish (Gobi Manchurian). The good news is that 74g is still pretty low. I think Schwarzbein sets a limit of 100, and it's considered a low-carb diet. After all, the USDA says that 1200 calories of the standard 2000-calorie diet should come from carbs, which would mean a whopping 300 grams. > My guess is the spike comes from salts. That's very possible. It could also be your body using water to store the unusually high (for you) intake of glucose. Either way, it should come back off in a hurry. As you pointed out, you can't gain a significant amount of fat from a single meal. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Apr 20 12:03:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: KimKins or AtSill by Kimmer References: <4625522d$0$4868$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1176905005.090262.179230@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <46262e36$0$5657$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <132cdq5rmfpn16b@news.supernews.com> <1176926550.870084.277160@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <46269372$0$4928$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1176985538.552427.227750@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <4627702a$0$27035$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <462773f6$0$19374$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177007711.125065.197750@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <4627c3a4$0$24686$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177021343.403522.239900@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <4627f1e1$0$24753$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:03:31 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm535670.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "2Phat" writes: > Reading between lines gives me a headache and I've always top > posted. I prefer it. Less stress. Well, of course, as long as it's convenient for YOU. To heck with the convenience of the people trying to help you. > I said I'm not exercising right now due to logistics however next > week I will be able to. There is a difference between, I'm just > don't want to exercise and I can't exercise right now. I have a > live in nanny for my son. She's on vacation and I can not leave him > alone to go to the gym. Check out this site: Bodyweight exercises that you can do right there in your own home, while you watch your kid, without any equipment at all, and they're probably at least as good as what you'd get at the gym. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Apr 20 12:18:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Milk - Parkinson's link? References: <1177015753.167503.206610@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:18:29 -0500 Message-ID: <86vefr55i2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "Bob in CT" writes: > You know, I have had raw milk before. I was thinking of using it to > make yoghurt, but the fact that the milk isn't pasteurized scares > me. My book on making yogurt recommends that you pasteurize your milk first, so you know that the only bacteria involved in the fermentation are the ones in the starter you add. Simply bringing the milk to boiling for a second is all it takes pasteurize it. You have to bring it to 115 degrees for the fermentation anyway, so that's not a big deal. Not that there's anything very scary about raw milk anymore. Most of the diseases you used to have to worry about have been eliminated over the years through quarantining and culling. Every single time the trucker picks up a load of milk at my parents' farm (every other day), he takes a little sample in a vial, and the milk is tested at the plant when it gets there, so they can be sure it doesn't have antibiotics or high levels of anything bad in it before they dump it in with the rest. If there's anything unusual in it, my folks will get a call by the next day, because they could get charged for the whole truckload of milk being thrown out. They drink all their milk raw, and never have a problem. Really, if you keep your cows clean and healthy, getting a disease from their milk is about as likely as catching something from a strawberry you picked out of your garden. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Apr 20 12:21:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "You on a diet" References: <1177018288.920023.133150@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <132hbat4qgqp7b6@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 12:21:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6qf55da.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Roger Zoul" writes: > "I believe in what my doctors and science tell me to believe and I > don't need to think." I love this quote I just found yesterday: The most valuable truths are the ones most people don't believe. They're like undervalued stocks. If you start with them, you'll have the whole field to yourself. So when you find an idea you know is good but most people disagree with, you should not merely ignore their objections, but push aggressively in that direction. -- Paul Graham, -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Fri Apr 20 20:52:18 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: basmati rice & lentils References: <1177110691.988416.99900@b58g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:52:18 -0500 Message-ID: <86mz125wa5.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 alishadevochka@gmail.com writes: > I am trying to control my weight, and as a starting point I eat > Basmati rice, and lentil everyday on lunch. > > Can you guys tell me if it is good idea or a bad idea? Should work great. When your weight rises to your goal, shift to a diet lower in carbs to maintain at that point. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Apr 24 10:08:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Those hotel free breakfasts References: <1177361250.703332.249680@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:08:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6q9zu6e.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Doug Freyburger writes: > Having paid for the room I try to keep myself clear on one idea - > Those breakfasts aren't free. They are just included in the price. That's true, and I hate paying for things I don't use. If I have a choice between Motel A, which offers a "free" breakfast of donuts and juice; or Motel B, which offers no breakfast at all, I'll go to Motel B. If they're the same price, then odds are Motel B has a bit better rooms or service or something to offset the lack of breakfast. Also, that way I'm not encouraging that foolishness. How many motels aren't within walking distance of at least one restaurant anyway? -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Apr 24 10:50:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lose Weight Slowly References: <462cb205$0$5754$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177335311.360357.194180@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <462cbdbf$0$5799$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:50:40 -0500 Message-ID: <86mz0xzs8f.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 64 "2Phat" writes: > See I'm thinking that regardless if you lose slow or fast, in the > end it is your decision to keep it off and change your habits. > With all my diet research, I have never come across any hard fact > based reason for a slow lose. However, everyone claims that is the > way to go. Why? I'm not basing this on facts, but as you say, that theory doesn't seem to be either. But I would say a myth needs two things to survive: 1) It seems like it would be true. 2) People want it to be true. (By "myth," I mean a theory that is unsupported by facts. It may or may not be true, but its popularity doesn't require it to be true.) In this case, it seems like it would be true that losing weight slowly is better. "Good things come to those who wait." "No pain, no gain." We tend to assume that cost=value, and we're suspicious of things that seem to come too easy. This is smart when it comes to tangible things: a $100 shirt is probably better quality than a $10 shirt, although you still have to use your common sense and take the cost of branding into account. But in the case of intangible values like knowledge or relationships, the formula really breaks down. You probably wouldn't say that your most valuable friendship is the one that causes you the most pain. So it doesn't necessarily follow that the diet which takes the most work and time will be the best either. On the second point, people want it to be true, because that way they have an excuse not to do it. If diets are basically useless in the long run, we're off the hook: there's no reason to start one. If they're harmful to your health, or tend to cause you to gain more weight in the long run, even better! Going against conventional wisdom is always a little scary, whether you're putting butter on everything, or home-schooling your kids, or replacing Windows with another operating system. It's always more comfortable to stay in the safe cocoon of society's beliefs. At least that way if you turn out to be wrong, so is everyone else, so you'll have lots of company and won't be blamed personally. If I die of a heart attack at 50, everyone I know is going to say, "Yep, see what happens when you eat all that fat and cholesterol?" Any time you do something that goes against conventional wisdom, you're going out on a limb, whether you like it or not. Most people just aren't willing to do that unless they're hit with some sort of epiphany that they can't ignore. Then the flood-gates open, because once you realize that everything you were taught about A is crap, you start to wonder how much of B-Z was true. Soon you're questioning everything, and basically starting over the education you didn't get when you were growing up. Hard work. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Tue Apr 24 11:11:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Ol' Atkins training stays with you! References: <59573kF2id62kU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 11:11:43 -0500 Message-ID: <86irblzr9c.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 45 "Pat" writes: > So, there I am at the Dairy Queen in Valley View, Texas. I haven't > eaten for 7 hours and I am hungry! I get a DQ Dude and a side order > of fries and a side order of Jalitos (which turn out to be deep fat > fried jalapenos). > Now, a little while later, I wish I hadn't. The fat and coating is > sticking in my belly like I've swallowed a brick. I feel greasy and > sluggish. I keep thinking how I felt after eating an Atkins-type > meal. I am not enjoying my binge--I'm feeling regret! > An order of fat-fried brick with a side order of regret! Perfect! I'm not sure why you keep mentioning the fat. If you normally eat low-carb, you know the fat wasn't the problem; the carbs were. (I can brown up a pound of 75% lean burger with some spices, stir in a few ounces of cream cheese (keeping the fat from the meat in there), and eat the whole thing and feel fine. An order of fries is a whole different story.) The unfortunate thing about fried foods that you buy is that they're almost always heavily breaded. Which reminds me, eating low-carb away from home is a pain, no matter how much you work at it. Yesterday, I chose grilled walleye over fried at a bar and grill, to avoid the breading. It came with breading anyway. At a family cookout, I passed on the "honey barbecue" ribs and ate the ones that had a dry rub instead, only to find out later that the cook decided to add some sugar to the rub at the last minute after all. So I was bloated and had a bit of heartburn later that night, right on schedule. About the only thing I seem to be able to order without getting a carbalicious surprise is an omelette. I'm reminded why I mostly eat at home. Funny story: Last night someone who ate the same low-carb meals as me all day said, "Why is it whenever I eat what you eat, I feel so much better?" Of course, that by itself isn't enough to convince her to do it. It's not enough to see the truth, when it's up against belief. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 25 07:19:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lose Weight Slowly References: <462cb205$0$5754$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177335311.360357.194180@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <462cbdbf$0$5799$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86mz0xzs8f.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <596tv7F2k2bvuU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:19:37 -0500 Message-ID: <86abwwabom.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "Pat" writes: > Are you forgetting that if weight loss were fast and easy then > people would really go hard into destructive behaviors? Look at how > much we binge and overeat now! If it were easy to lose weight, where > would be the incentive to take care of your body? If weight loss were fast and easy, overeating *wouldn't be* "destructive behavior." By the way, I wasn't making a judgment about whether you should lose weight slowly. Maybe you should. As far as I know, there's no hard data to support or oppose it. My point was just that there are certain things that you hear and think, "That makes perfect sense," and it becomes belief without any further study. The "it's unhealthy and unproductive to lose weight quickly" theory seems to be one of those things. It may be true, but that's not why people believe it, because 99% of the people who believe it have no idea whether it's true or not. It's always good to question those kind of beliefs when you realize you've picked them up. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 25 13:08:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lose Weight Slowly References: <462cb205$0$5754$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177335311.360357.194180@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <462cbdbf$0$5799$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86mz0xzs8f.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <596tv7F2k2bvuU1@mid.individual.net> <86abwwabom.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <132uvm4e7123v28@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:08:19 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejm8uy24.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 39 "Roger Zoul" writes: > 99% of people don't believe they should lose weight slowly. I disagree. I've heard many people repeat the "it's best to lose weight slowly" mantra. I've never heard anyone claim the opposite, certainly not outside this newsgroup. In fact, if you tell people about a friend who lost 20 pounds in a month, you're liable to hear, "That's not good, though; if you lose it too fast, you'll just put it right back on again." > Many have no idea what's involved and what's at stake with rapid > weight loss and hence would rather take the fast approach, as it > gets them "there" sooner and they don't have to work as hard, for > dieting for long periods of time is much harder than over the short > term. "Hard and fast" is actually easier than "Soft and slow" over > the long term. Now, that's going against common "wisdom." Sure, people may *want* to lose weight quickly themselves, but that's a different thing than believing you should, which is what I was talking about. It's pretty common to take an action you don't think is the best for you, but still recommend the "best" course to others. I've talked to people who opted for gastric bypass surgery who had the attitude: "Yeah, it'd be healthier to diet and exercise, but I just don't seem to be able to succeed that way, so I'm trying this." People *want* to find a quick fix -- a chewing gum that suppresses appetite, a food that burns more calories than it gives you, a pleasant exercise that melts the pounds away -- but they don't really believe quick fixes work. Which probably has a lot to do with why they fail. They hope for success, but expect failure. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 25 13:15:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Those hotel free breakfasts References: <1177361250.703332.249680@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86r6q9zu6e.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <132t0p18dkenp2d@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:15:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86abwwuxpq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: Doug Freyburger writes: > :: > ::: Having paid for the room I try to keep myself clear on one idea - > ::: Those breakfasts aren't free. They are just included in the price. > :: > :: That's true, and I hate paying for things I don't use. If I have a > :: choice between Motel A, which offers a "free" breakfast of donuts and > :: juice; or Motel B, which offers no breakfast at all, I'll go to Motel > :: B. If they're the same price, then odds are Motel B has a bit better > :: rooms or service or something to offset the lack of breakfast. > :: > :: Also, that way I'm not encouraging that foolishness. How many motels > :: aren't within walking distance of at least one restaurant anyway? > > Even though one is paying for that service, if the BB is good, then the > convenience of it while on travel is worthwhile. Sure, if the breakfast is good, there's no issue. In my very limited experience with motels, it was usually a box of donuts, coffee, and orange juice. Ugh. I couldn't stand sweets first thing in the morning even before I was low-carbing. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 25 13:18:38 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Those hotel free breakfasts References: <1177361250.703332.249680@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86r6q9zu6e.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <132t0p18dkenp2d@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:18:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86647kuxkx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Bob in CT" writes: > I think it's much easier to eat in the hotel. I also think there > are plenty of hotels that aren't within walking distance of > restaurants. Really? Admittedly I don't travel much, but around here they seem to grow together in clumps. Maybe I've just been lucky. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 25 21:18:03 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Ol' Atkins training stays with you! References: <59573kF2id62kU1@mid.individual.net> <132rqbiavlifk9c@news.supernews.com> <596l6kF2jr9p4U1@mid.individual.net> <132s940se88949@news.supernews.com> <132suncn1ihno1c@news.supernews.com> <132ukr3mo26b0a8@news.supernews.com> <5bev23ln1th38r5inpvcqoehdidrdshfgm@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:18:02 -0500 Message-ID: <86slanubdx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > It might not even be the pork -- it might be something that was used > to cure the bacon. I know I can get a reaction if I eat too much > bacon, but pork chops don't bother me at all. Yeah, I think Bob mentioned salami as a problem too, so the common factor might be the curing. I'd try cutting out all cured meats for a few days, and then have some pork chops, and see what happens. -- "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." From nobody Wed Apr 25 21:25:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lose Weight Slowly References: <462cb205$0$5754$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177335311.360357.194180@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <462cbdbf$0$5799$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86mz0xzs8f.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <596tv7F2k2bvuU1@mid.individual.net> <86abwwabom.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <132uvm4e7123v28@news.supernews.com> <86ejm8uy24.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <599onuF2ejpbaU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 21:25:05 -0500 Message-ID: <86odlbub26.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Pat" writes: > "Aaron Baugher" could you please change that "horsies" thing to just > plain "horses." My Texan sensibilities will thank you. Heh. Sorry, it's a quote, so that wouldn't be right. It's from Scrubs, and Dr. Cox definitely says "horsies." You reminded me that I've been using that one way too long, though, so it's time to change it. :-) -- "I think I have figured out, at any rate, why God put Kim Jong Il into the world. It was so that we'd have periodic reminders of what contemptible pussies we in the modern West are." -- John Derbyshire From nobody Fri Apr 27 09:31:19 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lose Weight Slowly References: <462cb205$0$5754$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177335311.360357.194180@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <462cbdbf$0$5799$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86mz0xzs8f.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <596tv7F2k2bvuU1@mid.individual.net> <86abwwabom.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <132uvm4e7123v28@news.supernews.com> <86ejm8uy24.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <132vqqu3njq9u78@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 09:31:17 -0500 Message-ID: <868xcdkhxm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 124 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: I disagree. I've heard many people repeat the "it's best to lose > :: weight slowly" mantra. > > Who said that? Are you kidding? I've heard or read that dozens of times, maybe hundreds. I ran across it just yesterday in a forum about weight-loss commercials, where someone said the ads shouldn't focus on the total weight loss so much, because the most important key for keeping it off is how gradually you lose it. > :: I've never heard anyone claim the opposite, > :: certainly not outside this newsgroup. In fact, if you tell people > :: about a friend who lost 20 pounds in a month, you're liable to hear, > :: "That's not good, though; if you lose it too fast, you'll just put it > :: right back on again." > Plenty of people come to this very group often talking about rapid > weight loss. And there is not mantra that says lose weight slowly. > The phrase was created for this thread by someone interested in > rapid weight loss, who sees recommended weight loss as too slow. Well, the people who come to this group aren't exactly a cross-section of society. I'm talking about people out in the regular world, who haven't taken it upon themselves to learn more about their bodies than their doctors know. I call it a mantra because it gets recited unthinkingly, without any facts to back it, often to make the person saying it feel better. "Did you hear Betty lost 50 pounds since Christmas?" "Yeah, but losing weight that fast isn't healthy; she'll just put it all right back on." (Note that it doesn't matter *how* Betty lost it.) > :: Sure, people may *want* to lose weight quickly themselves, but > :: that's a different thing than believing you should, > If someone wants to do and and then attempts to do so, then for > whatever reason, they believe that's what they should do. Come on. Many people buy lottery tickets because they want to be wealthy. Does that mean they would tell their kids that the best way to become wealthy is to buy lottery tickets? Aren't they more likely to tell their kids to go to college and get a good career? > :: which is what I was > :: talking about. It's pretty common to take an action you don't think > :: is the best for you, but still recommend the "best" course to others. > :: I've talked to people who opted for gastric bypass surgery who had > :: the attitude: "Yeah, it'd be healthier to diet and exercise, but I > :: just don't seem to be able to succeed that way, so I'm trying this." > I think it unfair of you to reduce their struggles so. Many times > these people are beyond their wits end, facing serious issues due to > having been extremely overweight for a long time. You're posing > this as if they're just trying the next thing. For many of these > people, it really is the healthiest option I'm not trying to reduce their struggles, and I realize that in some cases surgery is the best option. After all, being greatly overweight will kill you sooner than almost anything else that's legal. I'm talking about people I know, who struggled with their weight for years (partly because they were told to do all the wrong things, which isn't really their fault), and eventually decided to have the surgery. Even after the initial weight loss, before they started to put it back on, they didn't go around telling everyone to have a gastric bypass. It was more like, "I wish I could have done it the *right* way, with diet and exercise, but that just wasn't working, and my doctor said I really needed to lose the weight for my health, so here I am." I'm not criticizing them at all. > :: People *want* to find a quick fix -- a chewing gum that suppresses > :: appetite, a food that burns more calories than it gives you, a > :: pleasant exercise that melts the pounds away -- but they don't really > :: believe quick fixes work. > If they didn't believe, then why do so many try them? Their actions > speak much louder than do your words. Again, you're assuming people always act logically. People buy lottery tickets because they want to get rich, but do they expect to win? Does a geeky boy fall in love with the homecoming queen because he expects to marry her? And the best proof of all: Cubs fans! Hope wins out over belief all the time when it comes to the personal choices people make. > It's strange how this argument has become binary. "Either one loses > weight slowly or one does it fast," is what this has become. > However, the advice given here (and elsewhere) is not the lose > weight slowly, it to not engage in weight loss that is too rapid, by > doing certain things that ravage the body and lead to failure. > Losing 4 to 5 lbs a month (what is generally considered good, safe > loss) leads to 48 to 60 lbs a year and 96 to 120 lbs in two years. > That's not slow weight loss. I don't disagree with you; that's excellent loss. But I don't know that weight loss can be "too rapid" in and of itself. If you're doing things that "ravage the body," that's bad, whether those things make you lose weight or not. But if you're eating enough protein to support your LBM, and you get enough calories that you aren't hungry all the time, and you drop 20 pounds the first month, is that bad? Would you recommend the person add back some carbs to slow down? I wouldn't. I'd assume a good chunk of that was water, and that the person was doing an excellent job of sticking to the diet and keeping his fat-burning system pumping, and give him a round of applause. My own loss went in spurts -- about 20 pounds the first month, then a plateau for a while, then another 20 pounds over a couple months, then a plateau, then another 20 pounds over a few months. Then I went off the diet almost completely and gained about 10 back, but I never gained back a single pound from the first two spurts. I'm not trying to use one data point as proof of anything, but it would have been pretty annoying to have some nitpicker come along after that first 20 and tell me, "You know, you shouldn't lose weight that fast; you'll just end up gaining it all back." Who needs that? -- "From grade school up we're taught that there are no enemies, just friends whose grievances we haven't yet accommodated." -- Mark Steyn From nobody Fri Apr 27 15:22:51 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What a crock. The AHA has to go. References: <46320ced$0$4849$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177686045.692038.17020@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:22:51 -0500 Message-ID: <86d51pin38.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Hollywood writes: > On Apr 27, 10:47 am, "2Phat" wrote: >> RN's vs. MD's? > > Hunh? > >> Doesn't matter, the mantra is fat is bad. And Saturated fat will >> kill. > > See, this is why top posting sucks. No one can follow what you are > talking about. Ordinarily I'd agree, but in this case, I'm not sure posting with context would help any. -- "I don't have a TV now, but that's ok. The shows in my mind are almost always better." -- The Maxx From nobody Fri Apr 27 15:28:03 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What is the best zucchini lasagna recipe?? References: <1177195203.098305.112940@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <59f0vkF2ige4kU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:28:03 -0500 Message-ID: <868xcdimuk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Susan writes: > I used Barilla no boil lasagna noodles; they're very thin, and three > whole ones (third of a 9" x 13" lasagna) total about 38 carbs, I > think. > I peel off most of the noodle and eat the filling (which contains > cheese, sausage and chopped spinach) and just a bit of noodles. My > family/guests eat as much or as little noodle as they want. That's not a bad idea. Noodles are fairly cheap, and that way you can go ahead and use your favorite lasagna recipe without having to adjust it for something that has a different moisture content, like vegetables. -- "I wish I were drunk; at least that would explain this." -- The Maxx From nobody Fri Apr 27 15:35:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: junk science and global warming References: <1177686105.377996.170060@r3g2000prh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2007 15:35:06 -0500 Message-ID: <864pn1imit.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 Tunderbar writes: > Interesting video: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHjczyA75jU > > This guy makes some interesting points about the science used to > support the concept of global warming. Orson Scott Card has a very good article about how we got to this point where everyone accepts global warming as a fact. It's a long article, but interesting, because instead of just arguing against global warming, he talks about how a myth combined with some bad science can become conventional wisdom, when it fits people's preconceptions. It's obviously applicable to the low-fat myth and a lot of other common beliefs about diet and health. -- "What's scary about Microsoft is that a company so big can develop software at all. They're like a mountain that can walk." -- Paul Graham From nobody Sun Apr 29 08:41:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 08:41:37 -0500 Message-ID: <86irbffgby.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > I think it's silly to attribute the bursting of the LC bubble to LC > products. It's well known that the vast majority of people can't > follow any diet. A lot jumped on LC due to all the media attention > it was getting in the early part of the decade. Suddenly it became > the "in" thing to try as a quick and easy solution. Most figured > they could do LC for a month or two, drop 20 lbs and then go back to > their old ways. They would have failed with or without the > products. True. I've also heard some version of this several times: "Oh, you're doing the low-carb/Atkins thing? My friend did that last year. She lost a lot of weight at first, but she just couldn't handle all that meat all the time." Or even worse, you get people who say they tried it and it didn't work, and then it turns out they thought rice was low-carb. Or they just ate anything from the store that had an LC sticker on it, because that's what they got used to with low-fat eating. They just went from eating a box of low-fat cookies to eating a box of low-carb ice cream. Many people who tried low-carb as a fad just skimmed through one of the books for the lists of foods, or never read a book at all and just based their diet on a description they heard at work or on Oprah. -- "If you read one million lines of C you'll understand the syntax. If you read one million lines of perl, you'll conclude it has no syntax." From nobody Tue May 1 11:29:05 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <46349c80$0$19462$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177861401.247773.135600@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <4634fd57$0$8918$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <133a0efi1hsl938@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:29:05 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy6gwlri.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "Roger Zoul" writes: > 2Phat wrote: > :: But the point is, like so many are pointing out, the quick > :: availability of mass produced LC items have lead some to fail at the > :: actual dieting part, become lazy in what learning LC and really > :: forget what LC is all about. > Nonsense. They would have failed anyway. Whether it be LC products > or just flat out cheating, these people would not follow the plan. > Trying to lay blame after the fact just because there is something > to "point at" is just stupid. Absolutely. Sure, there are probably people who said, "So, if I eat nothing but products that say "low-carb" on them, I'm following the diet, right?" If that were your idea of low-carb eating, you'd probably fail, because you'd be eating way too many carbs. But I can't see someone who understands the basics of the diet suddenly "forgetting" about the numbers because some new products show up on the shelves. -- "If you stop eating jam, fruit starts to taste better." -- Paul Graham From nobody Tue May 1 11:51:00 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <86irbffgby.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1cm933ponbr91tv5gnjhq0cbvhpf6berpq@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:50:59 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqh4wkr0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > Several years ago when manufacturers started jumping on the low-carb > bandwagon, we had a discussion on a mailing list about how this > wasn't necessarily a good thing. We were outnumbered by the working > moms who wanted "low cost, wholesome, high quality, low-carb > convenience foods" to make their lives easier. Well, I'd like to try some of those products myself, if they existed. Low-carb foods are always more expensive than their counterparts, though, and that won't change until they're sold in similar volumes. Diet soda and lite beer are the only exceptions I can think of, precisely because they *are* sold in large volume. "Wholesome," I take to mean foods that are reasonably natural and nutritious. I'd include a lot of foods that have always been LC in that category, like pork rinds and nuts, but not many manufactured low-carb products like SF Jello or LC pasta. Not that I have anything against those products, but I don't eat them for nutrition or wholesomeness. If you're really set on convenience foods -- i.e., never having to cook -- and you're concerned about nutrition and quality, you are going to have to pay more to stay low-carb. Pork rinds, nuts, beef jerky, and cheese sticks simply cost a lot more than chips, crackers, and cookies. But if you're willing to spend some time cooking, you can LC pretty frugally -- cheaper than buying fast food, certainly. That reminds me: I need to get some of those black soybeans ordered. -- "She was out of his league. He wouldn't even know where to get tickets to watch her league play." -- Joe Ohio From nobody Tue May 1 11:57:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 11:57:28 -0500 Message-ID: <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 39 XiaoZhen writes: > Don't go for processed low carb. Read your labels!!!!! Often there > are ingredients (such as fats and hydrogenated fats, and chemicals) > included to make the product taste nice and look good. Hydrogenated fats are bad, but what's wrong with other fats? > Instead go for natural complex carbohydrates. Why? > Whether it is low carb, or high protein, or low fat, I go for as > natural as I can. There are things we cannot do without. Yes, a certain amount of protein, a certain type of fat, and an assortment of vitamins and minerals. There are no carbohydrates on that list. > If I must buy processed food, I read the labels. For example, I go > to multi grain bread instead of white or wholemeal bread. That's low > carb to me. Then you might want to read the labels again. In some cases, the "wheat" or "whole grain" version of a bread will have just as many carbs as the white version, or even more. It's not low-carb just because it's brown and has crunchy bits on top. > This way, you can stay low carb as long as you like. Yeah, good luck with that. -- "Now, like all great plans, my strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it." From nobody Tue May 1 12:03:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: question about glucose testing References: <46361cc9$0$4719$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <133c9m0nv2c1t3f@news.supernews.com> <46364f3b$0$9896$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <133cmr8duf55o03@news.supernews.com> <46366ea5$0$19413$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 12:03:24 -0500 Message-ID: <863b2gwk6b.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Ann in Houston" writes: > Wow! I really botched that up. You'd think I never used a ng before. > Should I repost for the benefit of anyone who might be interested? Yes, please. I'm planning to get a meter myself, and I'm interested in knowing how much it varies from the hospital test. Also, I have no insurance, so I'm curious about what Roger said about how "you'll never be treated the same by an insurance company." If I do get insurance someday, should I wait until then to be tested, or would they consider it pre-existing anyway? Not that I hope ever to be buying insulin, but I figured it might matter in some way. -- "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is spongy and bruised." From nobody Wed May 2 14:49:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178081529.425894.59750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178108920.914470.281030@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 14:49:28 -0500 Message-ID: <861whzuhtj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > If it's all so simple, why are so many people fat? Personally, like > many others I have found that if I tried to gradually reduce my > sugar from the level of the typical American diet, I'd have cravings > and be hungry most of the time. And that's one big reason it isn't > simple and doesn't work. Agreed. I know several people who have told me, "I stopped drinking soda, but I still have to have my pasta," or similar things. They're hoping that cutting out 50% of their carbs will give them 50% of the benefits, and they'll just lose weight at half the rate. I'm torn, because I know that from a weight-loss standpoint, they're wasting their time. Cutting your daily carbs from 300g to 150g or so isn't going to spur any ketosis or glucagon production, and it's not going to eliminate any cravings. On the other hand, it *is* a step in the right direction and could improve their health in other ways, and you never want to discourage someone who's trying. So I try to say something that's encouraging, but honest, like, "Hey, that's great! Soda is one of the hardest things to give up, and it's loaded with sugar, so you're already over halfway there!" Then if they ask me what I mean by that, I try to break the concept of ketosis and the insulin/glucagon relationship gently to them. -- "When you get in bed with evil incarnate, it always takes the covers." -- The Tick From nobody Wed May 2 15:21:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: question about glucose testing References: <46361cc9$0$4719$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <133c9m0nv2c1t3f@news.supernews.com> <46364f3b$0$9896$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <133cmr8duf55o03@news.supernews.com> <46366ea5$0$19413$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <863b2gwk6b.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133f3pbdkptntb7@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 15:21:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86wszrt1ru.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 55 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: Also, I have no insurance, so I'm curious about what Roger said > :: about how "you'll never be treated the same by an insurance > :: company." If I do get insurance someday, should I wait until > :: then to be tested, > I would say that depends....if you know you're in good control via > diet & exercise, then perhaps so. Well, I *can* be in good control; I just haven't always chosen to be. I've tended to treat it like something I can take an occasional vacation from, and then I come back from the vacation sunburnt and hung-over with a bad case of VD, and swear never to do that again. I think on some level I've been resisting the truth that this has to be a lifetime commitment; that I'm not going to be able to lose the weight and then go back to eating plenty of carby foods, even in moderation. > However, if you're not (and I assume you are), I'd be fearful of the > notion of walking around with dangerously high BG levels so I could > stay "undiagnosed". I think it would be an extremely bad idea for > someone who is not very familiar with diabetes to be avoiding > medical care for fear of what the insurance co. might do the > road. However, many T2D on diet & exercise could avoid easy > detection on your typical doctor's visit. So if I get tested while on a low-carb diet, it could throw off the results because they assume a certain amount of dietary glucose? Sounds like I should eat a "normal" diet for a couple days before doing it. I'm about 95% sure I'm diabetic, or next thing to it. I've got all the symptoms of high BG except for muscle cramps, (probably because I use plenty of potassium salt) and the symptoms increase when I take a vacation from LC. But if I'm convinced I have diabetes, and I'm going to get Bernstein's book and do a bunch of research and control it with diet, does it matter whether a doctor tests me and confirms it? It matters if I'm going to have insurance help pay for my test equipment or treatments, obviously; but if I don't have insurance, I wonder if there's any point -- except to convince myself that last 5% so I stop taking those "vacations." Guess it's time to do some more research! Thanks, -- "If your life sucks, it is because you suck." -- Larry Winget From nobody Thu May 3 10:40:22 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: question about glucose testing References: <46361cc9$0$4719$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <133c9m0nv2c1t3f@news.supernews.com> <46364f3b$0$9896$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <133cmr8duf55o03@news.supernews.com> <46366ea5$0$19413$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <863b2gwk6b.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133f3pbdkptntb7@news.supernews.com> <86wszrt1ru.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133i1f0ga9vij20@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 10:40:22 -0500 Message-ID: <863b2dud95.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Roger Zoul" writes: > That's where a doctor and/or a good meter with proper testing will > serve you well. You can easily determine on your own if a doctor > would diagnose you. Thanks for all the info, Roger. I'll pick up a meter soon and start testing, and go from there. -- Q: What do you do with an elephant with 3 balls? A: Walk him and pitch to the rhino. From nobody Thu May 3 10:46:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: question about glucose testing References: <46361cc9$0$4719$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178200542.619242.150120@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 10:46:02 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7k5syf9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > This bears out in my experience. I have found if I am sticking to a > low-carb diet and have a cheat for one meal, my bg returns to normal > very rapidly. Whereas if I cheat for a whole day, my bg runs high > for a few days. In extreme cases, where I've gone off low-carb for > several days (which I often do when visiting family as it's too > difficult for them to feed me properly), it can take several weeks > for my bg to come back down to normal. I don't have a meter yet, but I can see this in the symptoms of high-carb eating, like fatigue and heartburn. If I've been low-carb for weeks, one high-carb meal or even a full day off won't cause much of a reaction (although it will cause cravings). But extend that to 2-3 days, and I'm a mess. Make it a once-a-week thing, and it hits me a lot sooner, sometimes after a single meal. -- "Be polite. Be professional. And have a plan to kill everyone you meet." From nobody Thu May 3 10:49:17 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: OK, How can I killfile those obnoxious cross-posters? References: <59fdc7F2kp4dnU1@mid.individual.net> <4638e371$0$4735$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <59sgp6F2m2oefU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 10:49:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzutsy9u.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Pat" writes: > What I did was go on one of those obnoxious cross-posts and ban > every poster whose name was unfamiliar from reading this > newsgroup. It was tedious, yeah, but I eliminated at least a dozen > of the idiots. I have a rule that drops the score way down on any post that's cross-posted to more than two groups. Sometimes a two-group cross-post is legitimate, but very rarely will one with more than that be. That clears out all the trolling that goes to multiple diet groups, which takes care of most of it. Then there are a few individuals who get low scores of their own. -- "In God we trust...everyone else keep your hands where I can see them." From nobody Thu May 3 11:01:04 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "Oderless" Fauxtatoes References: <1178113494.342131.209000@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <133h6p51qgata51@news.supernews.com> <1178115318.689714.32400@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:01:03 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps5hsxq8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Tunderbar writes: > That is my point. If you want potatoes, make frikkin' potatoes. If > you want cauliflower, make cauliflower. This stupidity about making > fauxtatoes with cauliflower is just denying yourself what you really > want, which is potatoes. Just make the damned potatoes and don't get > stupid with the portions, One quarter of a medium baked potato has more carbs that I can have in a meal. If I need a magnifying glass to find my food, *that* sounds like getting stupid with the portions to me. > Cauliflower is not a bastard child, but making fauxtatoes from > cauliflower is the explicit creation of a bastard child. Not really. They're having mashed cauliflower, and they're cooking it a certain way to get rid of a certain flavor they don't like. Nothing wrong with that. Your objection seems to be to the term "fauxtatoes" because it's misleading. I tend to agree, but who cares? You've gotta call them something, and everyone knows what you mean when you say "fauxtatoes." "Ice cream" is no longer made with ice (and not much cream), but we still call it that. -- "A war that isn't fun is almost as bad as no war at all." -- War Nerd From nobody Thu May 3 11:17:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "Oderless" Fauxtatoes References: <1178113494.342131.209000@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <133hbic8tihrbe2@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:17:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkg5swyd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > And this is what Bob is doing -- in another part of this thread, he > said he finds cauliflower disgusting. So my question is, if it's so > disgusting, why eat it at all, since there are so other choices out > there. He finds it disgusting in its usual form, but he's found a way of cooking it that he likes, that doesn't appear to take a lot of work. Makes sense to me. Some people like raw green beans, but I think they're nasty raw, so I cook them and like them very much that way. Problem solved. -- "A true victory is to make your enemies see they were wrong to oppose you in the first place. To force them to acknowledge your greatness." -- Gul Dukat From nobody Thu May 3 11:25:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "Oderless" Fauxtatoes References: <1178113494.342131.209000@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <133hbic8tihrbe2@news.supernews.com> <133hfg23hn3em98@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 11:25:22 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcqtswlp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Marsha writes: > Roger Zoul wrote: >> Hoq many foods are really disgusting? >> I think it's too strong a word unless one is eating something alive... > Asparagus, in any form - it's not just disgusting, it's revolting. I could eat asparagus every day. I was at Applebees a few weeks ago, and asked if they could give me extra asparagus in place of the potato. They must have used every inch of the stalk, right down to the ground. I only ate about half of it, and for me to leave asparagus on my plate, it has to be pretty bad. Some pieces were so woody I couldn't push a fork into them, and I was picking fibers out of my teeth until I got home to some floss. I know undercooking your veggies so they're crunchy is all the rage, but sheesh. -- "We are all self-made, but only the successful will admit it." From nobody Fri May 4 08:41:04 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "Oderless" Fauxtatoes References: <1178113494.342131.209000@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <133hbic8tihrbe2@news.supernews.com> <86lkg5swyd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <59uovkF2m1vqqU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 08:41:04 -0500 Message-ID: <86wszor9jj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Pat" writes: > I don't understand this use of the word "nasty" when it comes to > food stuffs. And, it isn't just you, so don't think that I am > picking on you. But, doesn't "nasty" indicate a moral dimension? I > have heard "figs are nasty" and green beans are nasty" when of > course they are nothing of the sort--they just don't appeal to the > person making the opinion. When I say 'nasty,' I mean there's a visceral reaction of wanting to spit it out. It doesn't taste like food to me; in the case of raw green beans, they taste like grass or something. When I tried alfalfa sprouts one time, they were the same way. There's something about the taste of raw legumes that just turns my stomach instantly. There are things I didn't like as a kid that I like now, like sauerkraut or spicy foods (my mom's cooking is very good, but very non-spicy). I think your tastes mature and expand to accept more variety as you get older. But that revulsion for certain things is a different story. -- From nobody Fri May 4 08:58:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: "Oderless" Fauxtatoes References: <1178113494.342131.209000@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <133hbic8tihrbe2@news.supernews.com> <133hfg23hn3em98@news.supernews.com> <86hcqtswlp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <4k8k33p4hg51ur87ak70vd55fjrerdpm1k@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 08:58:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86slacr8r4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > I had dinner at Applebee's myself a few weeks ago and I was really > pleased that they offered to substitute for rice -- and I got the > grilled asparagus. It was yummy, but not enough of it. It wasn't > woody at all, but they were very thin, young spears. > > It irks me to pay full price for a meal that I'm only going to eat > half of, so I was happy that they did the substitution. I would have > been pretty disappointed, though, if my substitution was useless -- > like your's seemed to be. I was happy they substituted too, and she seemed to be glad to do it. Since I ate about half of it, I'd say I at least ended up with one good serving, so I was no worse off than if I'd let them bring me the potato and left it on the plate. (It helped that I wasn't paying.) > Is that SOP there? Or was it the first time you tried it? Did you > think about complaining, or was it not worth the trouble to you? I don't eat out often enough to know. I never complain at restaurants. If I get a bad meal, it just reminds me why I cook for myself most of the time. Besides, the steak and grilled shrimp were excellent. The steak was even cooked correctly and very tender. I almost never order steak because it's usually under- or overcooked or full of gristle, so that was a nice surprise. -- From nobody Fri May 4 09:12:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: question about glucose testing References: <46361cc9$0$4719$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <59utvoF2mf38eU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 09:12:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86odl0r838.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 9 I'm curious about something: Why is it necessary to draw blood to measure this stuff? Isn't there a urine test, or is that not as accurate? I'm just surprised they haven't come up with something simpler, for a test that has to be done so often. -- From nobody Fri May 4 11:26:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: question about glucose testing References: <46361cc9$0$4719$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <59utvoF2mf38eU1@mid.individual.net> <86odl0r838.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133mj9vgusqq61a@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 11:26:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqh0r1vy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Sugar doesn't show up in urine until you're in big trouble. Please > don't go there. That makes sense. I was just reading an article by Dr. Bernstein, where he talks about how when he was young, he had to do the urine testing, but he later realized that was a waste of time because it only showed what you were losing, not what was in your blood. > The pricking is a pain, but you can handle it. Oh, I'm sure I'll be able to. I'm just surprised they haven't come up with a saliva test or something by now. Bernstein's life story (the short version; I don't have the book yet) is quite an inspiration. He'd been told there was nothing he could do except take lots of insulin and expect to die early, so he went out and educated himself -- which was a lot more expensive and difficult than it is now -- and proved an entire establishment industry wrong. No one wanted to hear about it, and the ADA and others did their best to suppress what he had to say (and still do, apparently). Thank God information flows too freely for that to be possible anymore. They may still be able to keep opposing ideas from appearing in mainstream news outlets, but if you go looking for the truth, they can't keep it from you. -- From nobody Fri May 4 11:45:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lose Weight Slowly References: <462cb205$0$5754$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <132pkmbs82k8408@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 11:45:46 -0500 Message-ID: <864pmsr0zp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "Roger Zoul" writes: > It is my personal belief that those who "actively" try to lose weigh > fast are not really committed to sustained, long-term weight loss. This is probably true in many cases. I'd tend to agree that people shouldn't try to lose weight quickly, because that's too likely to lead to disappointment or desperation, neither of which is good. But I wouldn't tell them to try to lose it slowly, either. If you start eating right and lose 5 pounds a week, great! If you start eating right and lose 2 pounds a month, great! Moving in the right direction is the important thing, not only for the weight loss, but also for the other improvements in health that come from turning off the insulin spigot. I suspect "fast" weight loss is most unsustainable when it's caused by starvation. If you get enough protein and calories to feed your LBM and avoid hunger, there's no reason that should stop working and go the other direction. Of course, if you hit your goal and celebrate by making fries a regular part of your diet again, you're going to gain the weight back, but that's true no matter how quickly you lost it. It all seems psychological to me: there's no reason why the speed at which you lost the weight should affect whether you gain it back, except for how it relates indirectly to your attitude about it. -- A "moderate" Republican is more often than not just a Democrat with good fashion sense. I don't understand the need for an alternative category. -- Bryanna Bevens From nobody Fri May 4 13:03:56 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178081529.425894.59750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178108920.914470.281030@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178179091.955169.163090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178198807.656813.14160@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178252951.472926.292500@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178285039.400574.177160@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <5a1527F2muf15U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 13:03:56 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm4kpisz.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Pat" writes: > Are they allowed to sell it now? Seems as if I saw a story earlier > in the week banning the sale of raw milk. The law may vary by locality, but in general, you can buy whatever you want as long as you buy it directly from the farmer. Most regulations only come into it when someone buys a product to resell it. -- "Life is not fair, but that's the best news there could be." -- David DeAngelo From nobody Fri May 4 18:49:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: question about glucose testing References: <46361cc9$0$4719$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <59utvoF2mf38eU1@mid.individual.net> <86odl0r838.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133mj9vgusqq61a@news.supernews.com> <86bqh0r1vy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133mou5s3icl30@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 18:49:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps5gp2tn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: Thank God information flows too freely for that to be possible > :: anymore. They may still be able to keep opposing ideas from > :: appearing in mainstream news outlets, but if you go looking for the > :: truth, they can't keep it from you. > > Have you been to www.diabetesincontrol.com yet? No, but it's bookmarked now, so I'll make it there at some point. Thanks! -- Boswell : "So, Sir, you laugh at schemes of political improvement?" Johnson: "Why, Sir, most schemes of political improvement are very laughable things." From nobody Fri May 4 18:53:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178081529.425894.59750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <133j9jldji4dced@news.supernews.com> <59u6skF2n42n3U1@mid.individual.net> <133jst37i6oo6ce@news.supernews.com> <59up34F2mac2lU1@mid.individual.net> <133kbtmfq4pfk81@news.supernews.com> <59v8krF2l2cflU1@mid.individual.net> <133l2o14fs1nhff@news.supernews.com> <5a1546F2m4adaU1@mid.individual.net> <1178300414.981008.176260@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <5a1e1tF2nf1b8U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 18:53:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkg4p2mx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Pat" writes: > Yeah, me too. Every single top poster I've ever seen has the > attitude "it's all about me! I'm special!" Funny how the convenience of the one person who writes a post is more important than the comprehension of the hundreds or thousands of people who might read it, huh? -- From nobody Sat May 5 17:51:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178081529.425894.59750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178108920.914470.281030@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178179091.955169.163090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178198807.656813.14160@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178252951.472926.292500@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178285039.400574.177160@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1178376983.527619.262320@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 05 May 2007 17:51:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86vef6opdj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 XiaoZhen writes: > I like low fat frozen yoghurt best, and I haven't seen one that is > full fat. I haven't either. All the ones on the shelves here are low-fat. That's why I take one home and use it as a starter to make yogurt out of whole Jersey milk that's about 5% fat or so. Unfortunately, I don't seem to like yogurt. It's easy to turn it into cream cheese, though, and I also try to find recipes that use it. Hmm, maybe stirring some chocolate powder into it? > For me, not taking too much fat is good in keeping my triglycerides > low and possibly good for my heart. I think that myth has been pretty well debunked. Certain fats, especially the manufactured ones, may be bad for you; but natural animal fats just aren't, on balance. Even the fats that might be bad in something like a steak are outweighed by the good ones in there. -- "Did my reputation precede me, or was I too quick for it?" From nobody Mon May 7 19:23:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lose Weight Slowly References: <462cb205$0$5754$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <132pkmbs82k8408@news.supernews.com> <864pmsr0zp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133s9dn4gejlja5@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:23:40 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejlsnoxf.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 91 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: If you start eating right and lose 5 pounds a week, great! > So, if one follows an Atkins inspired LC diet of 800 / day and loses > 5 lbs a week, great? While I think people do this kind of thing, > I'm not so sure if it's great if the means by which it is achieved > is not sustainable. No, because "eating right" doesn't include starvation, and Atkins never suggests cutting calories back that drastically, certainly not at the Induction stage. None of the LC plans I'm familiar with tell you to restrict calories at all unless you hit a genuine stall, at which point they might say to lower calories until you start moving again, but not until you move 5 pounds/week. So that situation is a strawman, as far as LC eating is concerned. > :: If you > :: start eating right and lose 2 pounds a month, great! Moving in the > :: right direction is the important thing, not only for the weight loss, > :: but also for the other improvements in health that come from turning > :: off the insulin spigot. > But people have shown the ability to move in the right direction for > short period of time many, many times. Some of these people are > called "yo-yo dieters". That doesn't mean they're doing something wrong during the periods when they're losing. If you do everything right for a few months and lose a bunch of weight, and then for some mental reason go off the wagon and gain it back, that doesn't mean they were somehow losing it wrong. Maybe they didn't have the right attitude about it, but their dieting method may have been perfect. I think the fear of yo-yo dieting often leads to the "don't diet, just balance and moderate" belief. I was just talking to a seriously overweight friend of mine yesterday, and she was repeating the usual: "I'm just trying to eat smaller portions....extreme diets never last (and 'no potatoes, rice, or bread' qualifies as extreme to everyone but us)....humans aren't designed to eat a lot of meat.....you need all the food groups [whatever those are today] to be healthy....." All the same old tenets of the faith. Without being too preachy or mean, I tried to fill her in on a few things and gave her some links, because she's intelligent and likes to read. But it was a good example of someone who's bought into the idea that "extreme" diets -- those that restrict particular foods -- are counter-productive in the long run -- maybe even more so if they work especially well. > :: I suspect "fast" weight loss is most unsustainable when it's caused > :: by starvation. If you get enough protein and calories to feed your > :: LBM and avoid hunger, there's no reason that should stop working and > :: go the other direction. > > Do you think that hunger or the lack of it is an indication that > you're getting enough protein and calories to feed your LBM? No, that's why I put an "and" in there. I make sure to feed my LBM because I don't want to lose lean mass or starve important systems. I also avoid hunger because it can lead to cravings and cheating, especially if it hits me when I'm around tempting high-carb foods. Granted, the cravings aren't *nearly* as intense when I've been low-carb for a while, but they still exist, and they're worse when I'm hungry. > You talk about this as if it's a math problem or something. There > very definite is a reason why the speed at which you lose the weight > should affect whether you gain it back. And the reason is > psychological. Absolutely, and that's why it depends on the person, so you can't say X pounds/week is too fast. Personally, I think the fact that I lost 20 pounds in my first month way back when I first started LC (while eating about 3000 calories/day) made me complacent. I didn't gain it back, but I got lazy and stopped losing, because on some level I thought, "Hey, this is easy! I don't need to be in any hurry, 'cause I can start again tomorrow and lose the rest in a couple months! Give me a slice of that pie!" There are *all kinds* of ways for a human being to screw up. We're pretty innovative that way. But when we screw up, that doesn't invalidate the successes that went before. -- "Scared money always loses." From nobody Mon May 7 19:30:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178081529.425894.59750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178108920.914470.281030@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178179091.955169.163090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178198807.656813.14160@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178252951.472926.292500@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178285039.400574.177160@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1178376983.527619.262320@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <86vef6opdj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133s62p1r5470e2@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:30:12 -0500 Message-ID: <867irknomj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Roger Zoul" writes: > The only *bad* thing about fat is calories. And that has to do with > overeating. Overeating is bad. Why? Let's say every day this week I eat 480 calories worth of protein (the amount my LBM needs) and 4000 calories of fat, and 0 calories of carbs. How will that fat be bad for me? -- "How do animals learn? Well, as long as they learn to taste good, I don't really care." From nobody Mon May 7 19:35:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <46349c80$0$19462$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178396505.898371.216370@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <5a678uF2m2m5fU1@mid.individual.net> <1178464216.163644.158050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 19:35:46 -0500 Message-ID: <863b28nod9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Speaking of LC products, I was reading excerpts of Bernstein's book on his web site, and he recommends avoiding Sugar-free Jello in powder form because it includes maltodextrin. I checked the boxes I've got, and sure enough, it's in there. He says it's sugar, but they use it and still claim zero carbs and calories. What gives? Is this one of those cases where a sugar substitute is supposedly metabolically inactive but some people react to it anyway? I don't care that much for the stuff anyway, but I thought most people here considered it safe. I guess the true test will be to see how it affects me when I get a BG meter. -- "Common sense is what tells us that the earth is flat." From nobody Thu May 10 14:34:48 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178081529.425894.59750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178108920.914470.281030@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178179091.955169.163090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178198807.656813.14160@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178252951.472926.292500@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178285039.400574.177160@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1178376983.527619.262320@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <86vef6opdj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133s62p1r5470e2@news.supernews.com> <867irknomj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <133vibt285vqe97@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:34:47 -0500 Message-ID: <86odkslbfs.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: "Roger Zoul" writes: > :: > ::: The only *bad* thing about fat is calories. And that has to do with > ::: overeating. Overeating is bad. > :: > :: Why? Let's say every day this week I eat 480 calories worth of > :: protein (the amount my LBM needs) and 4000 calories of fat, and 0 > :: calories of carbs. How will that fat be bad for me? > > You'll gain weight. Try it. How, though? I'm not saying you're wrong, but how does that biochemical process work? I understand how you gain weight when you take in carbs, because insulin triggers the storage of fat. I can even see how the same thing would happen if you drastically over-consumed fat *and* protein, because enough protein would convert to glucose to cause the same thing. But in the absence of carbs and extra protein, how does the fat get stored instead of just riding around in your blood stream until it's burned or excreted? I'm not trying to be facetious here, really. If you can gain weight on a high-calorie fat fast, then there's something completely missing in my understanding of how this all works, even after reading several books and millions of words online about the subject. I know conventional wisdom says every calorie that goes in has to be used somehow (although if that were true, you couldn't burn cow patties), but here in this group, at least, I think we're willing to question assumptions like that and ask for the reasons behind them. -- From nobody Thu May 10 14:40:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <46349c80$0$19462$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178396505.898371.216370@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <5a678uF2m2m5fU1@mid.individual.net> <1178464216.163644.158050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <863b28nod9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178595972.097811.122960@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:40:51 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5vglb5o.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 XiaoZhen writes: > I have said this in one of my posts: "Finally, health is most > important, irregardless on the diet you are on and even if you are > not on a diet. " Being overweight appears to me to be one of the worst things you can do to your health -- I've known 90-year-old smokers and drinkers, but no 90-year-old fat people -- so I can't imagine how you'd separate those two things. If your diet causes you to gain weight or keep on extra weight, it's unhealthy. By the way, a friendly tip: -- From nobody Thu May 10 14:47:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178010869.273274.139320@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <867irswkg7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178081529.425894.59750@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178108920.914470.281030@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1178179091.955169.163090@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1178679646.731355.155360@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:47:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy64lauc.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > I disagree with this. I'm not overly fond of Atkins generally, but > I think his idea of induction is much, much, much simpler than > "cutting back". Absolutely. No one would recommend that a smoker or alcoholic try to quit by "cutting back." It doesn't make any more sense here. > Especially if you're diabetic or pre-diabetic, cause any amount of > sugar or starch is just gonna kick in the cravings massively. > Granted, induction is tough, but after a few days, it ceases being > so. You don't give your body a chance to change over if you do it > gradually - and the cravings just keep going on and ob. > IMO, substitution foods are for later on. At the beginning though, > it's easier to go cold turkey. Also, if you go cold turkey, there's a better chance that you can get the dangerous foods out of your reach completely, especially if you don't live with any high-carbers. If you bake a potato and say, "Ok, I'll cut this into eighths and eat one now, and save the other seven for the next several meals, what are the chances that you're going to stick with that, especially in the early stages when you're fighting the strongest cravings? Much easier to not tempt yourself that way. -- From nobody Thu May 10 14:52:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <46349c80$0$19462$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178396505.898371.216370@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <5a678uF2m2m5fU1@mid.individual.net> <1178464216.163644.158050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <863b28nod9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:52:31 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqgslam8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "FOB" writes: > There's maltodextrin in the powdered form of Splenda, too, it gives > it body and in Jello it probably keeps the granules from sticking > together, gelatin is very sticky and absorbs water easily. There is > such a small amount that the calories from it are negligible. If it's that negligible, why does Bernstein say to avoid it? That's the part I don't get. If something has less than .5g of carbs per serving, why would you need to avoid it, regardless of what that .5g is made of? -- From nobody Thu May 10 14:57:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: enemies of a healthy weight References: <1178653075.808464.144830@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1341rq359ie7h7e@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:57:24 -0500 Message-ID: <867irglae3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "Roger Zoul" writes: > What an odd piece of spam this is.... The sad thing is that enough people will actually go to the site and buy stuff or click on paid links to make it worth someone's time to try to write spam that looks like a valid post. -- From nobody Thu May 10 14:59:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: An article on women, heart disease, and the AHA References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 14:59:36 -0500 Message-ID: <863b24laaf.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 22 "Bob in CT" writes: > http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/making-it-up-on-volume.html > > A quote: > > The paper was the American Heart Association’s new Guidelines for > Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Women. It differed from its 2004 > Guidelines in one significant way: women previously classified as low > or intermediate risk are now all labeled as “at risk†and > targeted for intervention. They arrived at this plan because > virtually all heart disease occurs in women without “risk > factors†and of low risk. > Note the last sentence. If you don't like reality, change your definitions, I guess. -- From nobody Fri May 11 12:24:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <46349c80$0$19462$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178396505.898371.216370@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <5a678uF2m2m5fU1@mid.individual.net> <1178464216.163644.158050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <863b28nod9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178595972.097811.122960@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86k5vglb5o.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178856734.338497.241580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:24:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy63jmt2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 67 XiaoZhen writes: > Let me explain a little what I meant. > Not all overweight people are unhealthy. I disagree. It depends on how you define the terms, of course, but I'd submit that anyone who is significantly overweight -- according to the government's obesity standards, for example -- will be in worse health than he or she would be in without the extra weight. Not that the extra weight *causes* poor health, necessarily; they could both be caused by the same thing -- high blood sugar, for example. > Similarly, not all slim people are healthy. No, of course not. > Some people can be on diets, lose weight and still be unhealthy. > Some people are not on diets, and still are healthy. At the moment, sure. There are many other factors that can damage your health, but being overweight is a big one (pardon the pun). Maybe the biggest, of all the common lifestyle afflictions. > You are equating slim people with longevity. I wonder how true is > that? I'm not equating them. I'm seeing a correlation, and saying that where there's smoke, there's probably fire. Of course, there's another possibility: maybe the genetic attributes that encourage obesity (what Bernstein calls the "thrifty" gene) also shorten the lifespan in some other way. That would account for the lack of old fat people, even if it's not the fat that's directly preventing them from getting there. > I do not know any old people, but there are reports of 100 > plus who are slim but do not smoke and drink. I too haven't read > any reports of 100 plus who are fat either. Well, of course slim people who didn't smoke or drink will live longer on average than slim people who did. That wasn't the point. I only mentioned smoking and drinking because everyone is in agreement that smoking and drinking (if you drink very much, anyway) are harmful to your health. Yet I see more smokers and drinkers living into their 80s and 90s than fat people, but as a society, we don't see obesity as the same level of risk. We wring our hands about it now and then, and the government throws money at making the crappy school meals (can't just say lunches anymore) more and more low-fat, but PSAs about things like smoking and drug use still outnumber PSAs about obesity 100-to-1. At my niece's First Communion last Sunday, one of the kids in her class was a real butterball. (His parents looked just like him, too. You could have picked them out of the hundreds of people there, even if they hadn't been sitting with him. When people say it isn't genetic, I just shake my head....) I wonder how many people looked at that kid and thought about how he's being setup for a likely (short) lifetime of struggling with his weight and poor health. Then I wonder how many *more* people would think the same thing if they saw him smoking outside after Mass. Something's out of kilter there. -- "There are no stupid questions, only stupid people asking questions." From nobody Fri May 11 12:26:54 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: An article on women, heart disease, and the AHA References: <863b24laaf.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 11 May 2007 12:26:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqgrjmoy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 35 "AnonomissX aka ~Melodie~" writes: > "Aaron Baugher" wrote in message > news:863b24laaf.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz... >> "Bob in CT" writes: >> >>> http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/making-it-up-on-volume.html >>> >>> A quote: >>> >>> The paper was the American Heart Associationâ?Ts new Guidelines for >>> Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Women. It differed from its 2004 >>> Guidelines in one significant way: women previously classified as low >>> or intermediate risk are now all labeled as â?oat riskâ? and >>> targeted for intervention. They arrived at this plan because >>> virtually all heart disease occurs in women without â?orisk >>> factorsâ? and of low risk. >> >>> Note the last sentence. >> >> If you don't like reality, change your definitions, I guess. > I think that is the point...if you read the last sentence, what > women are EXCLUDED from having to worry about having to be > prescribed drugs at that rate??? The ones in the "super-duper low risk" group, maybe? Heck, I don't know. They're obviously just pulling this stuff out of thin air anymore, so it's a wonder it even makes grammatical sense, let alone logical sense. -- From nobody Wed May 16 08:07:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Down Fall of Low Carb References: <46345abb$0$19426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1177849173.390319.241670@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <46349c80$0$19462$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1178396505.898371.216370@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <5a678uF2m2m5fU1@mid.individual.net> <1178464216.163644.158050@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <863b28nod9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178595972.097811.122960@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86k5vglb5o.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1178856734.338497.241580@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86fy63jmt2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1349hnvejb4pff8@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:07:22 -0500 Message-ID: <864pmc533p.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 "Roger Zoul" writes: > You look out at "a" population (on that which you see) and you draw > conclusions. "Ah, none of these old people are fat. Therefore, being > "fat" is unhealthy. Yet, you made no mention of the slim people you > didn't see that are dead as well. Why don't you count them > alongside the fat people who also aren't there? So *all* slim people have to reach old age before you're willing to claim something statistically interesting might be happening? Come on. If 10% of all left-handed baseball players had batting averages over .400, and only 1% of right-handed players did so, that would be statistically significant, and left-handed prospects would be more valuable in general. You wouldn't say, "Yeah, but what about the other 90% of left-handers who don't hit .400? Why don't you count them?" The answer is: I am counting them, by elimination. In my family, the people who have lived to 90+ were slim; and the ones who were still healthy and active at that age, and not abed in a nursing home, tend to be the ones who were slim all their lives. When I see the old guys roll up in their Rascals to the coffee shop downstairs every morning, I see a bunch of thin guys. After a while, I start to think, hmm, maybe there's a connection here. I'm not writing a thesis here, for cripes sake, or working from a government grant. I'm just musing on my observations, and noting that some of our priorities where health risks are concerned don't seem to be proportional to the actual danger. It seems to me that obesity -- or certain factors that cause obesity -- shortens the average lifespan more consistently than many things that we worry a lot more about. That's all. -- "Most of us inhabit at least two worlds: the real world, where we're at the mercy of circumstance; and the world within, the unconscious, a safe place where we can escape." -- The Maxx From nobody Wed May 16 08:41:30 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: My New Blood Glucose Monitor From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 08:41:29 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm443mye.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 44 Ok, so I picked up a blood glucose monitor this weekend. Ouch! Heh, it's not so bad, but I sure feel sorry for the Type I kids out there who've had to put up with this all their lives. Quite a scam, too, with these stupid little strips of paper being two for a dollar, and those were the cheapest ones. I bet they make a thousand of them for that price. That's what you get when too many people don't pay for something out-of-pocket. And why on earth are the strips sold in packs of 50 or 100, while the lancets are sold in packs of 200, when the strips can only be used once, but you might use a needle a couple times (like if a test errors and you do another right away)? God, I hate the health care industry. Anyway, I went straight home and did a test, after having been strictly low-carb (practically a meat fast) for a week, and got a 60. Then, for the sake of science, I ate a pound of potato sticks for supper. One hour later, it was 181, and an hour after that, it was 133. By the next morning before breakfast, I was at 91, and two hours after bacon and eggs, 87. At my grandma's birthday party at lunch, I had plenty of carbs but also a lot of meat and fatty stuff like ice cream, and two hours later I was at 131, and by the next morning 85 again. Not surprising, that a fat/carb meal wouldn't spike as high as a carb-only meal. So obviously I have a problem with spiking blood sugar, which I knew from my symptoms, but maybe it's not as bad as it could be. I suppose my next step, now that I'm LC again, is to do tests after particular foods to see how they affect me. I'm a bit concerned about that 60 I got with my first test, though. (By the way, there was no prior exercise that would have depleted anything.) Is it possible that after a week of low-carb, my body would still be over-producing insulin because of my last carb binge? If it gets that low again, I'm not sure whether I should have a few carbs to bring it up -- risking an escalation of insulin requiring more sugar, rinse and repeat -- or assume that it will find the right level, given time. -- Truth is a hot pepper. -- Wolof proverb From nobody Thu May 17 16:37:51 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My New Blood Glucose Monitor References: <86zm443mye.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5b0jcrF2pm7imU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:37:51 -0500 Message-ID: <86646r2ksw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Susan writes: > You should have bought a Walmart Relion, it has the cheapest strips. Hmm, I didn't even see that one. I got the Accu-Chek Active for under $20, so if I need to get a different one for cheaper strips, it won't be that big a deal. > Most of use use the same lancets for months or more without changing > them. Wow, since they were so much cheaper than the strips (about a dime each, I think) and came in boxes of 200, I just assumed you wouldn't reuse them. I wasn't worried about health risks, but I figured each time it was used, it'd get a little duller and hurt more. Thanks for the tip. -- From nobody Thu May 17 16:40:22 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My New Blood Glucose Monitor References: <86zm443mye.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <134m7ffsc1tkd1d@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:40:21 -0500 Message-ID: <861whf2koq.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> Anyway, I went straight home and did a test, after having been >> strictly low-carb (practically a meat fast) for a week, and got a >> 60. > Did you check your meter using the control solution? No, I didn't know about that until I got home and read the instructions. I'll pick up the control solution this weekend and do that before I use up a bunch more strips. Since I have gotten some readings in the 85 area, I suspect that initial 60 was correct, but I'll find out for sure before I worry about it too much. Thanks, -- From nobody Thu May 17 16:45:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My New Blood Glucose Monitor References: <86zm443mye.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1179330533.820039.292270@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:45:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsz715vu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > Also, though you haven't been diagnosed, this page has good info if > you haven't seen it yet: > http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org/NewlyDiagnosed.htm Thanks, I'm headed there to check it out. I thought about subscribing to alt.support.diabetes too, but it seems like everything that gets cross-posted from there is garbage, so I hadn't gotten around to it yet. I suppose the problem could be with the cross-posted stuff and not the rest of the content, just like here. -- From nobody Thu May 17 16:56:22 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Insulin Levels May Dictate Success With a Diet References: <134maf6cui8oia1@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 16:56:22 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl9v15dl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "Roger Zoul" writes: > This seems like a interesting article for MSN: > http://health.msn.com/dietfitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100163456 > TUESDAY, May 15 (HealthDay News) -- A diet slightly higher in fat > and lower in processed carbohydrates -- such as refined cereals, > white bread and white sugar -- may help people who secrete insulin > at higher levels lose more weight than a low-fat, higher-carb plan. > That's the conclusion of a new study that may help to explain why a > person's rate of insulin production -- and not dedication to a diet > -- can determine their weight loss success. All sounds very familiar, doesn't it? Of course, they have to throw in "slightly higher in fat," wouldn't want people leaving the skin on their chicken or crazy stuff like that! > In the study, those with higher insulin levels lost nearly five > times as much weight on the lower-carb plan than on the low-fat > plan, dropping 12.8 pounds in 18 months compared to just 2.6 pounds. Wow, five times as much. That's gonna be a little harder for the AMA to shrug of as an insignificant difference like they did with their own study that "only" gave low-carb a 2-1 advantage over the likes of Ornish. -- From nobody Fri May 18 07:54:45 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Doctor approved diet plan...opinions? References: <_Pl2i.21580$JZ3.456@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> <5auc2kF2qp5pgU1@mid.individual.net> <134k8oac6gnn2c0@news.supernews.com> <1179269002.713427.221400@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <4823i.29238$Um6.26570@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 07:54:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86abw21ecq.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "FOB" writes: > If you're terrified of the "chlorine" in Splenda you should also > quit eating salt which is sodium chloride. Once the chlorine atoms > are bonded into the Splenda atoms they are no more harmful than they > are in salt. I've always gotten a kick out of the people who avoid salt because they think sodium is harmful. And chlorine isn't? Do schools even try to teach chemistry anymore? -- From nobody Mon May 21 08:59:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Being thin does not automatically mean you are not fat References: <1178955538.167102.114400@e51g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1179194088.204539.12510@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1179269870.281358.193540@q23g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1179282159.402679.11150@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1179316620.570352.13200@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1179325908.975488.13250@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1179331323.839958.237200@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <1179372184.585541.129000@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1179414878.358824.70270@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1179475080.929324.315640@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <1179497371.587033.289240@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1179506358.927536.31160@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 08:59:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7jiuvj6.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > I'm beginning to think Roger must be pretty close to the truth when > he said XiaoZhen's diet consists of eating wood. Because this just > doesn't add up. How do you get to 40-50% fiber by volume eating any > real food? Makes no sense to me either, especially in the context of eating lots of fresh, whole foods. I don't think my local fresh fruit and vegetable market has a single item for sale that approaches that level of fiber content -- especially without including a lot of non-fiber carbs. Even whole-grain products that tout their fiber content don't come close. Take Triscuts, for example: made from whole wheat, 19 carbs, 3 fiber, equals 15.8% fiber. You could get 40% fiber by including things like flax seed and psyllium husks, but that doesn't really fit the talk about lots of vegetables and fresh, real foods. I'm almost convinced the whole fiber craze was a scam anyway, or at least an unnecessary side-effect of the popularity of high-carb, low-fat diets. Maybe you need fiber to stay regular when you're eating a lot of dense grain and protein without any fat to lighten things up; but I've never been constipated on low-carb, even when I've eaten nothing but meat, eggs, and cheese for weeks. (I realize fiber may be valuable for other things, but constipation seems to be by far the main reason people worry about it and take supplements for it.) -- From nobody Mon May 21 09:22:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My New Blood Glucose Monitor References: <86zm443mye.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <134m7ffsc1tkd1d@news.supernews.com> <861whf2koq.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1179495929.162860.62770@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 09:22:15 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzu6uui0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > Even if it's calibrated, I'd not worry about one reading. Anything > could've happened, the drop didn't fully cover the right area on the > strip or something. Generally, if you get a completely unexpected > reading, do another test before you "buy" it. Yea, a few of my first tests errored for one reason or another too, but I've gotten better at it. I'm not going to worry about that 60 unless it comes up again. I went back to Walmart yesterday (Gah, I hate that place) and sure enough, there was the Relion, for half the price of the Accu-Chek I bought, and the Relion strips for less than a third of the price. I don't know how I missed it last time unless they were out of them, considering I stood there for 30 minutes comparing prices and features. Oh well, I'll be switching when I get these 50-cent strips used up. > It helps to know what happens with cheats too. A plate of pasta > raises my bg to over 300. That really gives you something to THINK > about before indulging. It's way beyond thinking about whether weight > loss will slow, which you could make up later. It's considering organ > damage and the progression of diabetes and causing permanent, > irreversible damage. A plate of pasta could take me to the place > where I couldn't eat fruit at all anymore. Not worth it! No kidding. It's helping me to match up my symptoms, the way I feel, with what's actually going on inside, which is interesting. Yesterday, I woke up at 89, went to 95 (1 hour) and 93 (2 hours) after a breakfast of bacon and eggs. So far so good. Then for lunch, I had roast beef and cheese on about a dozen or so Triscuts (about 30g of carbs worth). My BG shot up to 154 and 181! Ice cream cake at my grandma's birthday party last week didn't spike it that much! Apparently wheat is out for now, even in what could be considered moderation, low-carb-wise. -- From nobody Thu May 24 09:56:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please help me critique my eating plan? References: <1179838910.425465.98770@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1355u04i1rons2a@corp.supernews.com> <1179848837.073911.318480@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <1356h0t1t4ek71c@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 09:56:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86myzunuc5.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Bob in CT" writes: > Well, that sucks. What do you use for things like hamburgers and > hot dogs? I can eat them without a "bun" (i.e., low carb wraps), but > that limits the appeal of them. A fork and plate. Yeah, it does limit the appeal (although it's not the flavor of the bun that I miss, so it must be a subconscious connection between the bun and the serotonin and other "relaxation" chemicals it prompts the production of), but sometimes you do what you have to do. I seem to be in the same boat where wheat is concerned, so until someone comes out with a corn-based wrap or some alternative that I can test with my BG meter, I'll be avoiding all that stuff. Some people wrap sandwiches in lettuce, but I've never had much luck with that. The lettuce doesn't soak up any meat juices, so they end up dripping while I eat or running down my arm. Not much "appeal" in that either. -- From nobody Thu May 24 10:03:51 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Most Popular Low Carb Diet On The Net!! References: <1180009467.492879.327430@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 10:03:51 -0500 Message-ID: <86irainu08.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 mrkcoverdale@gmail.com writes: > Just thought i would let you know there is a very popular e-book on > the net at the moment dedicated to the low carb diet. it is very > helpful and has some awsome info in it. I have used a few different > low carb diets and this is the on i am having success with at the > moment. > > You can check it out here. > www.spamspamspambakedbeansandspam.blogspot.com You know, you'd think someone who plans to make money spamming Usenet about his web-site would at least spend the $10 month to have a real site with its own domain, instead of a Blogspot freebie. -- From nobody Fri May 25 13:22:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: losing weight without exercising? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 13:22:47 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps4on4p4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Bob in CT" writes: > The good news is that I'm exercising again (finally) and am losing > weight (how do I know? People are saying, "You look thinner"). The > "bad" news is that wife is due to give birth in early August. This > is bad because that throws my five-day-per-week workout schedule > right out the window. I have to say that regardless of diet, I've > never been able to lose weight without exercise. Part of that is my > job, which is completely and utterly sedentary. Has anyone been > able to lose weight without exercise? If so, how'd you do it? Yes, by low-carbing. I've lost weight while getting virtually no exercise by sticking to the diet, and I've maintained or gained weight while getting large amounts of exercise, because I was cheating on the diet at the time. Keep your carbs low enough that your insulin production stays low and your glucagon production stays high, and you should lose weight. Maybe not as fast as you were when you were working out regularly, but then again, you might be surprised. (Standard disclaimer: exercise is good, all hail exercise, blah blah blah....) -- From nobody Fri May 25 21:22:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Chocolate makes me sleep, so from this we learn...? References: <1t0853pmom9c1ka5p4p3b179f6tasejt4j@4ax.com> <1179937839.654132.171580@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 21:22:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy5kmii8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 Big Bill writes: > On 23 May 2007 09:30:39 -0700, jackiepatti@gmail.com wrote: >>If you have some of these other symptoms, you probably have very >>elevated blood glucose. > Hypoglycaemic? No, hypoglycemia is low blood sugar. High blood sugar would be hyperglycemia. > I get murderous constipation on LC. I have a spread rectus abdominus > to prove it. Eat more fat. I think the people who have constipation on LC tend to be those who cut back on carbs without adding fat, so they end up just eating a lot of protein, which is pretty dense and usually doesn't include fiber either. > I avoid bread and potatoes now. Most of the time. Most of the time? When you asked earlier, "why isn't it working," here you go. One high-carb meal can undo at least a week's good work. Bread and potatoes have to be off-limits, period, at least until you've been on the plan for a while and have a good handle on things. Then, *maybe* you can introduce them back into your diet in small quantities or LC versions, but you'll be better off if you just don't. -- From nobody Sat May 26 06:49:13 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please help me critique my eating plan? References: <1179838910.425465.98770@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1179854169.856064.321410@u36g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <1180122441.805104.94830@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 26 May 2007 06:49:13 -0500 Message-ID: <867iqvn6ti.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Kaz Kylheku writes: > What goes in, either stays in, or comes out. Conservation of matter. You do realize that animal feces can be burned for fuel, right? Oops, guess the animal didn't conserve every calorie after all. Come on. We all know people who eat like pigs and never gain an ounce. Unless you're going to insist that all those people are purging or starving themselves to make up for it when we aren't looking, it's quite obvious that every calorie does NOT have to be burned or stored. I'm surprised we still have to point this out. -- From nobody Tue May 29 11:38:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: way OT: global warning alarms overstated References: <1180362776.653297.313070@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1180442793.273953.211650@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 11:38:14 -0500 Message-ID: <861wgz7fgp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > It's quite obvious that those that are convinced of global warming > really believe it. Just as scientists were convinced in the 70's > that we were entering an ice age. Or that the public believed in > 2000 we had entered a new age of investing, when stocks traded at PE's > of 1000 and everyone was going to get rich. Doesn't mean they are > right about global warming, but it's quite obvious those promoting it > really believe it. In most cases I'd agree, but I do think some of the people promoting it know how shaky it is. They don't want to admit they were wrong (who does?) and many times their jobs depend on continuing the farce. As a previous poster suggested, there's a bit of "end justifying the means" going on here. Unfortunately, the environmental movement today has been completely overrun by people whose only goal is to slow US productivity and consumption. If the global warming hoax looks like it will accomplish that, they'll believe it and fight for it without ever caring whether it's true. The UN-funded scientist who created the famous hockey-stick climate chart based on tree-ring data *knew* it was a joke. He massaged the formulas until they did what he wanted, picked data sets that gave the preferred results and discarded others, and then refused to allow peer review of much of his work. Now, you could say maybe he still does *believe* in global warming as an article of faith, and just thinks our testing methods aren't good enough yet, so he had to help them along. Who knows what he believes, but he knows he *invented* that chart, which is now printed as fact everywhere from newspapers to schoolbooks -- despite the fact that it contradicts every other climate study. The pro-grain, anti-fat hoax is much the same. Yeah, most of the people preaching the evils of fat probably really do believe it. But they have to close their eyes and ears to a lot of inconvenient facts these days to maintain that belief. No one willing to look objectively at the evidence available today would come up with anything like the Food Pyramid. Does that mean there's a conspiracy? No, just a lot of people with a strong faith in certain beliefs. (It's quite possible that someone like the CEO of Nabisco knows the truth and is keeping his mouth shut to protect his livelihood, but that's not really a conspiracy.) -- From nobody Tue May 29 12:01:55 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Most Popular Low Carb Diet On The Net!! References: <1180009467.492879.327430@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86irainu08.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <135bqqfanbof359@news.supernews.com> <1180183348.853966.138150@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 12:01:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsyr5zss.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 mrkcoverdale@gmail.com writes: > Just thought i would share my experiences on a blog. wouldnt know > where to start to have a website. sorry if i offended you. I don't think you offended anyone, but just as a guy selling stereos out of a van with a cardboard sign taped to the side doesn't give you a lot of confidence in the quality of his product or support, there are certain things about a web site or Usenet post that just scream spammer. If you really want people to read your blog, my first recommendation would be that you write correctly, with apostrophes and capital letters. Some people are going to say that's elitist, but the truth is that there is a *ton* of high-quality stuff to read out there today -- more than one person could ever keep up with. Just reading and responding to the top dozen blogs or discussion groups in one field could be a full-time job. Readers don't have time to waste, and it's simply harder and slower reading sentences like yours above. Regular, readable, interesting content is far more important than where you locate your blog. If the rest of your post hadn't seemed so much like sloppy spam, I wouldn't have poked fun at it in the first place. Good luck with your blog, -- From nobody Wed May 30 08:26:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: way OT: global warning alarms overstated References: <1180362776.653297.313070@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1180442793.273953.211650@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 08:26:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps4i4f3l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 107 "Tom G." writes: > The conspiracy is that we are not being told about the seriousness > of peak oil. We're not? I'm reading about this all over the place. Worst. Conspiracy. Ever. > Somebody will have to do without. The economy will shrink and our > lives will be affected directly, or indirectly. Social programs and > infrastructure will decline. More poor people unable to get adequate > medical care. Food farming and transportation will cause temporary > shortages at first, until the changed economics gets worked > out. Jobs will open up in agriculture as manual labour. People have been predicting this kind of stuff for as long as there have been people. I'm convinced that when the first caveman discovered fire, another caveman started to kick sand on it because he was afraid they'd run out of sticks. Yes, we're going to run out of oil, but that's no reason to beat the rush to living in caves again. Nuclear power can replace it, whenever we decide to stop being ninnies about it. Fission if we have to, but fusion is coming along, and would a lot faster if we got serious about it, instead of throwing so much funding at unserious alternatives like ethanol. No one's going to starve unless we make a political decision that forces them to. There's so much more abundance than people realize. (I blame it on living in cities.) I'm a conservationist, by the way. Abundance doesn't mean you should be wasteful. I think people drive *way* too much, and we should get back to designing our towns as neighborhoods where people can walk to things. Urban sprawl isn't bad because it uses land -- we've got land a' plenty -- but it ruins communities. We also need to stop wasting huge amounts of water irrigating deserts to grow vegetables. And so on. There are many ways we can be better stewards, without going into a panic or beating ourselves up for having a productive, busy society. > We overdo everything we stick our fingers into. So far we have > managed to dodge the bullet because of being inovative. We fish until > they are scarce. We're depleting top soil at an alarming rate, and > bio-fuels will accelerate that. All the easy to get to metals ores are > being consumed, and the rest is deeper down. We've always managed to > find alternatives. This, I believe will be our down fall when we run > out of alternatives and we will be humbled. Think about what you said, though: "We've always managed to find alternatives." Why is that suddenly going to change? People 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 2000 years ago all thought the same thing: "Well, we've gotten away with it so far, but *now* we're screwed." They couldn't see the alternatives coming, and neither can we. There seems to be a weird reverse sort of societal narcissism at play here, as if our generation is so important that the sky is finally going to fall on us. It's as if we'd prefer to be known as the generation that went down in history as The Big Failure, rather than just another group of people who muddled through, getting some things right and some things wrong. Infamy over anonymity. > In my opinion, oil has caused our population to go into overshoot > conditions. Our numbers will be reduced by choice or by nature, when > oil runs out. Ugh, surely not population worries! That's the oldest pointless worry in the book. In the USA, we pay farmers not to grow food, so there won't be too much of it. Where people are hungry, it's because of political restrictions and stupidity. Birth rates in the West have gotten so low that European countries (and the USA, to a lesser extent) aren't going to be able to maintain their welfare systems without a massive influx of young immigrant laborers. (Only problem is, the ones they're getting in general aren't so much the kind to settle down and become productive taxpayers.) > Maybe when people are powered down for a few years, gov't may start > letting on that the oil is running out. But they'll probably say > it's not a big deal because we are familiar with doing with less, > and we've been powering down for years, so don't panic. No one's going to power down in the first place unless prices go up. That's what's so silly about this -- people talk like one day we're going to be paying $3/gallon for gas, and the next day the tanks will be empty. As the easy supplies get low and oil companies put more effort into harder sources like shale oil, the price will gradually go up, and at some point, people will stop driving two hours to work, buying five-bedroom houses for families of three, and running their kids across the city to soccer games every night. Economic pressures work. Yeah, it'd be great if we could start conserving now, and I'm all for public campaigns to encourage that, but that's just not how people work, for the most part. Besides, even if we cut back, we're still going to run out of oil, just further in the future. All the viable alternatives need to be explored regardless, and we won't be able to afford as much research if we hobble our economy. Also, nonsense like Kyoto is oriented on forcing the US to cut back (and transferring large amounts of cash from the US to other countries, like the ones that wrote the treaty). Even if the US cut back, that wouldn't stop China and other countries from increasing their energy usage. After all, they all want to achieve our level of prosperity, if not our freedoms and culture. -- From nobody Thu May 31 10:56:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: way OT: global warning alarms overstated References: <1180362776.653297.313070@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1180442793.273953.211650@u30g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1180468199.477720.239140@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <%U27i.235830$6m4.204091@pd7urf1no> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 10:56:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86tztt2dif.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 115 "Hannah Gruen" writes: > Well, global warming is a fact. It's existance is not really in > dispute, given the effects we're seeing - such as disappearance of > so much ice worldwide, sea levels beginning to rise. I correct > myself - it's in serious dispute *only* in media and some political > circles. It's here, folks. That's true. Studies other than the infamous hockey-stick hoax show that we're about back to the temperatures of around the year 1500, after a long dip in temperatures over the last 500 years, including the "Little Ace Age" in the mid-1600s. Since those changes were not caused by human technology emissions, it seems quite possible that today's aren't either. Sun-spots appear to be the most likely culprit. I was reading about the Piltdown Man yesterday. The bones were "discovered" in 1912, and almost immediately, some scientists started questioning them. However, they were outnumbered by the ones that latched onto it because it supported their theory about brain-driven evolution. (The argument wasn't between evolution and creationism, as people tend to think today, but between scientists who thought our big brains came first and then the body followed (what the Piltdown skull seemed to show) or whether other changes came first.) By 1920, at least one scientist had debunked it. (Turned out it was a human skull, an orangutan jaw, and teeth from something else.) But it took until the 50s for it to be generally accepted as a hoax. In the meantime, people spent whole careers studying the thing. In the 30s, well after the truth was available for anyone interested, a monument was erected at the site of the discovery to commemorate its scientific importance. So saying most scientists agree on a theory, when that theory happens to support something else they already believe, just doesn't carry that much weight. Possibly the funniest thing about the global warming scare is that even if we could pass a law tomorrow that instantly lowered the temperature a few degrees, we'd have to be crazy to do it. Periods of cold temperatures in history are associated with starvation and bare substinence living. Warmer periods bring increased food production (which is ultimately what it's all about) to most areas of the globe. There are exceptions, of course, but overall, life is better during the warm end of the cycle. > Definitely our greenhouse gases are contributing - almost certainly > significantly - to any natural climate cycles. Yes, I could find > scientists to dispute this, or the degree of significance of > greenhouse gas contribution. Why? Because whatever harebrained > contrarian theory is out there, you can always find scientists to > support it. That's a fact. Some will be defending their previous > conclusions, some just to be contrary, some because there is > something (usually money/research grants) in it for them. Wow. Replace a few words, and that paragraph could be written by someone in the health establishment about low-carb researchers. > Well, I'll agree here, but I'm not sure energy is yet that critical > nor that difficult to deal with. However... with the sharp increase > in fossil fuel use in places like China, there will be > competition. We're already seeing hostile political actions (and, > it's my belief - wars) resulting from such competition. This stuff > could mostly be avoided if our "leaders" would lose their fixation > on fossil fuels and back to energy independence and renewable energy > sources. Not that hard, once the political will is there. The course > we're on, however, is insane. We aren't using fossil fuels because our leaders have a fixation. They're not like an autistic kid with a ball, who won't stop bouncing it no matter what's going on around him. They can see what's going on, but the reality is there isn't that much they can do about it. They can't just make the problem go away, and they can't do much to cut consumption without major restrictions on our freedoms. As for the idea some push that it's all due to some Bush-Cheney-Haliburton conspiracy: if that were the case, why didn't anything change when Clinton was president, especially when he had a Democratic Congress for two years? We've thrown a lot more money at alternative energy sources under Bush than ever before. We use fossil fuels because they're quite simply chock-full of energy that's fairly easy to access -- far more so than any other form currently available to us. The "green" alternatives are mostly useful for specific uses or in specific areas where the population isn't too great, and we're a-scared to death of nuclear power. What are our leaders supposed to do? > But IMO the big question is what will be the outcome of rising > temperatures, increasing accumulation of greenhouse gases. It's all > guesswork, albeit some more educated than others. As ocean > temperatures continue to rise, will massive release of condensate > gases from ocean bottoms trigger runaway heating of the atmosphere? > To what extent (if any) will increased albedo from increased cloud > cover offset all this? It definitely IS true that the eventual > outcome could pretty well end civilization and wipe out much of the > population. That's a pretty big claim. I think humanity is a bit more tenacious than that. Having said all that, I really like Orson Scott Card's recent articles about how we need to ditch our car-bound society and build neighborhoods where walking and public transport are real options. It's nice to read someone who's a real conservationist without being a scare-monger. We're wasting a lot of energy (and making our towns less livable) with zoning laws that encourage things like big box stores on the edge of town that you can only drive to. The trick is figuring out how to change that in a free society, which has almost nothing to do with who gets elected nationally. -- From nobody Mon Jun 4 13:59:44 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please help me critique my eating plan? References: <1179838910.425465.98770@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1180636189.017554.120900@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 13:59:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkezo89t.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 98 Annie writes: > 1) My size isn't changing much. I do use a tape measure and check > once a week to see if anythings changed. It has by about 1cm all > round, so nothing huge for 4 months of low-carb I'd say as long as you're showing progress, either in size or weight, be happy and confident and know that you will reach your goal. It's fine to look for ways to improve what you're doing, but always see your progress as an ongoing success. > 2) I am in this for the long haul. I feel far better than I ever > did and I don't consider this WOE to be a "quick fix" solution That's good. I just re-committed myself after discovering that I'm somewhat diabetic, and after two weeks, I'm feeling much better. Looking at it as a WOE for life instead of a diet does seem to help. When I thought of it as a diet that would take a particular amount of time, it was too easy to "put it off." The rationalization would go something like: "Well, it's probably gonna take me X months to reach my goal, so I can be good today and reach it X months from now, or I can eat this tub of ice cream today and start the diet again tomorrow and reach it in X months and one day. What's one day, compared to 20 years of being more or less overweight?" Not a very productive way of thinking. > 3) I've just started exercising on a exercise bike. I get tired > very easily so its difficult, but I'm trying I'm about to get a bike again too. Keep in mind that exercise may add muscle, especially if you've been a sedentary weakling in the past, so you may be losing fat faster than your weight/size would indicate. > 4) I'm going to keep a food diary and post back here with actual carb > counts to those that asked for exact figures I haven't done that yet, because I'm just not that organized, but it's probably a good idea if you can do it, especially when you need help. I'd say at least 90% of the times that someone claims to be doing everything right and failing to lose weight, there's something in the menus they post that isn't on-plan, or is technically low-carb but causes problems for many people. > 5) I am considering doing the "fat fast" as I suspect I may be > metabolically resistent, based on following induction for 2 weeks > strictly as described in DANDR. Unfortunately, I cannot find > macadamias anywhere in the UK shops (!) As Doug mentioned, you're probably not really after a fat fast at this stage. As I understand it, a fat fast consists of eating nothing but pure fat -- at a starvation level of calories besides. That's pretty extreme, and should probably be saved for situations where someone isn't losing at all for a long time and has tried everything else. Things to try first: 1) Post your typical menu for a few days here (if you haven't already; my server doesn't have the entire thread anymore), and see if anyone can point out any problems. 2) Cut out "replacement" carbs for a while and see how that works: no artificial sweetener, no low-carb bread products, no sugar-free Jello or diet soda. Sometimes those things stall people, even when they officially shouldn't. 3) Get a blood sugar tester and test yourself for a while, especially after eating anything questionable, like the items I mentioned above. I've found it very useful to be able to see exactly how different foods affect my body chemistry. 4) If you don't already eat a lot of fat, add more in place of some of the protein you eat. When some people start low-carbing, they've gotten so used to the typical anti-fat diet that they find themselves eating a very high-protein diet because that's all that's left -- living on grilled chicken breast and salads, basically. That's not what you want. Too much of the protein will convert to glucose and keep you out of ketosis, and you'll need huge amounts of fiber to avoid constipation. Protein Power says I need 120g of protein a day to support my lean body mass, so that's 480 calories. My daily maximum of 30g of carbs will supply up to 120 more, for a total of 600-non fat calories. That means the usual guideline of 10 calories/pound says I'll typically need 1750 calories/day from fat. Even if I starve myself somewhat at 2000 calories/day, I'll still need to get 1400 from fat, which means 156g. You're not going to get that ratio eating boneless, skinless chicken, or extra-lean ground beef. Heck, you won't even get that from pork chops. As one of the bots says in a Mystery Science Theater episode when a fat guy sits down at a table in a restaurant: "I want more butter on my ham!" (They were making the usual fat=fat joke, but I prefer to think the guy was just starting to low-carb and had seen the light.) -- From nobody Mon Jun 4 14:08:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My New Blood Glucose Monitor References: <86zm443mye.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1179330533.820039.292270@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86wsz715vu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1180713245.959528.317590@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:08:16 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcpno7vj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 bbrenner4@yahoo.com writes: > Why don't you go over to Dr. Bernstein's forums? Well, mostly because web forums suck harder than Mega-Maid in the movie Spaceballs. The very best web forum software is like driving a Model T that has to be cranked by hand to start, while Usenet and a good newsreader are like driving a Ferrari. Or maybe a Cessna. However, sometimes the content is valuable enough to justify the pain of using the interface, so I'll check it out. Thanks! -- From nobody Tue Jun 5 09:54:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please help me critique my eating plan? References: <1179838910.425465.98770@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1180636189.017554.120900@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86lkezo89t.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1368rqtaqj0v10f@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 09:54:08 -0500 Message-ID: <864plmo3jj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "Roger Zoul" writes: > How diabetic are you? Most carby foods drive my blood sugar up to 180-200. Fast-acting carbs like potato chips gave me 1-hour and 2-hour numbers like 190/130. Slower-acting ones like whole wheat crackers turned that around to 150/180. I think I've always been back to normal by several hours later. After doing some testing like that, I've been back to strict low-carb for about two weeks now, so Sunday I tried a sandwich with low-carb (5g/slice) bread. Between the bread and condiments, it probably had 13-15g total, and my BG went to 106/84 at the 1/2 hour times. I don't know if all that means I'm diabetic, pre-diabetic, insulin resistant, or some combination thereof. Mostly I just know if means I need to keep keeping my carbs under 10g/meal, and stay away from the wheat stuff as much as possible for now. > :: I'm about to get a bike again too. > > What kind of bike? Stationary, road, mountain, etc? Just curious... Probably something fairly all-purpose. It's hilly around here, but not mountainous. I'll be riding some on gravel roads, so I don't want tires that are too thin and smooth. My last bike was a cheap Walmart special, and it did okay except that I always wished the handlebars would go higher. -- From nobody Tue Jun 5 10:16:22 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm baaaaacccckkkkk References: <2v19i.583$0L.442@newsfe12.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:16:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm3emny2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 "glassman" writes: > Not to pick on you alone, but in general.... why do folks wait > until they get back to the starting point before they do it all over > again I wonder? Can you imagine if you started up again when you > were only 10-20 lbs gone? Gotta be some sort of emotional trigger > here? I think we all have a mental self-image of what we look like when we're "normal." It's harder to get yourself into habits that move you *away* from that self-image (in either direction) than it is to get yourself into habits that move you toward it. (The latter happens automatically.) This is true of a lot more things than weight. If your self-image is of a successful person, you'll have a much easier time developing success-bringing habits than the person whose self-image is of a loser. So, one's self-image may be of a person who is 50 pounds overweight -- especially if one was overweight as a child, when these mental habits are being built. I was one of the smallest boys in my class in grade school; then at about the age of 12-13 I grew 6 inches taller and put on a lot of muscle, but also had just a little bit of a belly (enough to dread being "skins" in sports). By the time I was playing high school basketball, I was 5'10" and a pretty solid 180 pounds, and should have been a power forward Charles Barkley-type player taking the ball inside, but I still thought of myself as that short little kid who had to shoot from outside. Frustrated my coach quite a bit. I was always interested in disciplines like judo, which allow a smaller person to use a larger person's inertia against him -- even after I was almost always going to be the larger person! When you start gaining weight, at some point you're going to look at yourself and not see the self-image you hold, and that dissonance that can push you into taking action about it. When I look in a mirror, I pretty much see my self-image, so I'm working on that, doing visualization exercises where I see myself as slimmer and healthier, and all the benefits that come with that. I saw a picture of myself this weekend, and it did *NOT* match my self-image; there was a major double-chin there that I can't see in the mirror. I guess that's because of the difference in the angle of the light. Maybe taking weekly or monthly pictures of oneself would be a useful tool for staying on plan, in addition to monitoring weight and inches. -- From nobody Tue Jun 5 10:25:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm baaaaacccckkkkk References: <4665446f$0$1428$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:25:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86vee2mni9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Jeri" writes: > Since you've been so brave I'll come clean too. I've gained all my > weight back also. Three Thanksgivings ago I decided I was going to > have small helpings of all the non-low carb foods, just for the > holiday. Well Thanksgiving turned into Christmas turned into New > Years, Easter, summer picnics.....you get the picture. > Added to that were emotional roller coaster eating binges after > losing my sister to cancer and then being downsized from my job a > year later. After all that, being thin just didn't seem so important > anymore. So many excuses and justifications. ugh!!! I'm disgusted > with myself. Sounds a little like my story, although fortunately I didn't gain all the weight back, just 10-15 pounds from the lowest point I reached. I was cruising along, staying LC without much effort, losing weight gradually, and thought I'd take a break for Thanksgiving. Then there was an early Christmas party a couple weeks later, then Christmas itself, etc. In the midst of all that, there was a girlfriend who lived on nothing but Cheetos and Kit Kats, then the breakup that made everything else seem unimportant, then a work shortage and financial stress. Like you say, all rationalizations. I know if I'd stayed low-carb, I would have handled all those things better. Sugar rushes and crashes sure don't help you handle stress! One big mistake I made was not keeping up with this group. > So on June 1st I climbed back on the wagon. It's a pretty rickety > one but hopefully I'll keep it together. Good for you; I'm right there with you. -- From nobody Tue Jun 5 10:32:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Somebody 'splain it to me References: <5cjdbuF31370iU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:32:01 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6oqmn7y.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "Pat" writes: > Why all of the blogspot spams all of a sudden? Do these people get > money every time somebody clicks on their blog? Is that it? In some cases, yes. They may have google ads or some other feature that pays them a pittance per click or view. I'd expect someone's blog (or whatever web page they link to) to have the same level of quality as their posts that link to it. If their posts have no interesting content other than "read my blog!", their blogs probably won't have much to say either. If their posts are interesting, their blogs might be too. it nearly as much as I do on Usenet and other forums, because I stink at starting with a blank page and creating an essay from scratch. I'm much more prolific when replying to something that gives me a starting point. -- From nobody Tue Jun 5 10:38:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My New Blood Glucose Monitor References: <86zm443mye.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1179330533.820039.292270@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86wsz715vu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1180713245.959528.317590@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86hcpno7vj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:38:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86myzemmwm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 Aaron Baugher writes: > bbrenner4@yahoo.com writes: > >> Why don't you go over to Dr. Bernstein's forums? > > Well, mostly because web forums suck harder than Mega-Maid in the > movie Spaceballs. The very best web forum software is like driving a > Model T that has to be cranked by hand to start, while Usenet and a > good newsreader are like driving a Ferrari. Or maybe a Cessna. > > However, sometimes the content is valuable enough to justify the pain > of using the interface, so I'll check it out. Thanks! (Talking to myself here.) Case in point, I registered for that forum twice yesterday, with two different e-mail addresses, and never got the verification e-mail for either one. You can't enter the forum at all until you complete the registration -- even to get to the Help section! -- so I wasn't even able to reach a contact to let the webmaster know about the problem. Guess I'll to remember to try again some other time. -- From nobody Tue Jun 5 12:59:57 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please help me critique my eating plan? References: <1179838910.425465.98770@y2g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1180636189.017554.120900@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <86lkezo89t.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1368rqtaqj0v10f@news.supernews.com> <864plmo3jj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <136b5s05ttl2f8a@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 12:59:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86ira2mgde.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Roger Zoul" writes: > ::: What kind of bike? Stationary, road, mountain, etc? Just curious... > :: Probably something fairly all-purpose. It's hilly around here, but > :: not mountainous. I'll be riding some on gravel roads, so I don't > :: want tires that are too thin and smooth. My last bike was a cheap > :: Walmart special, and it did okay except that I always wished the > :: handlebars would go higher. > Well, I'm not sure I'd recommend Walmart, but as long as you're > riding it's good. Yeah, that one was a gift, so I don't think I'll be going that route again. I may do some looking and see if I can find something nicer that's used, for a price similar to a new cheap one. I'm definitely getting a more comfortable seat, too. -- From nobody Tue Jun 5 13:13:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm baaaaacccckkkkk References: <4665446f$0$1428$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <136b0i12qq69ua1@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:13:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejkqmfqa.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I really think that what's happened to you and nanner can happen to > any of us. IMO, no one is immune. If you've ever had a weight > problem, you will always be susceptable to your weight getting out > of control, IMO. I think people who've never had a weight problem > cannot understand this notion. That's a good point, and it's interesting, because in all other cases of addictive or habitual behavior, the recommendation from the experts is always to cut it out cold turkey. Alcoholics aren't told to cut back to two beers a day; they're told to stop immediately and never touch the stuff again, often keeping track of exactly when they stopped. Ditto smoking, hard drugs, gambling, pornography, and all the other things that people have a hard time quitting. Step one is always: "Stop doing that." Then step two is: "Deal with it." Yet when it comes to carbohydrates, despite the fact that they also cause a chemical reaction that you get mentally and physically attached to, the recommendation is always to cut back in small ways -- eat smaller portions, eat different kinds of carbs, or eat the same and burn off a few more calories in exercise. For some reason, in this case and this case only, going cold turkey (or even close to that) on the substance that gives you trouble is considered a radical step. -- From nobody Wed Jun 6 09:36:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Mom's stress affects the baby in her womb References: <1181116064.788640.126440@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:36:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86vee1kv3q.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Malaika writes: > A recent study done by the British scientists has revealed that a > long- term stress experienced by mothers during pregnancy adversely > affects the baby in their womb. Duh. They had to do a study to know this? Two people are sharing blood for nine months, and stresses on one affect the other? Hard to imagine. Maybe next they can do a study to determine whether researchers feel pain when you smack them in the head with a brick. Oh yeah, and thanks for the lovely spam. -- From nobody Thu Jun 7 08:27:55 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low Carb Not working so well.... References: <1181054795.651586.231290@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <136b06fm82512dc@news.supernews.com> <1181070690.961169.100640@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <1181138551.545284.292220@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <136dhm4km2h9j8b@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2007 08:27:54 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcpjlwrp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 70 "Bob in CT" writes: > I've been wondering about this lately. How much does losing weight > really affect how happy you are? For me, I get happier just because > to lose weight, I have to exercise, and exercise makes me happier in > many ways. I'd agree that exercise makes me feel better, at least after I get used to it, so it's not all huffing and puffing and sore muscles. But I also felt happy when I lost weight without exercise, and I felt like crap when I was getting a lot of exercise and barely burning off all the high-carb meals I was eating. I used to work on a farm, and it went like this: hard, physical, sweaty labor all morning, then a lunch laden with potatoes, corn, and other starches, then a 1-2 hour nap/coma, then sluggishly back to work until I'd burned off lunch and could get my brain working again. Huge amounts of exercise; not so much happiness. Some things about losing weight that make me happy, regardless of how it happened: * Tightening my belt and realizing I'm out of holes. * Running into someone I haven't seen in a while, and being told how much better I look. (Especially if she's pretty. :-)) * Walking up the stairs to my apartment and realizing I just *feel* lighter somehow. * Digging through my dresser for those clothes that were just a bit too tight when someone gave them to me, and finding that they're perfect now. * Bending all the way down over a pool cue for a shot and still being able to breathe normally. > However, I wonder about the toll on my body that it takes to do all > this stuff. Some days, like today, I'm exhausted from getting up > early to ride my bike. Then, I work all day, 'till about 7pm, go > home, and start the cycle again. I bike in an area where I'm > breathing exhaust fumes. I'm not sure that's too healthy, > considering that I can have troubles breathing sometimes after this > (a bit of wheezing). My exercise this spring and summer has consisted of walking my dog about a mile a day. My foot has started bothering me though, which is one reason I'm getting a bike. My dog has a lot more energy than I do, and if I try to walk her until she's worn out, I'll cripple myself, and I'll never get anything else done. The bike will even the playing field. Fortunately, I live in a small town, so no fumes to speak of except when the school bus goes by. > Anyway, I wonder sometimes about whether I'd be happier just kicking > back and not worrying what I weigh. That's what I'm doing now. Because of my blood sugar issues, I know I'll have to be pretty low-carb for the rest of my life if I want to be healthy. So I'm not looking at it as a diet with goals anymore, and I'm ignoring the scale. I'm just eating low-carb, period. I know that I'll lose weight -- maybe not that fast, since I eat as much as I want whenever I'm hungry -- but I can tell by my breath that I'm firmly in ketosis, so it's just a matter of time. The important thing, though, is that I start undoing the damage I did to myself with high levels of blood sugar and insulin over the years. In the meantime, weight loss will be a happy side-effect. -- From nobody Wed Jun 13 08:53:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: REC: Flourless Chocolate Cake References: <1181617751.465656.167480@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <1181668664.008629.223990@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:53:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm340xmk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 98 "nanner" writes: > wow. that's great. i think i must have a serious problem because if > i threw that cake in the trash i'd probably jump in after it within > the hour. (not a joke) Usually if i need to get rid of something > like that i stuff it in my belly so it will be gone. waahhh. well - > that's why i am back here. but i worry that i yo-yo'd because there > is something bigger going on, binging and out-of-control sugar > addiction has ruled me for 2 years :( I really went days eating > nothing but *foods i won't mention here so as not to trigger > cravings* - but no real food. If you haven't already, get a blood glucose tester. Your symptoms sound just like what I was going through: I could have my entire kitchen stocked full of LC foods -- foods I *like* -- and a craving would send me walking three blocks to the grocery store for a bag of chips. That all changed when I got a BG tester and could see exactly what I was doing to myself. I don't care much for the victimology tactics of addiction groups like AA, but I do think that if your body doesn't naturally have your blood sugar under good natural control, you need to look at carbs as a low-grade poison, because ultimately that's what they are for you. (After all, out-of-control blood sugar is deadlier than a lot of other things we try to avoid in our food, like nitrates or preservatives.) Think of carbs the way most people have been trained to think of salt: you can't really avoid it completely, because it's too useful for flavoring and preserving foods, but you can keep your consumption very low. When you first go get a BG tester, it's a little confusing, because there are all these different things you need, and some brands box certain things together and some don't. So here's what you need: 1) The tester itself. These range hugely in price, depending on whether they remember your scores or have racing stripes and things like that. 2) The test strips. You use a strip for each test, and these things cost anywhere from 10 cents to $1 each, so here's where your long-term cost is. Find the cheapest strips you can, and then buy the tester that works with them. 3) Tester calibration fluid. They might call this something else, but basically it's a controlled glucose solution that you can use to determine whether your tester is accurate. 4) Lancets. These are the little needles you poke yourself with. 5) Lancet poker thingy. I can never remember what they call this, but it's the thing you put the lancets in, and it does a quick stabbing motion so it's really not painful at all. One note: the tester doesn't care how you poke your finger, so don't think you have to buy the cheapest lancet/poker combo just because you bought the cheap tester. Feel free to spend a little more money on #4/#5 and get one that'll be quick about it. A nice feature of mine is that you can vary the depth, depending on how thick your skin is. I don't know if the cheaper ones would have that. If you're worried that it'll hurt, it really doesn't. There's a little sting, but it's over before you know it. My girlfriend finally worked up the courage to try mine (her BG was high, but not as bad as mine would have been after the same meal), and she looked up in surprise: "Wow, you weren't kidding; it really doesn't hurt!" Let me put it this way: I'd rather prick myself with this thing 1000 times than get a single Novocain shot from a dentist. > I think figuring all that out will be as important for me as eating > less/excercising more and making healthy choices. Absolutely. This really isn't something you can take an incremental approach to, so you have to ignore all the people telling you if you eat a little less and exercise a little more everything will be hunky-dory. You can't do this halfway. High blood sugar simply has too much power over your mind and body for that. (I don't have any experience with hard drugs, but high BG affected my behavior at least as much as being drunk ever did. Drunkenness lowers your inhibitions, but it never completely changed my mind about something the way a sugar rush can convince me I really *should* go get a box of ice cream.) You simply *have* to get your BG under control first, and keep it there for a while, before you can make consistent progress. Fortunately, this isn't complicated: Cut your carbs to under 10g/meal, stay away from the "iffy" products like LC bread, and test your BG regularly. If it still goes high after certain foods, cut those back. If you eat a lot of protein, you might find that enough is being converted to glucose to raise your BG unacceptably. If that happens, find ways to exchange some of that protein for fat. After a while, you won't need to test as often, but get to a point where you're confident that your BG is staying in the healthy range. I've been there for over two weeks now, and I'm amazed at how much better I feel. -- From nobody Thu Jun 14 09:03:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: REC: Flourless Chocolate Cake References: <1181617751.465656.167480@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <1181668664.008629.223990@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <86zm340xmk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:03:05 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcpa1vmu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 "nanner" writes: > Thanks Aaron, i will look into it. When I was prego the tests kept > saying I was kind of borderline on the sugar so i eventually had the > 8 hour glucose test which came out fine. So I dunno. I can look into > the testing equipment but if it's costly I will probably have to > skip it. My dad had the one-time test too, and it came up fine, but I'd bet everything I own that he's at least insulin resistant, if not diabetic. He's got all the symptoms I had. I don't know exactly how their test works, but it seems obvious that testing yourself several times a day will give you a lot more information than a single test. After all, they're really only testing for serious diabetes, while you want to know things like how high your BG peaks after foods X, Y, and Z, and how fast it returns to normal. > Do you know a good, cheap set-up? It looks like the Walmart Relion is the cheapest on strips, as others have pointed out. When I bought mine, they were either out of the Relion or I was just blind, so I got the Accu-Chek Active. The tester and lancet poker thingy were about $25 together, so that wasn't bad, but the killer there is that the strips are .50 each. When I use these up, I'll be switching to the Relion, but I'll keep my Accu-Check poker thingy, since it seems to do a good job. All in all, my supplies cost about $80 the first time (including 50 test strips), but the Relion should get that down under $50, maybe lower. -- From nobody Thu Jun 14 09:14:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: REC: Flourless Chocolate Cake References: <1181617751.465656.167480@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <1181668664.008629.223990@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <46703410$0$15019$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1181763305.479832.194630@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 09:14:34 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4zy1v3p.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Doug Freyburger writes: > Richer does mean more filling and longer before hunger comes back, > but sometimes eating isn't about hunger. That's for sure. I've eaten enough big bags of chips and whole pizzas in one sitting to prove that. What's really bad is when you you're reaching into that bag of chips thinking, "Ugh, these don't taste as good as they did at first, and I don't feel so good anymore" -- but your hand keeps shoveling them from bag to mouth. At that point, it's not about hunger, and it's not even about them tasting good -- it's simply a compulsion. The only question then is how much is chemical and how much emotional, although you could argue that all emotions *are* chemical. :-) -- From nobody Sat Jun 16 05:53:56 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low Carb Recipes to Freeze References: <73b65ef1491e2@uwe> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 05:53:56 -0500 Message-ID: <86vedoyxtn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "Bob in CT" writes: > That sounds good. I always forget the cream of soup trick, as I was > on low fat for too long. You do have to be careful with the canned "cream of" soups, as the creaminess and thickening usually come from flour, cornstarch, or other high-carb ingredients. They often have 7-10g of carb per serving, and a serving isn't very large, so it can add up fast compared to a 20-30g daily limit. I've been meaning to make some homemade "cream of" soups, which would use actual cream and maybe xanthan gum for extra thickening, so they'd be very low-carb; but I haven't gotten around to it yet. Usually I just add the cream and mushrooms or whatever directly to the dish I'm cooking, but of course that's more work than opening a can of soup. -- From nobody Sat Jun 16 06:10:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Blood sugar range References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:10:35 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6ocyx1w.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "nanner" writes: > i just did my first test. 97 after not eating since dinner last > night. When you get a chance, read a little about something called "dawn phenomenon." It seems that some people see a significant rise in BG in the early morning, even though they haven't eaten anything to prompt it. As I understand it, your liver starts to release some glucose to give you "waking up" energy, and in some people it gets carried away. That could explain your somewhat high number even though you hadn't eaten in half a day or so. Not that that number should scare you or anything; it's still in the normal range. And as many people pointed out to me when my very first test said "60", you should never take the results of a single test too seriously anyway. It's the overall picture you get after many tests that matters. > From what I've read about dawn phenomenon, it seems like it would lessen in someone who stays low-carb, because we have less glucose hanging around in our muscles and organs to be released than the grain foragers do. But I suppose there's always going to be some stored away, especially in the liver. > I really like this meter, so cheap and it seems to do more than i > need. the pokey thing is quick&easy, the meter keeps track of > averages and all this and can be downloaded it say. cool beans for > 8.99 It's actually kinda fun, isn't it? -- From nobody Sat Jun 16 06:24:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: am i wasting my time with the BG testing? References: <4hxci.19$aq2.7@newsfe12.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 06:24:12 -0500 Message-ID: <86myz0ywf7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "nanner" writes: > is it a waste of time to be testing with the monitor since i am > already on an LC diet? I am surely not going to eat crap to see if i > get a bad reading because I have come this far already LOL I did some "crap eating" tests when I first got mine, but I hadn't been very faithfully LC up to that point, so I wasn't spoiling anything. It was a real eye-opener, though. I mean, I knew how those foods affected me because I could see the symptoms -- fatigue, heartburn, pimples, and cravings, for starters -- but seeing the actual numbers was a jolt. Watching my BG jump from 85 to 180 -- well over the level at which actual damage is being done to one's cells and organs -- was what made me finally stop thinking of this as a diet and start thinking of it as a self-defense program. But yeah, there's no need for you to donate your body to science that way. On the other hand, if at some point you decide to have a "vacation" day from LC, like they talk about in _Protein Power_, you can test then to see what you've been missing. > If i am testing while LCing even if I had a prob wouldn't it look > fine because of the way I am eating? It depends on just how messed up your insulin system is. You may also find that certain foods trigger a greater rise in BG than their claimed carb content would account for. I've found that wheat products consistently spike my BG, even when the box claims they're high in fiber and low in usable carbs. That's good for me to know, so I don't eat a lot of that stuff and then wonder why my diet isn't "working" and I'm still getting cravings. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 17:18:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: am i wasting my time with the BG testing? References: <4hxci.19$aq2.7@newsfe12.lga> <86myz0ywf7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:18:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm2v611s.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "nanner" writes: > yes, that's my plan. actually today we are going into the city for a > play and i have a feelign that my lunch will be less than perfect. > the grandparents will probably want to take the kids to a Fridays > type place so I will probably get a bunless burger w/salad. I always > wonder about the burgers in those places. i will bring the meter. I've been wondering about burgers too. If a place claims the burger is 100% beef, then I'd guess they're probably telling the truth, but otherwise I wouldn't be surprised to find some filler in it. Trust no one! At a Fridays-type place, steak and salad is always a safe bet, although I wonder about the ranch dressing at those places sometimes. If they have an oil-and-vinegar dressing, that's safer. Asparagus and broccoli are pretty safe side vegetables, since they're normally just steamed or boiled. Grilled shrimp are always good as long as you like them as-is, without the sugary shrimp sauce. At Applebees the other day, I got the parmesan shrimp and steak combo. A very good steak, shrimp covered in a melted parmesan stuff, and double the asparagus, hold the potato and bread. Darn good eatin'. I don't know exactly what was in the cheese mixture, but it seemed like just melted cheese, and my BG was fine afterwards. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 17:27:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: am i wasting my time with the BG testing? References: <4hxci.19$aq2.7@newsfe12.lga> <5dfoetF345sf7U1@mid.individual.net> <5dia4vF34mnvgU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:27:01 -0500 Message-ID: <86vedj60ne.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Bob in CT" writes: > Anyone test for popcorn. If so, did it make your blood sugar spike? Shouldn't it? It's basically pure carbs: one cup of popcorn has 5g net carbs, 1g protein, and .36g fat. If you eat more than a cup (and what would be the point of making it if you didn't?), I don't know why you wouldn't expect a BG spike. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 17:36:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Raw milk? References: <3fCdnaFgUoDjAejbnZ2dnUVZ_vamnZ2d@comcast.com> <4675c75a$0$8946$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:36:09 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6o76086.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 c writes: > I had no lactose reaction to the ice cream there. Just wondering if > that had anything to do with the fact that this ice cream was made > from raw milk. It could have been. As I understand it, milk contains an enzyme that helps you break down the lactose, and this enzyme is destroyed by the heat of pasteurization. Raw milk still has it, so you don't have the same issues. That's the theory I've read, anyway. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 17:51:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Raw milk? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:51:14 -0500 Message-ID: <86myyv5zj1.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 "Bob in CT" writes: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 00:31:47 -0400, George Parton > wrote: >> If you want some fresh butter, this is where you start. Just let >> the milk set at room temp until it sours (clabbers) then seal in a >> large jar and shake. Be sure to release some of the pressure from >> the jar from time to time by unscrewing the cap. The butter will >> collect together in the liquid and form a ball. > Really? Now, that's an experiment I wouldn't mind trying. No, not really. Or at least, not well. Only the cream will turn into butter, and the cream is a small percentage of the milk, around 4-5% by weight, depending on the breed of cow. If you shake up whole milk until the cream turns to butter (assuming it even works), you'll get a tiny ball of butter for all that shaking. If you let milk clabber, you get cottage cheese. This is NOT a precursor to butter in any way, but it can be a step toward other cheeses (but not the usual method). Shaking up clabbered milk would give you some unholy amalgam of cottage cheese and butter bits that I really don't want to think about. If you want to make butter, put the whole milk in the fridge for a couple days, not stirring it, so the cream can rise to the top. Skim the cream off with a ladle. It's usually pretty easy to tell when you're starting to get to the milk, because it's bluish compared to the cream. The milk that's left behind will now be skimmed milk. Let the cream sit out until it gets up to 60 degrees or so, then shake it in a jar or churn until it turns to butter. If the cream is colder, it'll take longer; if it's warmer, the butter will tend to be greasy; but you don't have to be precise about the temperature. When it turns to butter, you'll see lots of yellow chunks floating around in a thin liquid. This liquid is buttermilk, so drain it off and keep it to use if you like. Dump the butter into a large bowl, and start rinsing it with cold water to get rid of the buttermilk, which will give it a sour taste. As you rinse it, form it into a ball with your hands, squeezing out the buttermilk. Try not to "smear" it, as this breaks up the fats somehow and makes it greasier. When it seems to be rinsing clear, squeeze and shake the water off as much as you can, and optionally knead salt into it for taste, then store it. If you rinsed it well, it'll keep at room temperature for a long time, or you can refrigerate it. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 18:06:44 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Raw milk? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:06:44 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir9j5yt7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 49 "Bob in CT" writes: > Case in point, I'm thinking of buying some raw milk at a local farm. > My only question is, other than making yoghurt, what would I do with > milk? I ceased drinking milk many years ago, as it didn't fit into > my incredibly low fat diet at the time. I still don't eat cereal. > So, am I relegated to just drinking the milk? After you make yogurt, you can turn it into an excellent cream cheese. I think I've posted this before, but just in case, here's what I do: I start with 3/4 gallon of raw milk (what my big thermos holds) and heat it to near boiling. I don't do this for safety, but so that the only active cultures in the milk will be the ones I'm adding. Turn off the heat and let the temperature drop to 115F, then whisk a cup of plain yogurt into it. This "starter" adds the cultures that turn it into yogurt. Pour the whole thing through a sieve into the thermos, screw the lid on tight, and put it somewhere where I won't jostle it. The next day, I move it to the fridge. So now I've got 3/4 gallon of yogurt, and I really don't care for the stuff. So a couple days later, after it's cooled, I save back 1 cup for the next batch's starter, and dump the rest into a colander over which I've put a chunk of sheer curtain that's about a yard square. (Books recommend cheesecloth, but it's a pain to work with. An old sheer curtain does the job very well, and can be washed later and reused.) Gather the cloth up around the yogurt, and tie the top closed with a piece of twine or something. Now suspend this over a bowl in some way. (I hang mine from the kitchen cabinet with a bent clothes hanger.) Let it hang for 24 hours, so the whey can drain out of it. (I don't know exactly what ends up in the whey, but I assume that's where the carbs go. Cats would probably drink it, or you can toss it out.) After 24 hours, you'll have a nice, smooth cream cheese. If you leave it up for 48 hours, it'll be drier and denser, so determine your own preferences there. I've made cream cheese directly from milk, with the rennet and the constant stirring for hours, and it didn't work nearly as well as this method, which is also far easier. By the way, you can start with whole or skim milk, so you might as well skim the cream off for butter or something else first. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 18:09:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low Carb Recipes to Freeze References: <73b65ef1491e2@uwe> <86vedoyxtn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <137811tjhaa3h4b@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:09:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejk75yoo.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "UsenetID" writes: > The stick blender is my friend :). I make "cream of soups" pretty > simply: start my chopped onions/garlic/whatever in a little bacon > fat, coconut oil, or butter...add the veggie of my choice and some > broth -just enough to cover veggies - plus additional > seasonings...cook until veggie starts to soften...add cream and > ricotta/cream cheese/whatever...stir while heating through until it > just starts to steam...use the stick blender to desired consistency. Awesome idea! My stick blender has been languishing in the drawer for ages; now I've got an actual use for it. > I'm sure there are better, fancier recipes out there but I'm all > about cheap, quick, and easy :). Same here. I'm a good cook, and I like to get fancy once in a while, but most of my meals are just about getting the calories and nutrients into my body as quickly and easily as possible while still tasting good. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 18:10:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Raw milk? References: <137b4tp8qfp2q3e@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:10:43 -0500 Message-ID: <86abuv5ymk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Bob in CT wrote: > > :: I no longer believe anything the > :: government says. ;-) > > It's possible to go too far.... True; much like the blind squirrel, they do find a nut once a while. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 21:38:18 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: just curious... References: <6gJdi.1150$YF6.739@newsfe12.lga> <5dq0bnF35u94dU3@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:38:18 -0500 Message-ID: <86645j5p0l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Susan writes: > nanner wrote: >> i'm glad that there are all these lovely LC recipes for sweets & >> treats but when I pop into the newsgroup here and see "Chocolate >> Creme Brulee" or anything else along those lines it has a weakening >> effect on my willpower. >> Anyone else? > There's a whole big world full of ice cream and baked goods out > there. > You just have to learn to live with that. :-) Yep. It helps that I'm too lazy to go round up all the necessary ingredients and figure out the sweeteners and all that. I guess I don't have that strong a sweet tooth anyway, since I'd rather have a good omelet than a piece of cake any day. -- From nobody Tue Jun 19 21:46:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Why do all the new diet drugs cause... References: <5dgl3lF33k46gU1@mid.individual.net> <10spdg.ou5.17.2@news.alt.net> <5di9dkF31en18U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:46:21 -0500 Message-ID: <861wg75on6.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Pat" writes: > 3. Why do you think that the manufacturer or the FDC would put this > warning on the product if it hasn't happened to anybody? It must > have happened to a significant number of users---statistically > significant, that is. My theory is this: "Dangerous" is highly correlated with "powerful" in most people's minds, so a drug that can cause anal leakage (or whatever) must be pretty powerful, and if other consumers are willing to chance that side effect, the benefits must be worth a lot. (This is also why drug awareness programs for kids are counter-productive and idiotic.) So they get right out in front now about the powerfully dangerous or dangerously powerful nature of their drugs, and as a side benefit, it helps protect them from liability. -- From nobody Thu Jun 21 07:46:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: just curious... References: <6gJdi.1150$YF6.739@newsfe12.lga> <5dq0bnF35u94dU3@mid.individual.net> <86645j5p0l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <137ic6rhk2u23b0@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:46:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzt1326e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I do have a sweet tooth but laziness wins out (well, the desire not > to die soon helps)! Yes, the not-dying by the age of 50 thing helps too. But seriously, I could be quite content eating some sort of eggs and meat combo for breakfast, a couple burgers with asparagus on the side for lunch, a slab of some sort of beast with green beans or salad on the side for supper, and jerky, nuts, and cheese for snacks. I could eat like that every single day and never get bored with it. What I think I get bored with is *cooking* that way all the time -- cleaning up the grill, remembering to thaw things, getting out the steamer for the vegetables, buying lettuce and hoping it doesn't go bad before I want a salad, things like that. If those foods just appeared on my plate every day, I'd never even be tempted to eat anything else. When I go to the store looking for something different that doesn't require preparation -- that's danger time, because 95% of the items that fit that description are high-carb. Fortunately, I've learned that my deli has some really good, reasonably priced sliced meat, so if I'm really feeling too lazy to cook, I grab some of that and some hard cheese, and just have an impromptu meat-and-cheese tray. -- From nobody Thu Jun 21 07:58:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: am i wasting my time with the BG testing? References: <4hxci.19$aq2.7@newsfe12.lga> <5dfoetF345sf7U1@mid.individual.net> <5dia4vF34mnvgU1@mid.individual.net> <86vedj60ne.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5dr885F36bc5jU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 07:58:31 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps3p31mw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 Susan writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> "Bob in CT" writes: >> >>>Anyone test for popcorn. If so, did it make your blood sugar spike? >> Shouldn't it? It's basically pure carbs: one cup of popcorn has 5g >> net carbs, 1g protein, and .36g fat. If you eat more than a cup >> (and what would be the point of making it if you didn't?), I don't >> know why you wouldn't expect a BG spike. > It would depend on how much you ate. It's mostly air and fiber. Sure, you can eat anything if you eat a small enough amount. Table sugar has 5g of carb per teaspoon, so if you really wanted to, you could have a teaspoon of sugar with your steak instead of a side of vegetables and still be low-carb. By the same token, you should be able to eat a cup of popcorn, but who wants to do that? That's like two handfuls at best! That'd be like eating one M&M and putting the rest of the bag away for the next 187 servings. But hey, if you enjoy eating a couple handfuls of popcorn and stopping, more power to you. It'd just make me sad. -- From nobody Thu Jun 21 08:07:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cheddar Meat Loaf References: <137k66btmlel13a@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:07:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86lked3182.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "Opinicus" writes: > "AutomaticDripCoffee" wrote > >> 3 lb ground mixed meats (I use a combination lean beef and turkey) > > Why the mixture? Won't all beef work, for example? I can't answer for the original author, but I tend to mix meats for cost savings and flavor. Ground beef doesn't have all that much flavor, especially when it's very lean. So I buy the fattest (and cheapest) ground beef I can get, usually the 75% lean. That happens to be awfully fatty for something like a meatloaf, though -- you'll get a shrunken little island of meat in a sea of fat and juices -- so I mix it with venison (that I was given) and ground turkey (that's usually much cheaper than any beef). Those lean out the mixture without requiring me to pay through the nose for the leaner beef, and they make the flavor more interesting. On the other hand, if fat isn't a problem, as in burgers or meat that I'm browning for a soup, I'll add ground pork sausage. That keeps the fat content high and adds a lot more flavor than beef alone. Unfortunately, most pork sausage you can buy at stores is nasty, greasy stuff (greasy, not fatty; there's a difference); but mine comes from my parents' farm through a local butcher. -- From nobody Fri Jun 22 11:31:54 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: am i wasting my time with the BG testing? References: <4hxci.19$aq2.7@newsfe12.lga> <5dfoetF345sf7U1@mid.individual.net> <5dia4vF34mnvgU1@mid.individual.net> <86vedj60ne.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5dr885F36bc5jU1@mid.individual.net> <86ps3p31mw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5dvjraF35r7vnU2@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:31:54 -0500 Message-ID: <86645g2bnp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Susan writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> But hey, if you enjoy eating a couple handfuls of popcorn and >> stopping, more power to you. It'd just make me sad. > I don't eat popcorn, I just answered your question. I know; I was speaking generally, not to anyone specifically. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Sometimes I wish English had different singular/plural and formal/personal forms of "you" like many other languages do, or an alternative that sounds less pretentious than, "If *one* enjoys eating..." -- From nobody Fri Jun 22 11:45:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Raw milk? References: <86myyv5zj1.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <137lf35dv01uj61@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:45:35 -0500 Message-ID: <861wg42b0w.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Roger Zoul" writes: > What does "clabber" mean? I know I can look it up, but I think > you're definition will be more interesting. Clabbering is when the solids in milk start to separate from the whey, forming a curd. If you let milk sit around for a couple days at room temperature, it'll turn sour and then clabber, although this only works with unpasteurized milk. Pasteurization destroys the bacteria that cause the process, so if you buy milk at the store and leave it sit out, it'll sour and then get moldy or rotten instead. If you're making cottage cheese or something and don't want that sour flavor, you can speed up the process drastically and skip the sour stage by adding starters like rennet and yogurt. -- From nobody Sat Jun 23 06:42:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 7 pounds, 2 weeks...i love low carb References: <1181790706.050692.324210@o11g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <137atfg9rrhbo70@news.supernews.com> <1182200232.286524.46320@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <137e17ft3qos21c@news.supernews.com> <1182271833.019030.18290@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <137los1r7clus1f@news.supernews.com> <3dln735sfts2sfippqsjk4uf7nd7a63m3v@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:42:26 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsxu28yl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > When hubby and I used to compete in bowling tourneys, the ladies > that ran it would give our toddler son sugarless candies. No one, > including us, thought anything of it and we actually appreciated the > fact that they weren't giving him sugar-filled junk treats. > > I don't know how long it took us to put two and two together -- > after he ate the candy, we had to go home. The poor kid would poop > all over himself before we even knew what was happening. I think it > happened twice before we realized what had caused it. This is why, if I ever make something with artificial sweetener to take to a gathering, I make sure to label it clearly as such. Maybe someday we'll reach a point where people extend the same courtesy to those of us who can't tolerate the sugar they put in everything under the sun. Think the ribs or grilled chicken look good? Better find out whether they were marinated or rubbed with a sugar-heavy mixture first. Things like chili, cole slaw, deviled eggs, pickled beans, or pulled pork *can* be safe, but they probably aren't if you didn't make them yourself. You can stick to the vegetable tray, but watch out for the dip; even a ranch dip will sometimes be very high in sugar. When I go to a gathering now, I eat whatever I brought, plus raw vegetables sans dip and things like burgers and brats if they're clearly as-is. I'm also learning to eat plenty before I go, so I don't have to eat there at all if it's all off-limits. Now I just have to get my grandma to stop worrying about whether I've filled a plate yet. -- From nobody Sat Jun 23 06:52:32 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Raw milk? References: <86myyv5zj1.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <137lf35dv01uj61@news.supernews.com> <8cTei.7188$xk5.1954@edtnps82> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:52:32 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl8i28hr.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "CathyLee" writes: > I've used the cream in a food processor and whipped it into > butter...alot easier then shaking... My mom's got a butter churn that fits inside the old-fashioned style of wringer washer, which she used up until several years ago. It'd make about 4 pounds of butter at a time. They've also got a gallon-sized hand-cranked churn, which is still some work, but not nearly as much as shaking a jar for 20 minutes. Does the food processor work well? I thought having the blades cut through the butter at high speed might make it greasy. I've made butter in my mixer a couple times, but it splatters all over. I tried making a cover for it out of a piece of stiff plastic, but enough splatters out through the hole around the beaters that it's still messy. I also tried using an electric ice cream maker, but that doesn't agitate the cream enough; it just stirred it around and around. Another option, although I haven't used it, is to put your container of cream in a backpack and wear it while you go jogging. :-) -- From nobody Sat Jun 23 06:58:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Interesting analysis of the AHA's guidelines for women References: <137ip8vjpf140b5@news.supernews.com> <1182373428.614503.14750@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1182379924.885463.222080@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <1182452514.611975.326070@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 06:58:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkea2879.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Doug Freyburger writes: > Hollywood wrote: >> Creepy idea, but we have a large population sentenced to life in >> prison. They're in a cage. Mess with their nutrition and keep good >> records. It's the least they can do to repay their debts to >> society. > It's inhumane unless they volunteer. What's the incentive at > that point? And there are too many variations for them to be > a valid experimental group. I'd guess the incentives would be the same ones that get them to take jobs in prison or take classes: pay and/or good behavior points. I don't know how useful it would be, though. If you can't keep drugs out of prisons or keep them from raping each other, how tightly can you really control their meals? -- From nobody Sat Jun 23 07:02:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Sweet whey References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2007 07:02:09 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcoy281q.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Chakolate writes: > My cats love the stuff, I found out sort of by accident, but I'm not > going to give them five pounds of it. > So my question is, what do I do with it? Does it have any use for a > diabetic low-carber? Or should I just offer it on freecycle and > write it off as a loss? That, or give it to your cats a little at a time. I don't suppose if you keep a bag of whey powder around, there's a danger that you'll suddenly binge on it one day like it's a bag of chips. :-) -- From nobody Tue Jun 26 07:30:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do I have to leave the group now? References: <1182638662.764888.96930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:30:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86odj2oq35.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 45 lissa writes: > I have had to stop my low carb/no carb plan. After about a month > and a half, I just was not losing weight. 2 pounds up, two pounds > down- basically right in the same spot. When I stopped it, I lost 4 > lbs within the next few days. I guess my body just wasn't ready for > the no carb diet. Ever heard of this? I'm not sure if this is a troll or a massive case of confusion, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt and answer it seriously. First of all, I've heard many people say that they (or a friend) went on a "no-carb" diet, when that wasn't true at all. The only foods on a no-carb diet would be unprocessed muscle meats (nothing like hot dogs or liver; they contain carbs), butter, and oil. That's it. If you ate any eggs, cheese, vegetables, sour cream, anything else at all, it was not no-carb. Now, it *is* possible to eat a no-carb diet, at least for a while, but people who know what they're talking about call that a "meat fast" or "fat fast" (depending on how they do it), so saying "low carb/no carb" as if there's not a huge freakin' difference between the two just makes you look clueless. Second, I think someone else already pointed this out, but it would be almost impossible for what you have described to happen. When you eat few (or no) carbs, your body gradually removes and burns excess glucose that it has stored away, which it used water to store. That means that low-carbers normally see an immediate loss of a few pounds of water weight in the first week of the diet. It also means that if you go from low-carb to high-carb, you'll pick those few pounds right back up as your body replenishes those stores. (It's easy to get dehydrated in the process, as those of us who have fallen off the diet a few times can tell you.) Perhaps your scale is broken. If your diet didn't seem to be working, wouldn't it have made sense to ask for help with it while you were doing it? It's not too late, though, if you really want to understand what you're doing. Read a couple of the books people have recommended -- commonly available at libraries and used book stores -- and post a few typical daily menus from your low-carb efforts, and people here will be glad to help you figure out what went wrong. -- From nobody Tue Jun 26 07:37:56 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do I have to leave the group now? References: <1182638662.764888.96930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:37:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5tqopr0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Cubit" writes: > Did you read the book? > > "Doctor Atkins New Diet Revolution" I hate to nitpick (no, really!) but it bugs me to see DANDR described as "the book," which seems to happen fairly often. It's one of the books, certainly one of the most important ones in the field, but hardly THE book. I think 'Protein Power' is also very good, but I don't think you can get the full picture from any single one of them. -- From nobody Tue Jun 26 07:52:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: BG level 1 hr after eating sugar References: <1CRfi.8$_S6.7@newsfe12.lga> <137vq7vgc3fd12d@news.supernews.com> <137vsrvlk83i879@news.supernews.com> <7XSfi.10$_S6.7@newsfe12.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:52:37 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy4eop2i.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "nanner" writes: > I tested at 1 hr after starting to eat the sugary stuff (tasted a > cupcake, had a small piece of bday cake and a bowl of ice cream - i > know, I went to town LOL) > it was 146, I will test again at 2 hrs. I don't know what the > numbers mean though. The booklet gives ranges for diabetics. > I tested blood again after 2 hrs. it was 125. I'm new at this too and still learning, but my understanding is that a person with healthy insulin response *may* go as high as 120 after the first hour, but will always be back down under 100 after two hours. Anything above 140 will begin to cause organ damage, including damage to the beta cells in your pancreas, further harming your insulin function, so it's a vicious circle. (Corrections on all this from the veterans are most welcome.) Ignore the numbers for diabetics in your booklet; for some reason the ADA refuses to acknowledge any of the progress that's being made in this area over the last few decades, and insists on sticking with danger numbers that are way too high. So, what those numbers are telling you is that serious quantities of carbs are poison for you. Whether you're officially diabetic or insulin resistant or whatever is beside the point now; you know that you can't eat that stuff if you want to stay healthy. You probably also discovered how hard it is to say "I'll just have a taste" and then stick to it. When your blood sugar isn't well controlled, that's like a recovering alcoholic saying, "Oh, I'll just have one shot and then stop." It's not gonna happen, is it? Once you get started, you'll rationalize like crazy until you convince yourself that you *should* eat three pieces of that birthday cake. (I did the same thing this weekend, but I don't have time to chronicle it now, so later....) It just doesn't pay to even flirt with it. Today's a new day though; time to learn from it, start over, and move forward. -- From nobody Wed Jun 27 07:02:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do I have to leave the group now? References: <1182638662.764888.96930@p77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86k5tqopr0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1182885709.406639.72590@u2g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:02:10 -0500 Message-ID: <863b0dobb1.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 98 Doug Freyburger writes: > The plan as described in DANDR has one additional > advantage over most of the other low carb plans - It > describes a process not a menu once you have > completed the first 14 days. What each person eats > on Atkins is completely customized according to the > results from the foods you've eaten. Problem foods are > avoided and carb counts are set according to your own > body's reactions. > Because of that customization it works for a very large > percentage of people who actually follow its directions. > Doctor Atkins claimed that it worked for 100% of people > though that claim is definitely an exaggeration. > But also because of that customization relatively few > people actually follow the directions. What most people > call Atkins misses its big advantage, maybe because > the directions are hard to understand, maybe because > few believe the sort of advice that describes a process > not a menu. It's always seemed too picky to me. As I understand it, you increase your carbs weekly by 5g/day until you stop losing weight, right? That assumes a scale that's more accurate than most, and more accurate carb counting than is necessary in Induction or on other plans. It's much easier to keep your carbs *below* XX/day than to keep them *at* XX/day plus-or-minus a couple. That kind of accuracy means charting everything you eat, which is a lot of extra trouble. It also assumes fairly accurate food labeling, which you simply can't count on. The can of sauerkraut I just bought says 1g/serving, which really means .5-1.5, or an error margin of 50%. (And that doesn't count the additional 10% margin that the USDA allows.) If you apply that to a 40g daily menu, you could really be eating anywhere between 20g-60g. You might think you had 35g yesterday and 40g today, but you really had 45g yesterday and 25 today! Granted, things that come in bigger servings don't have error margins that high, so a real menu will never have that large a range, and days will average out somewhat over a week, but thinking that you can accurately count your carbs closer than 5g/day seems overly optimistic, to me. >> I think 'Protein Power' is also very good, > Like any of the popular books it has its limitations. > The science is better than DANDR but Drs Eades did > end up rethinking their science and reversed there > stance on at least one topic - ratios of essential > fatty acids to target. Yes, my girlfriend recently read through the PP Life Plan booklet, and she mentioned that they said something about trimming meat and not eating too much fat, which surprised me, because I think they've gotten over that by now. I think when a lot of these people got started, they understood carbs=bad, but didn't realize just how much they were going to end up challenging the rest of the diet orthodoxy. If you do the math on PP, it's clear that you're going to have to get at least 60-70% of your calories from fat, but it's like they couldn't really bring themselves to say that out loud when they first started creating their plan. > Which brings up an interesting target - If the fully > customized process of DANDR actually works for the > few who do it, does it really matter that the science > is poor in the book itself? Not really. I'm sure the process has worked for many people who didn't read the science, and for even more who never researched enough elsewhere to understand the science anyway. Astronomers who thought the Earth was the center of the universe were able to predict eclipses and the movement of the stars just as well as we can now. If I wrote a book recommending an all meat and broccoli diet, and said it would make you lose weight because the meat gives you the lean energy of the animal's spirit and because broccoli has magic powers, it'd be hogwash, but people who followed it would lose weight. > Dr A didn't have to understand the science to design a process that > worked. He had to gather data on what works and refine his process > based on that data. He never did publish any data. Sure, that's inductive reasoning, which can be just as valid as deductive. Start by observing and collecting data, look for patterns, and build a theory based on the patterns. The problem that usually appears with this method is that the researcher already *has* a theory in mind, so instead of letting the patterns lead to a theory, he ends up massaging the data to get patterns that fit the theory he already has. (See: global warming, HIV-AIDS, the Piltdown Man, etc.) It works when the researcher is truly objective and open to any theory that fits the patterns, or sometimes because he gets lucky and his theory happens to have been right in the first place. -- From nobody Wed Jun 27 07:07:18 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New cereal in town References: <5eagbvF37l5gdU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:07:18 -0500 Message-ID: <86ved9mwi1.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Pat" writes: > Supposedly, Albertson's has it. I'll get a box of the almond flakes > one and see what it's like. This reminds me: my grocery store just started carrying almond crackers and other kinds of nut crackers. I forget the brand, but I was excited at first until I looked at the label and saw they're pretty high in carbs. I think you can get whole-grain crackers that are lower, but I suppose these could be useful for someone with poor grain tolerance. I'll have to look again and read the ingredients. -- From nobody Wed Jun 27 07:31:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Why High Fiber Diet Is The Best Diet References: <1182667885.610693.143840@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 07:31:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6nxmve9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 103 alohanema writes: > Dieticians and physicians agree Well then, it must be true! > that a high fiber diet is the best diet not only for a healthy > weight but also for a healthy heart and over all health and general > well being. According to the Surgeon General, Would this be the same Surgeon General who has been condemning fat (even good fats, for a long time) since Congress said so in 1977, which was entirely a political decision that came from a few staffers? > the American Dietetic Association and the National Cancer > Institute, fiber should become an essential part of your daily diet, > and adults should consume 20-35 grams of fiber everyday for optimal > health. Good grief, this fiber thing is getting out of hand. I just read 35g in a newspaper article last week too. Have any of these people looked at a few food labels and seen just how hard it would be to get 35g of fiber in anything resembling a normal diet? (And they think *we're* obsessed and restricting our diets too much.) Most cereals that claim lots of fiber don't have more than 5-6 grams. Whole grain breads might have 2-3 if you're lucky. Most vegetables fall in the 1-3 range. I don't see how anyone's going to regularly (pardon the pun) get 35g/day without supplements. > For children the standard rule of 'age plus five' applies, for > example a child of six should take eleven grams of fiber everyday. Hmm, a "standard" rule I've never heard of. Ooookay. > Most of us do not know the harmful effects of prepared and preserved > snack foods. If we knew that these foods make our arteries thick with > cholesterol and sugars, we wouldn't be rushing to restaurants for a > tasty bite. It is time to revive the taste for fresh foods such > fruits, vegetables and whole grains. These foods contain fiber and we > need to introduce fiber in our daily diet. Many of us don't even get > half the daily recommended numbers. Of course, there's no reason "prepared and preserved snack foods" couldn't have lots of fiber; it could be added to anything. After all, "prepared and preserved" high-fiber cereals are presumably awesome. If all that matters is getting fiber, why should you care where it comes from? > The reason why doctors and dieticians strongly recommend a high fiber > diet is because fiber works effectively and efficiently in the > cleansing process. The two types of fiber, soluble and insoluble, play > a significant role in eliminating toxins Uh oh! When I hear "eliminating toxins," I get a grip on my wallet, because there's usually a sales pitch coming for the latest gizmo or super food/drug. > and cholesterol from the body. I don't know about you, but my body makes more cholesterol to replace whatever I eliminate. Good thing, too, or I'd die. > The water soluble forms of fiber absorb water soluble fats like > excess cholesterol, and trap it, and escort it from the body in a > healthy bowel movement. Insoluble forms of fiber (known as roughage) > work like a broom to sweep the intestine clean of debris. Research has > shown that high fiber diets decrease the risk of colon diseases, > including Crohn's, Colitis and even cancer. Ah, the "Scrubbing Bubbles" theory of biology: if you can draw a vivid picture of microscopic activity that makes sense, it must be right. Somehow I doubt there's any broom-sweeping-debris going on in any sense, but whatever. > Fiber is very good for a healthy cardiovascular system. It helps to > maintain healthy cholesterol levels. Since fiber slows down the > conversion of carbohydrate into sugar, Is this true, though? Sure, fiber is a carbohydrate that doesn't get converted, so it improves the ratio of food-carbs to blood sugar; but does the presence of a fiber chain slow down the absorption of the sugar chain next to it in any way? In other words, if I eat 5g of straight glucose, will it be absorbed faster than if I eat 5g of glucose with an additional 2g of fiber? I don't know. > Doctors recommend a high fiber diet for all those fighting elevated > cholesterol, the battle of the bulge, or digestive irregularity. > Indeed, it has almost become a slogan to say, 'Five a Day', that is > five servings of fruit and vegetables per day is a must. *Almost* a slogan? It's *only* a slogan. Put it on the shelf next to "8 glasses of water a day" and "an apple a day keeps the doctor away." Oh well, I'm bored with this. I'm convinced that fiber consumption only became an issue when people cut back on fat enough for constipation to become a problem. Fat seems to lubricate that system just fine. Maybe it doesn't "sweep out debris," but I think I can live with that. -- From nobody Sat Jun 30 06:56:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Almond Breeze (almond milk) References: <13864mbdl448laa@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 06:56:26 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzsplkph.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "nanner" writes: > OMG - never thought of that. SF pudding is my weakness but if i made > it with something like Hoods does that greatly reduce the carbiness? > I don't use milk for anything else so I am not familiar with it so > much. According to the box I've got here, it looks like the milk pretty much doubles the carbs. The nutrition label doesn't show totals with milk, but it says it has 6g (or 2% RDA) as packaged, and 4% RDA with skim milk. So a serving would have somewhere around 12g; kinda high for me, since one serving of pudding isn't that much. I picked this up so I could try making it with cream and water, which should bring the carb count down to 8-9. Still kind of high, but should be okay for special occasions. -- From nobody Tue Jul 3 09:21:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New cereal in town References: <5eagbvF37l5gdU1@mid.individual.net> <5eahjoF37kqceU1@mid.individual.net> <5ecr75F38ctgiU1@mid.individual.net> <5ectlsF3876juU1@mid.individual.net> <5ed9vdF383ohjU1@mid.individual.net> <5edallF37okjuU2@mid.individual.net> <5ehphbF39lvqvU2@mid.individual.net> <1183047908.758661.177540@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <5fudnVcvx8F0mBnbnZ2dnUVZ_sCinZ2d@inreach.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:21:47 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir91sh38.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 "glassman" writes: > I know lots of folks are deathly afraid of eating some carbs and > then going nuts with cravings etc. To me a little treat now and > again makes life more fun, and makes it easier for me over the long > haul. This spring marked 8 years for me LCing. I was so strict for > the first few years that I didn't even have one bite of fruit in > years. Now I eat a more balanced diet including nuts, fruit, and > the occasional sugar free/LC treat, especially LC ice cream. I > still don't eat any bread, pasta, starch, sugars, rice. Moderation > has been the key to my staying LC forever. I don't want to sound critical of your success, because I'm not at all; that's awesome. But I wonder if a big actual key wasn't being "so strict for the first few years that" you didn't eat even a piece of fruit. Maybe those few years of very tight control allowed your body's insulin response to improve, helped your pancreas to heal, and gave you time to learn to appreciate a variety of LC foods and preparation techniques, so that after those years were over, you could introduce a few things like fruit back into your diet without causing problems. That's how all the popular LC plans do it too: start out strict, get your weight and cravings under control, work toward moderation. You did it how you're supposed to. Trying to be "moderate" when you're still somewhat new to the process is a very different proposition. If you have blood sugar problems, like many (most?) overweight people, very much moderation will mean cravings, which often lead to setbacks and starting over. If you're still getting used to eating this way, worrying a lot about the foods you can't have much of isn't the best route to success. For someone with blood sugar problems who's been eating a high-carb diet, "moderation" is like an alcoholic saying he'll "just have a few." Also, most nuts are quite low carb, as are berries and a few other fruits, so your diet still sounds pretty strict to me. It's working though; that's the main thing. Congratulations on 8 years! -- From nobody Wed Jul 4 16:01:53 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Who's BBQing? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:01:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86644zsx1a.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "nanner" writes: > I am doing plain old bottled BBQ sauce on most of the chicken for > the rest of the gang. I usually leave mine plain but if there is a > good LC/sugar free BBQ sauce to make or buy I will try it. I don't > want anything that's more like a science experiment than a condiment > though LOL any suggestions? Here's one from Protein Power, as part of a recipe for barbecued chicken wings. I haven't tried it myself yet. 1 c. water 1/2 c. olive oil 1/2 c. vinegar, white or cider 2 T. chili powder 1/2 t. cayenne pepper Mix in a saucepan, bring to a boil over high heat, boil for five minutes, and set aside to use. Pretty simple. If memory serves, there's a BBQ sauce recipe which uses LC catsup as a base in PP Life Plan; but my copy is loaned out right now, so I can't share that one. -- From nobody Wed Jul 11 07:52:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 8 really simple tips to help you lose weight more quickly References: <1184069256.418244.162220@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 07:52:58 -0500 Message-ID: <863azvhzkl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 112 Linda writes: > My partner has always been a bit of a health freak and lately, I've > been following him in that direction too! We do many things to help > us deal with weight issues. Just thought I'd post a few here so that > others can try them out too, if they want to. Ok, time for a fisking. > Try combining these ideas with other weight loss practices you may > already be doing. They might just make a difference. Wow, if I take the things I'm already doing, and add *eight* new lifestyle changes, I *might* see a difference? Sheesh, I'd hope so. Why not 15 things? Or 42? > Tip 1: > Use your teeth better! Chew all foods (including soft foods like ice > creams) at least 10 to 15 times. This is essential to add saliva to > the food, which is required for good digestion. From a weight loss > point of view, if you chew on food longer, your hunger gets > satisfied with a smaller food intake. That's a wonderful benefit! Hmm, that's a new one on me. So my stomach won't digest food as well unless I get some saliva down there from my mouth? Do I have to swallow it with my food, or can I just work up a mouthful of loogies and swallow them as a post-meal treat? > Tip 2: > Try to have food at fixed times of the day. You can stretch these > times by half an hour, but anything more than that is going to > affect your eating pattern, the result will either be a loss of > appetite or that famished feeling which will make you stuff yourself > with more than what is required the next time you eat. What if you get hungry early? Unless you burn calories at the same rate every day and eat the same amount at every meal, your appetite isn't going to follow the same pattern every day, so why should your meals? Meal schedules are for convenience and planning the rest of your day, not for weight loss. Of course, we low-carbers generally don't have to deal with that "famished feeling" anyway. > Tip 3: > Love watching TV? Me too. Do it with a twist - get up and walk about > during commercial breaks. > When the next commercial flashes on screen, instead of channel > surfing, get up and take a walk. Reach over and try to touch your > toes or do any simple exercise that will get the blood > flowing. Anyway, you don't really want to be manipulated by all > those commercials, do you? :) Why not walk around during the shows? I don't watch TV, but I do watch DVDs now and then. No commercials, but I usually clean house or something while I'm watching out of the corner of my eye. I have to do something while I'm watching TV; it's too boring by itself, and I get restless. And I'm lazy. > Tip 4: > Walk up and down while making telephone calls. Get your body moving. Uh, okay. This is silly, but I'm not sure exactly why. I actually do tend to pace while I'm on the phone, but it's not exercise. > Tip: 5: > Drink a glass of water before meals. The water occupies some space so > you feel full without having to stuff yourself. Yeah, whatever. If that were true, you could just skip a meal and have several glasses of water instead, and feel full. I don't know about anyone else, but I can tell the difference. > Tip 6: > Instead of frying things try baking them without fat. Baking is much > healthier than frying, mainly because it requires less oil/fat. Heck, now I'm almost sorry I wasted time making fun of this. Have you been in a coma for the last five years or something? We know better than this now, and you don't have to research obscure sources to learn it anymore, either. If you still really believe the evil-fat tripe, you're either intentionally being obtuse or just not paying attention. > Tip 7: > Wriggle your toes and your fingers whenever you can. This is a stress > buster too. This will tell you how sore your hand and leg joints are. > And if their condition is so bad, just think of the rest of your > body! And this will help you lose weight how again? > Tip 8: > I love this one and do it as often as I can - turn on music and > dance like a maniac! Just let go of all inhibitions. Go back to the > wild days of childhood. Close the door to your room, turn on your > sound system to the highest volume possible (just a little lower > than the level at which your neighbors start to complain) and then > do the wackiest dance that you can think of. It's great fun too! You go right ahead and do that. Good advice, to routinely annoy your neighbors until *just before* the point where they actually complain. > If you want more inputs on weight loss, check out my blog at Ah yes, the inevitable blogspot spam, 2007's answer to 1996's AOL "Me too!" post. -- From nobody Wed Jul 11 08:21:22 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: giving it another go + willpower References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 08:21:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86vecrgjou.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 117 "Michael McNeil" writes: > I have tried Atkin's a few times over the years. The first time I > was very successful and lost 40 lbs in a matter of 3 months. The > last 2 times have been difficult. I manage to last a couple weeks > and fall off the wagon. I have told my family of my intentions and > have even had my wife assist and go along with the plan the last > time.... She couldn't take the lack of foods she was normally eating > and went back to eating normally causing me to fall off once again. > It's difficult with a family of 4 and you're the only one eating > differently when they all eat rice, pizza, noodles, sandwiches, > milk, juice, etc. It *is* difficult, but if you can reach a point where you take complete responsibility for your health and don't expect anyone else to help you, you'll be much better off. It sucks to sit there and watch other people eat foods you miss, but it has to be done. Even if your wife and kids did the diet with you, you'd still run into this problem at restaurants and gatherings, so it has to be dealt with. I know; I used that excuse for falling off the diet many times in the past. My last failure was a few weeks ago, when I went with my girlfriend to a large picnic her family had. The table was loaded with carbs as far as the eye could see, but there was barbecued pulled pork, so I figured I'd just stick to that. The stuff turned out to have so much sugar in it, I might as well have eaten a bag of M&Ms. After a helping of that, the cravings went into overdrive, but I managed to stick to high-fat, high-carb cheats like a cream-cheese dessert and at least stayed away from the chips, which I hoped would soften the blow enough for me to get back on track quickly the next day, which I did. A couple hours after that meal, I was so irritable -- angry at myself, mostly, but also moody and flighty from the sugar rush -- that my girlfriend was really shocked. I'm normally a very mellow person, and she'd never seen me like that in the year we've known each other. The other real treat that day was something that may annoy me more than anything else in the world: people who have to comment on what you're eating. I just want to yell, "Eyes on your own plate, people!" If you're a big guy, you've had this happen many times, when people are terribly concerned that you might not get enough to eat. I'm not sure how they think I got to this size in the first place, but it really bothers them if I don't heap my plate and dig in with gusto. So there I was with my helping of sugared pork, a couple deviled eggs, and some cole slaw I hoped wouldn't be too sweet (it was, of course). The people across the table, who were perfectly nice folks, immediately started in: "Boy, you sure aren't eating much," to which I smiled and politely replied, "No, I'm not." "Well, don't be shy; it's all really good!" (So am I insulting everyone now by not wanting their food?) "I know you've got a bigger appetite than that!" It seemed to really bother them to see me eating less than them. Maybe it made them feel gluttonous. Finally I just succumbed to peer pressure and got some more, which my racing blood sugar wanted me to do anyway. I could have lied and said that I ate before I came, but then I would have looked stupid, because the meal was the whole point of the day. I could have told them I'm diabetic, but so many people think they know what that means, and they just end up pushing high-carb no-table-sugar foods on you, like potatoes. I'm fairly introverted, so I certainly didn't want to go into the whole lecture about insulin resistance and blood sugar and so on in front of a bunch of people I just met. So I ate and paid for it. Next time, I'll have to take one of those other options, imperfect as they are. For starters, from now on, I'm always going to eat a full meal before I go to anything like that, so if the menu is all-carb, I can simply beg off, and I won't be fighting my hunger and cravings the whole time. (I swear the smell of some foods can cause cravings all by themselves if I'm hungry.) > The bonus tho is that I absolutely love chicken, bacon, tuna and > hamburg. Just have to increase the intake of greens tho. Well, you don't have to, but if you want to, it's a good idea. Man can live and lose weight on meat and eggs alone, but greens can add a lot of variety. > This time I am hoping is different. I climbed on the scale > yesterday and noticed my weight was a little higher than what I > expected it to be so last night decided once again to begin Atkins > because of it's initial success a few years ago. I went out today > and bought enough food to keep me going for a couple weeks and > cooked up a pile of stuff last night and today to save time. That's a good plan. Especially at first, it helps to have plenty of stuff ready to eat immediately when the cravings hit. > Hopefully I can stay with it this time. Wish me luck. Not to sound too new-agey or camp-counselor about it, but the more you can change that "hopefully I can" to "I will," the better off you'll be. It's not easy; I'm still working on it. > btw: any negative comments about my failures in the past... please > keep to yourself. I know my weaknesses and don't need petty > reminders of them from the idiots that troll this board. Just kill everything that gets cross-posted to more than two groups, and you lose almost all of that. > currently: 5'11' & 272 lbs > hopefully: same height & weigh less. > The overall weight is not really an issue with me but mainly losing > the love handles, stomach and the man boobs are. I know what you mean. Who cares how many pounds you weigh, if you look good and are in good health. I don't think I've ever heard someone talk about trying to reduce his density. :-) -- From nobody Fri Jul 13 10:08:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dietician poo pooed low carb diet. References: <46961c24$0$1636$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:08:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86hco8gx2z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Briton" writes: > After about sixteen days I've lost 8 lbs and 2 inches around the > belly. I have just returned from a visit to a dietician that my GP > arranged for me. She was not very complimentary about low carb > diets in general and advised me to reintroduce bread and potatoes > into my diet. To put it mildly, she's an idiot. It's one thing for the average consumer to still be unaware of this stuff, but it's indefensible when someone who's getting paid to be an expert isn't keeping up with the facts. Either she doesn't know better because she doesn't care enough to keep up with the research, or she does know better but refuses to accept the truth because it violates her beliefs. (Usually the former, because of the latter.) Telling a fat person with blood sugar problems to eat more carbs is like telling an alcoholic to have a daily shot of whiskey, or telling someone with pneumonia to go live in a swamp. Doctors and other health experts are useful for the hard evidence only they can get for you, like the results of blood tests and x-rays, and to get prescriptions for drugs you agree you need. Just stay the heck away from their opinions. -- From nobody Fri Jul 13 10:38:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:38:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86abu0gvps.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 61 "Millan" writes: > Yes but they are geared towards the US market and t=some of the > foods suggested are not available here, if they are they are > specialist foods and cost a small fortune. I just need to know what > to avoid if possible. How many cards a day are allowed etc The books don't recommend many specialist foods on Induction, because the bake mixes and such aren't *that* low in carbs. I just picked up these three books for a total of $4.50 at a thrift store yesterday: Dr. Atkins's New Diet Revolution (2002 revision) Dr. Atkins's Quick & Easy New Diet Cookbook (authored by Mrs. Atkins) Dr. Atkins's New Carbohydrate Gram Counter The last one is a small book that lists carbs, net carbs, fiber, protein, fat, and calories for every food I can think of. The cookbook looks promising, with a lot of fairly simple recipes. (Hence the "quick & easy" in the title, I guess.) I've gotten all my low-carb books and cookbooks at thrift stores and used book stores for a dollar or two, including Protein Power, the PP Life Plan, the Carbohydrate Addict's Lifeplan, and a few others. If you see a copy of PP, grab it; it's very good. Take advantage of the failure of others by buying their nearly unused dieting books. :-) My thrift store has a shelf with several hundred cookbooks and diet books, and except for the ones with big glossy pages, they tend to be cheap. I also like to look for cookbooks from before the low-fat era, when recipes included things like butter and weren't all designed for super-lean beef and skinless chicken breasts. I picked up a grilling cookbook yesterday, and you wouldn't believe the amount of fat on the steaks in the pictures! Anyway, back to your question: To begin, keep your carbs under 20g/day, and eat unprocessed meat, eggs, cheese, butter, natural oils, lettuce, cabbage, swiss chard, broccoli, mushrooms, mustard, mayo (without sugar), pork rinds, nuts (sparingly), asparagus, sprouts, radishes, zucchini, celery, and cauliflower. That's not the whole list, but that'll get you started while you find a copy of a book, or do a web search for "induction list of foods." Also, don't focus on "what to avoid"; focus on what to eat. If you focus on what to avoid, that includes 75% of the stuff in the grocery store, and it'll seem like you're depriving yourself. But it's not that you can't eat 75% of foods; it's that the problem foods are processed into about a million different forms, so they fill up the grocery shelves. Corn shows up in dozens of different places, from fresh ears in the vegetable department, to canned in the canned aisle, to frozen in the frozen aisle, to tortillas in a couple places, to tortilla chips in the snack aisle, to corn flour in the baked goods. There's corn in every aisle of the store, while radishes are in one place -- sold fresh. So stay focused on finding the good stuff, and not on avoiding the onslaught of expensively marketed processed grains. -- From nobody Fri Jul 13 10:43:53 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Potroast question References: <1184214206.450485.87490@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1184270332.160103.82640@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 10:43:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86644ogvgm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > On Jul 11, 11:23 pm, "BlueCarp.com" wrote: >> If I slow cook a pot roast in a crock pot, and include potatoes for >> my family, can I eat just the meat without getting unwanted carbs? >> Or do the potato carbs somehow leach into the meat? > It kind of depends on how you cook it. > If you cook it just long enough that the meat and potatoes remain > discrete entities, you can avoid the potatoes as they do not "leech" > into the meat. > However, if you cook it long enough to become a stew-like meal, you > won't be able to avoid the potatoes, as they'll wind up in tiny bits > all through the whole thing. My crock-pot instructions say to put the meat on top of the vegetables, because the vegetables take longer when you're slow-cooking. In that case, I'd think if you pulled some meat off the top of the roast for yourself before mixing it all together to make a stew, you'd be pretty safe. -- From nobody Fri Jul 13 13:57:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Does USDA Database Subtract Fiber? From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:57:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsx4f7x8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 I just bought my first jicama, so I went to the database to see what the carb numbers on it are. (Next I'm off to look for recipes. For taste and texture, I'd say it's about 75% apple and 25% turnip.) For 1/2 cup of raw jicama, it says: 5.73 carbohydrate, by difference 3.2 fiber .06 fat .47 protein 25.0 calories So, multiplying things out, I get: 5.73 x 4 = 22.92 .06 x 9 = .54 .47 x 4 = 1.48 ----------------- Total: 25.34 Close enough for government work. So I'm assuming that 5.73 already has fiber subtracted, and that's what they mean by "by difference," right? But then I looked in my new Dr. A's Carbohydrate Gram Counter, and it says: 5.7 total carbs 3.2 fiber 2.5 net carbs .1 fat .5 protein 25.0 calories So Dr. A's chart gives the same amount for total carbs, including fiber, that the USDA chart gives for "carbohydrate by difference." But if that includes fiber, then they're both including the fiber count in the calories, aren't they? I thought the whole point of doing the math was that the calories never include fiber, so by subtracting the protein and fat calories from the total, you can see what calories belong to the net carbs without fiber. Something doesn't make sense here. -- From nobody Fri Jul 13 21:24:38 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Does USDA Database Subtract Fiber? References: <86wsx4f7x8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1184363809.187287.121120@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:24:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl7rg1sp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 65 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > On Jul 13, 1:57 pm, Aaron Baugher wrote: >> Close enough for government work. So I'm assuming that 5.73 already >> has fiber subtracted, and that's what they mean by "by difference," >> right? > No. What they mean is... carbohydrate is never directly calculated. > They find the total calories, test for how much protein and fat, > subtract the calories for the protein and fat, and assume the rest of > the calories are carbohydrate. Thus fiber is NOT subtracted, but part > of the total carbohydrate. Ok, so....fiber is included in the total calories, then? I thought it wasn't. I haven't ever paid all that much attention to labels, because I stuck to foods low enough in carbs that I didn't have to be that picky, so I guess I had this wrong all along. So, if you add up the calories from protein, fat, and all carbs including fiber, you should get the total calories on the label? Got it. > I "count" a cup of whole milk plain yogurt as 4 carbs... and it > "works" by my bg meter to do so. That reminds me of something else I was wondering: is there any do-it-yourself way of determining how many carbs are in something? Since I make my own yogurt and cream cheese, and I understand that homemade yogurt tends to be lower in carbs than most store-bought yogurt, and I'm also planning to try some frozen yogurt soon, I'd really like to know how much mine actually has. I know Bernstein talks about using test strips to determine whether something has usable carbs, but I think that's just a yes/no sort of thing, not a measurement. Other than eating something and gauging the effect by the change in your blood sugar, is there any way to test a food yourself without getting a bomb calorimeter? > The calories DO include fiber. Calories are measured by burning a > food completely... and seeing how much the temperature of water is > raised by the burning. So fiber counts. EVERYTHING counts, even if it > can't be metabolized by humans at all. I understood that; I guess I just thought they didn't include calories from fiber in the total because humans can't use them anyway. Thanks for setting me straight. > This is why high-fiber foods are good for weight loss... because > you're eating a bunch of calories that are metabolically inactive. > My current diet is around 1700 calories per day... but 200 of them > are fiber, so my body only "gets" 1500 calories per day. Is there any advantage to eating 1700 calories where 200 are fiber, or just eating 1500 calories without fiber, though, from a diet perspective? I suppose it means a fuller stomach on fewer calories, but as far as weight loss goes, is there any reason a fiber calorie is better than no calorie at all? I ask because my girlfriend read something about how fiber calories "attach" themselves to fat and carbs and carry them out of the body; and supposedly you could subtract one carb gram, one fat, and one protein from your diet for each fiber gram you ate, or something like that. I probably don't have the details right, but it sounded odd. -- From nobody Sat Jul 14 06:14:10 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Does USDA Database Subtract Fiber? References: <86wsx4f7x8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1184363809.187287.121120@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <86sl7rg1sp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1184393828.780105.180910@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:14:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86odiffda5.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > If it were me, I'd assume homemade yogurt had about 4g carb/cup... > same as store-bought. Thanks, that seems safe enough. I thought the store-bought kinds were higher than that, around 10-14, but that's probably because I've never gotten the real full-fat stuff. I just grab whatever plain kind is on sale to use as a starter for mine, and that's usually going to be fat-free. > Cream cheese is trickier as the store-bought stuff has all sorts of > thickeners and such added to it which likely increase the carb count. > If you assumed it had the same amount of carb, that would be a > conservative estimate. Well, since I make it from yogurt, I suppose I can at least assume it won't have more carbs than the yogurt did, and probably less, since some carbs (maybe most) would drain out with the whey. A gallon of yogurt (16 cups) would have 64g, and I think that turns into about 2 pounds of cream cheese, so a max of 32g/lb, or 2g/oz. I'll have to do some measuring with the next batch, but it ought to work out to less than 1g per tablespoon, at most. I guess if I ever want to go into production and sell my fancy Low-Carb Yogurt Cream Cheese ("Cures what ails ya!"), I'll have to send a sample off to a lab for testing. :-) I guess that would also be the way to find out what different yogurt cultures are in it, since the more expensive varieties I've seen list a few different ones on the side, implying that the more cultures, the better. -- From nobody Sat Jul 14 06:22:20 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Does USDA Database Subtract Fiber? References: <86wsx4f7x8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1184363809.187287.121120@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <86sl7rg1sp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1184394199.906902.189260@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 06:22:20 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5t3fcwj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > On Jul 13, 9:24 pm, Aaron Baugher wrote: >> Is there any advantage to eating 1700 calories where 200 are fiber, >> or just eating 1500 calories without fiber, though, from a diet >> perspective? I suppose it means a fuller stomach on fewer >> calories, but as far as weight loss goes, is there any reason a >> fiber calorie is better than no calorie at all? > Probably not if you're eating 200 calories worth of psyllium husks > or such. It'd just run right through you. > But if you're eating lotsa fiber because you eat lotsa fruits and > vegetables, it means you're getting a wide variety of > micronutrients. Yeah, I can see that. It's kind of like the issue of "good carbs." Fiber is often found in the presence of good nutrients, but that doesn't make it a good nutrient itself. I keep waiting to find some study that shows fiber *itself* is good for something besides preventing constipation in people who don't eat enough fat, but I'm starting to think it doesn't exist. So if I get it incidentally in a bunch of nutritious foods like you're talking about, that's fine, but I'm not going to make any special effort to pick particularly high-fiber ones. -- From nobody Wed Jul 18 18:59:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How to avoid Getting Headaches References: <1184416026.380868.82450@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <1184621540.601696.138270@n60g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:59:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6n5e00l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Doug Freyburger writes: > Before I started Atkins I got 3-5 "common migraine" aka > "cluster" headaches per year. > Since I started Atkins in 1999 I have had 1, and that was > during a month I was very far off the wagon. Even very > poor adherence to maintenance has been to keep them > from coming back *at all*. I very rarely get headaches on low-carb, and when I do, I can tell exactly where the knots are in my back that are causing it. A carb binge lasting more than a day or so, especially involving a lot of sugar, used to bring them back with a vengeance, no matter how my back felt. -- From nobody Wed Jul 18 19:01:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A reintroduction from me References: <5a4ni.9265$eY.2088@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:01:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86myxtdzx5.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "arkienurse" writes: > I was here many a long time ago. I recently had a cardiac work up > d/t chest pain, and was told by my doctor that I needed to at least > stop gaining weight. She then wrote a script for Zenical!!!! I > smiled, said thank you and threw the script in my shredder. I know > what works for me. I just lack sometimes the willpower to stick to > it. So, Sunday I started up again. My scale Sunday read 249. > Today it is at 241. Yes, I know it is water, but it makes me more > determined to stick it out. That's a great start! Did your doctor record your cholesterol numbers, so you can go back in a couple months and shock her with the improvements? -- From nobody Thu Jul 19 12:10:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cheddar cheese carbs References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:10:16 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejj4e2vb.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "em" writes: > Also, Atkins (somewhere on the website) recommends no more than 4g > of carbs from cheese per day. That's just over 11 oz, which is like > 1250+ calories -- enough to blow somebody's diet, for sure for > sure. That being said, I'm just wondering what people's take is on > this cheese thing. I think he says to limit yourself to 4 ounces of cheese per day, not 4g of carbs from cheese, but I could be remembering wrong. But why would 1250+ calories blow your diet? > (Personally, I am getting through induction pretty well by counting > one oz. of cheese as being one carb and limiting myself to 4oz of > cheese per day. I'm not about to change that right now, but do want > to better educate myself in regards to lc eating.) Personally, I think it's easier to round things up like you're doing. The USDA allows a 10% margin for error anyway, and it's not uncommon for labels to err more than that. Also, there's surely *some* variation in carb count from one brand/processor to another. Rounding everything up means you're a lot less likely to think you're getting 20g and really getting 25g because a few things were a bit higher than documented. -- From nobody Fri Jul 20 23:05:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Susan?? (do i panic??) References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:05:06 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl7icsgd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 "nanner" writes: > I have been eating poorly this past week and this morning decided to > test my blood glucose level. It was 106 fasting! That's a touch high, but you might read about "dawn phenomenon" if you haven't already. It's not uncommon for your liver to release extra glucose early in the morning before you wake up, to give you an energy boost to start the day, which can give you a bit of a high fasting number before breakfast. A little research will tell you how to combat that, if it's a problem. Personally, I wouldn't worry about it as long as it comes back down after a good low-carb meal. > That seemed high and I was about to eat a buttered bagel so I check > at 1 hr after eating the bagel. It was 161, another 40 min later it > was higher, at 163. why did it keep going up? When I ate fast-acting carbs like potato chips, my one-hour and two-hour numbers would be something like 180/150. When I ate slower-acting carbs, or carbs combined with plenty of fat like ice cream, that would reverse and I might get something like 130/160. It just depends on how quickly the carbs get into your blood stream (as glucose) and how well your insulin response stages work. It doesn't really matter which number is bigger; if either one is high, you need to stop pushing it up there. > so - things were much better when I was eating better (duh) And I > figure I should see a doctor of some kind?? If you have money burning a hole in your pocket, go buy some good bacon and throw away those bagels. They're like cardboard anyway. > Are these numbers horrific? btw, I don't need everyone to call me an > idiot for eating lousy this week. Horrific, no; serious, yes. They're high enough that you really need to stop eating that stuff because it's hurting you, but you don't need any sort of emergency treatment. Most doctors wouldn't think you had a problem anyway, with those numbers, and if they did a test, it'd be a fasting test, which wouldn't show anything useful. You know what your problem is and what to do about it; just do it! -- From nobody Sat Jul 21 08:46:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Stupid Labeling References: <868xeh3wxv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <12udqs86nkabg65@news.supernews.com> <1172766209.759641.308220@z35g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> <86r6s83fvq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:46:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86odi5dg40.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Bob S" writes: > The sugar is inherent in the cabbage. How do you think the kraut > ferments. In the case of the product I was talking about, there was added sugar other than what the cabbage contained, which is why the carb count was so ridiculously high. > There is also no vinegar in kraut. If there was, there would be no > fermentation. Right. I've made it myself, and it's just cabbage, salt, and water. -- From nobody Mon Jul 23 18:54:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LC Icream: gone? References: <13a1lpn1vhtjl81@news.supernews.com> <13a9d2ap91fb7bc@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 18:54:14 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqe2sml5.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "nanner" writes: > natural peanut butter is just peanuts. true, this other jar of > peanut butter is 6g carbs, 2 g fiber and 3g sugar (where is that > other carb??) Starch and/or rounding. > and so it's also 4g net BUT it's got sugar and molasses and added > oils. It's funny; when you do the math on some labels and compare them to no-sugar varieties, you can tell they aren't adding much sugar at all or the counts would be higher. It's like they have a compulsion: Every product *must* have sugar! -- From nobody Mon Jul 23 19:19:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: heartburn/acid indigestion References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:19:06 -0500 Message-ID: <867ioqslfp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 53 "john" writes: > When I stick to the low carb diet plan my horrible heartburn goes > away. What is the science behind why this seems to be so with many > people. When I had major heartburn about 15 years ago (bad enough that it'd wake me up at night, sometimes with the taste of vomit in my mouth) my chiropractor diagnosed me with hiatal hernia. To simplify, that's when the muscle and valve at the base of your esophagus get weak and allow the top part of the stomach to squeeze up into the esophagus. Once that happens, the valve can no longer close off the opening and keep your stomach acids from coming up on you, so if the food you're eating causes a lot of acid production, it works up into your throat and even your mouth. Fun stuff. Other people often offered antacids, but I knew enough to know that slowing down my digestion might lessen the symptom, but wouldn't help with the underlying problem and could lead to other problems like ulcers. I started taking a few papaya enzyme tablets from the health food store after meals, and they helped a lot. It's been too long for me to remember the exact details, but an enzyme in the papaya fruit was supposed to help break down foods so the stomach wouldn't need to produce so much acid, or something like that. The doc blamed it mostly on food allergies, saying that common food allergies like wheat and chocolate were the cause of the muscle weakness. However, since going on and off low-carb a few times, I don't think it's allergies exactly, unless I'm allergic to all high-carb foods. I get heartburn like clockwork when I eat high-carb foods; it's so reliable I can tell when foods had unexpected carbs by whether I get heartburn later. After a couple days of carbing up, it'd be waking me up at night with that puke taste again, whether I was pigging out on potato chips or ice cream or macaroni. > My symptoms of acid reflux disease are gradually diminishing as I > lose weight but I haven't popped a TUMS in the monthe since I have > started the induction diet and I'm eating a lot of spicy low carb > foods. Yeah, spiciness gives me no trouble at all. Maybe it got a bad rap because many spicy foods tend to be carby. After all, it's the stomach acid that burns so much, not the spices in the food. They should be long digested by the time I'm waking up from reflux anyway. The only time I've ever gotten any heartburn on low-carb was when eating something with tomato sauce, and I was probably getting more carbs than I thought, and maybe even added sugar. -- From nobody Mon Jul 23 19:40:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New find at Wally World today References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:40:35 -0500 Message-ID: <863azeskfw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "em" writes: > I'd like to hear a bit about your recent cheats, too. I have to > imagine that once in a while you will have a piece of b-day cake or > an ice cream cone. When you do (?), does it lead to major cravings > or what? Big time. Many of us are diabetic and/or insulin resistant, so that piece of birthday cake sends our blood sugar to dangerous levels. That may also lead to a chain reaction that over-produces certain "feel-good" chemicals in the brain, which is why depressed people sit down with a bag of chips or a carton of ice cream instead of a plate of pork chops. Later the chemicals wear off and you crave what will bring them back again. > OR, I don't know but, maybe hi-carb foods are to the low-carber what > "one drink" is to an on-the-wagon alcoholic, or one cigarette to > somebody who quit smoking. I haven't had those problems, so I can't compare, but carb cravings can be very strong. We've spent our entire pre-LC lives establishing that relationship between certain foods and that mild euphoria they provide. People even call them "comfort foods," so it's both directly chemical and psychological. After one high-carb meal, I've found myself making ridiculous choices, rationalizing whatever carbs I suddenly *had to have* and *deserved*. > I'm a little more then half-way through induction & am wondering > what things will look like for me down the road. As others have said, it depends. If your blood glucose is under fairly good control (I personally doubt that there are very many overweight people with excellent BG control), cravings may not be a problem for you, and you may be able to have that occasional treat and not worry about it. If you do have trouble, I'd recommend getting a blood glucose tester. That's the best way to find out if you have a problem with foods causing your BG to spike, and the hard feedback helps you (or me, anyway) keep your focus. -- From nobody Mon Jul 23 19:51:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Well, this sucks References: <1185121342.395082.11060@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:51:58 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7h6r5ch.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Bob writes: > That's the type of study that should be undertaken. I do believe > that many studies (such as the Nurses studies) don't indicate any > difference in cancer rates between low and high fat diets, but I'm > not sure about carbs. I'm not sure anyone has done a study of high-fat, low-carb diets yet. The closest I've seen is the one that put Atkins up against Ornish, South Beach, and the Zone, in which Atkins kicked the crap out of Ornish by a 2-1 ratio of pounds lost. But that one was mainly self-controlled by the participants, so it's hard to say how well they stuck to the diet, or how many of the Atkins dieters really ate high-fat and how many just pigged out on protein. As I recall, they didn't compare cholesterol numbers. Too bad; it would have been fun to watch them try to explain the big improvement in the LC dieters' blood work. But yes, high-fat vs. low-fat comparison studies always seem to really be comparing high-fat/high-carb to low-fat/high-carb, so it's no wonder they never find much difference. And when they do claim to be studying low-carb diets, they often also limit the calories to starvation levels for no particular reason, which *no* LC diet plan recommends at the beginning, if ever. -- From nobody Mon Jul 23 20:15:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Too Much Protein? From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:15:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 57 I've never been one to keep a food journal or count anything except a vague idea of how many carbs I'm getting. When you're eating very low-carb foods like meat, eggs, and greens, you know your carbs will always be under the limit, so it never seemed necessary. Whenever I stuck with low-carb religiously, I lost weight while eating as much as I wanted whenever I was hungry -- simple as that. Since getting my BG tester and scaring myself back to the righteous path, it doesn't seem to be as easy this time. The cravings are hanging around more, and even after several weeks, I find myself eating a *lot* to keep them at bay -- I'd guess 3000 calories easy. I'm not gaining weight, of course, but I don't feel like I'm losing it either; and while I've felt some increase in energy, it hasn't been as strong as before. Maybe a lot of this is because my insulin resistance has gotten worse; that seems like the most likely reason. In any case, that got me to actually paying attention to what I'm eating (though no actual journaling yet), and I've come to the conclusion that I'm eating way too much protein -- enough that the surplus is getting converted into enough glucose to keep the cravings going and maybe even keep me out of ketosis. Protein Power recommends 120g of protein per day for me, but I'd guess I'm getting well over 200g, maybe closer to 300g, with all the meat and eggs I eat. After all, if I limit myself to 30g of carbs (and I rarely get that much) and 120g of protein, here's the math just to get me up to 2000 calories a day -- and that's low for a guy my size, and definitely lower than I'm taking in now: carbs: 30g x 4 = 120 calories protein: 120g x 4 = 480 calories fat: 156g x 9 = 1400 calories There aren't many foods that give you that kind of a fat/protein ratio! Cheese comes close, but most meats don't. Even pork rinds are 8/5 protein/fat. And if you eat some foods with a high protein/fat ratio, like chicken or eggs, then you need even more on the fat side of the ledger to make those numbers work out. Nuts will do it, but they're expensive, and I can only eat so many. As I pointed out to my girlfriend as she watched me do the math, if I eat two sticks of butter every day, I'll be all set! So I'm having to change my thinking a bit, to find more ways to get fat into my diet and bring that protein number down. I've grudgingly started journaling my meals, at least for a couple weeks, to see just how much I've been overdoing it. My girlfriend (who is working into LC now, having tested her own BG) wants to try making hollandaise sauce, which looks to be very high in fat, and I'm planning to start making alfredo sauce too -- just without the noodles. I already slop plenty of mayo on everything it tastes good on, but maybe I can find more ways to use that. I'd really rather not just eat butter by the stick. -- From nobody Mon Jul 23 20:29:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Tofu Shirataki Noodles Report From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 20:29:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps2ir3ld.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 I've been checking the stores occasionally for shirataki noodles for the last few years, and I finally spotted some this weekend. They were "tofu shirataki noodles," so they did have some nutritional content, but only 2 net carbs (6 total, with fiber) for the 2-serving package. As I understand it, true shirataki noodles have no carbs (or calories?) at all. I was fairly pleased with them. First of all, opening the package in which they were packed in liquid, revealed that they have a definite "fishy" odor. Not extremely strong, but definitely noticeable. The package said to drain and parboil them for 2-3 minutes to eliminate this "distinctive shirataki odor," so I assume that means the odor wasn't coming from the tofu, and straight shirataki noodles would have it too, maybe stronger. I rinsed them thoroughly before cooking, just to make sure. Boiling the noodles for a few minutes did seem to completely remove the odor, and I ate them with a small bit of tomato sauce with spices. I couldn't tell that they tasted any different from starch noodles, but there was a definite rubberiness to them. Not like undercooked pasta; more plastic-like somehow. They made me think of fake fishing worms, although they were nowhere nearly as chewy as those would have to be. Say 1% as rubbery as a plastic night-crawler. :-) They weren't unpleasant to eat, just different; and a thicker sauce would help, especially with some meat or other chunks in it. I'll be trying them again for sure. Next time I'll cook them longer, to see if that gets rid of any of the rubbery texture, but from what I've read, I suspect it won't. If that's the case, I can live with it. A heaping plate of noodles with alfredo sauce for 5-6 net carbs? You betcha I can live with that! I also want to try the real non-tofu variety, but I haven't seen those in stores yet. Maybe I'll have to order some. -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 19:17:55 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gl3kqF3gjv42U1@mid.individual.net> <13aaobpchbhpd52@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:17:54 -0500 Message-ID: <86abtlqqtp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 54 Aaron Baugher wrote: >> Protein Power recommends 120g of protein per day for me, but I'd >> guess I'm getting well over 200g, maybe closer to 300g, with all >> the meat and eggs I eat. Susan replied: > Not only does a significant amount of that convert to glucose, but > it stimulates more insulin release than carbs do, just slower. Right. Hence my concern. But do the math: if you're taking in 120 calories in carbs (and Induction would be lower than that), if even half your other calories come from protein on a 2000 calorie diet, that'd be 940 calories, or 235 grams of protein. So if you're eating a low-carb diet, and you aren't starving yourself, you're either eating a *LOT* more fat than anyone else would consider normal or you're getting too much protein. The calories are coming from *somewhere*. Then Roger Zoul replied: > I find it very hard to believe he could be eating that much protein > on a daily basis. Until he starts journaling, it's just speculation. True. It hasn't been unusual for me to eat 6 eggs and 1.5 pounds of meat in a day, though. At 7 grams of protein per egg or ounce of meat, that's 210g right there, not counting whatever cheese or toppings might have been involved. I'll have accurate numbers soon. I'm not bragging here, or saying I've found a flaw in the system. But again, the math is pretty simple. If you're getting 120 calories from 30g of carbs, and 480 calories from 120g of protein (and that's the largest amount PP recommends for the largest people), that leaves a LOT of calories to get from fat. You won't get anywhere near that eating chicken and salads, or even burgers and salads, or even bacon and eggs. There aren't many foods that will give you a lot of (healthy) fat without also giving you plenty of protein, and the numbers say we need more fat than protein. If I had a beef with Protein Power, it would be that they talk a lot about building your meals around *a* protein source. I'm supposed to get 40g of protein per meal, which means a 6 oz. burger. Ok, so that's on my plate, now what? I've already got the protein, now what foods can I eat that will fill me up the rest of the way with fat and trace amounts of carbs and not add more protein? I'm kind of screwed at that point, unless I put a half-stick of butter on my burger. More likely, I'm going to have to back up and make the burger 4 oz., so I've got some protein left in the bank to spend on some higher-fat foods like nuts or cheese. That's fine, but it's a little more complex than just, "start with an item that covers your protein and build around it." -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 19:29:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185279261.535092.44510@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:29:59 -0500 Message-ID: <866449qq9k.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 44 Hollywood writes: > The protein power protein number is a minimum. You are allowed to > eat roughly as much as you want, as long as you aren't eating when > satiated. Maybe as far as the diet goes, and like I said, I'm not gaining weight and I feel pretty good. But I'm still concerned that excessive protein will convert into too much blood sugar to be healthy, and could be causing the cravings I'm still getting. > In terms of nutrient breakdown, that's a lot of fat. Eat more protein > (I eat in the 130-160/day range), don't trim fat, and don't worry > about calories until you are having real problems. (That's overly > dismissive... what I mean is, figure the protein, establish that > there's really something wrong and it's not working right, and then > worry about calories). Agreed. I'll be testing my blood sugar more often too, to see if the amount of protein I'm eating causes any spikes. > I should mention, you shouldn't be using the PP(LP) protein minimum > if you aren't using their carb number (30-40, and those are > ceilings). Yes, I'm using their limit of 30. > Aaron, since we're in a similar space, at least in terms of macro > goals, this is a link to my fitday journal. I warn you. I am a picky > eater and I don't log spices, rubs, or sauces (I don't make carby > sauces either). Thanks very much! If you're able to run your protein in the 150-200 range that much without any trouble, maybe I'm worrying about it too much. BG tests will tell me for sure, but even if I'm eating 200g of protein and not getting spikes, I'd like to replace some of that with fat. I just don't need extra glucose running around in my blood stream, even if I'm handling it okay at the moment. My Fitday journal starts now! -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 19:32:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185279261.535092.44510@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <13ac5jh1udak9e9@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:32:49 -0500 Message-ID: <861wexqq4u.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I find I can drive my protein intake up greatly without lots of > added calories by eating chicken breast (baked, skinless). Just a > FYI. They get very boring after a while, though. Do you really have to *try* to get your protein intake up, though? Once one goes LC, doesn't one generally get enough protein automatically by eating the alternatives? -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 19:45:57 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185305887.826423.292770@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:45:56 -0500 Message-ID: <86wswppayj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 58 Doug Freyburger writes: > My Protein Power minimum was 76. Has a recent edition > changed the process or was I more conservative about my > activity level ... My lean body weight of 169 pounds multiplied by .7 for average activity comes to 118g per day. > Thing is excess protein grams get burnt as fuel at roughly > 50% of the calories of carb. Compare with fat where roughly > 10% of its calories get burned as carb. Excess protein > grams matter more against carb counts. Calorie for calorie > the carb impact of fat is far lower. Right. That's why I do want to increase the amount of fat in my diet, and make sure I'm not drastically overdoing the protein. It'll just take a little more planning and effort, because the most common protein sources -- meat and eggs -- don't have that high a fat/protein ratio, so I'll have to supplement with things that do. > Fondue. Bits of meat on a stick, fried in oil that doesn't > stick so then dipped in garlic butter. > > Several types of sausage are much higher in fat so they > are more filling. Pepperoni, salami and so on. > > Not trimming your steak has it end up both higher fat and > more filling. Good ideas. I always buy the fattiest ground beef at the store, so maybe I'm getting more fat and less protein there than the PP numbers; hadn't thought of that. I also just got a half a hog butchered from my parents' farm, so that means more bacon and sausage. >> I'd really rather not just eat butter by the stick. > > Lot's of people can't. Try it several days in a row. it took me 3 > days to build up a gag reflex so I could not force it down. I tried > shots of 50-50 olive/canola oil rather than sticks of butter several > years ago to prove it to myself - Feel freel to conduct the same > experiment on yourself. I predict you'll be able to eat a stick of > butter the first day but within a few days you won't be able to > swallow it. And so heavy sauces ... Homemade butter with salt tastes pretty good, but yeah, a whole stick of it would be nasty. I don't remember where I saw it, but I saw a recipe once that combined a whole bunch of spinach with a full *pound* of butter. Somehow you just kept adding both until the spinach soaked up all the butter. If I could find that again, I'd like to try it. Off to fry some fish in lard, with some mayo and hot sauce to dip it in. Then back here to journal it. -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 19:48:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Tofu Shirataki Noodles Report References: <86ps2ir3ld.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185299102.297715.5540@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:48:12 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl7dpaur.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Kaz Kylheku writes: > On Jul 23, 6:29 pm, Aaron Baugher wrote: >> I've been checking the stores occasionally for shirataki noodles for >> the last few years, and I finally spotted some this weekend. > Doh, have you thought of going to a Japanese grocery store? Sounds great; I'll stop in as soon as you open one fewer than 100 miles from my home. > You are looking for the noodles made from konnyaku jelly. They are > either white, semi-transparent, or brown-tinted, with bits of > seaweed throughout. You can find the konnyaku jelly in other forms, > like cakes. Thanks for the tip. I'll have to order some, and see how they compare to these tofu ones. -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 19:56:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Tofu Shirataki Noodles Report References: <86ps2ir3ld.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13ac63ea99auq99@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:56:14 -0500 Message-ID: <86odi1pahd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Roger Zoul" writes: > These claim not to be rubbery: > The first kind on that page is exactly what I got in the organic section at Hy-Vee. Same price too, at $1.99 a bag, which is two smallish servings. Heck of a lot more expensive than flour noodles, but not outrageous for making fettucini alfredo for two. I say they're a bit rubbery, at least when cooked 2-3 minutes like they said. Not enough to put me off, but there was definitely a feeling of squeezing my teeth through them and sort of cutting through the centers instead of just mashing them like regular pasta. I wouldn't say it's a bad thing, just different. A little like spaghetti squash, actually, with the way it never gets completely mushy and loses its texture. -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 20:37:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Induction Questions References: <46a664da$0$30684$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:37:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5spp8ki.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 DJ Delorie writes: > Even Splenda has carbs, if you eat enough of it. I'm a little hazy on this. Do even the little packets have some carbs? They sell some stuff in a bag that's Splenda mixed with sugar, so I know better than to touch that, but I'm not sure about the "pure" Splenda in the packets. All the others I looked at, like SugarTwin, also seem to have suspicious things in their ingredients list. Are the liquid sweeteners the only ones that are truly zero-carb? -- From nobody Tue Jul 24 21:48:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gl3kqF3gjv42U1@mid.individual.net> <13aaobpchbhpd52@news.supernews.com> <86abtlqqtp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gnl73F3g9dksU4@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 21:48:07 -0500 Message-ID: <868x95p5aw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 Susan writes: > That's what the fat is for. Plus, unless you're dragging boulders > up a hill all day, WTF do you need so many calories for? 2000 calories is "so many"? The USDA puts 2000 and 2500 calorie info on labels as examples for smaller and larger people. The rule of thumb I've seen in this group for maintenance is 10 calories/pound, which would be 2350 for me. I just tried a couple "daily calorie requirements" calculators I found online, and they say a 5'10", 235 lb., 38-year-old man who gets moderate exercise needs around 3200 calories! When the first one said that, I thought it was broken, but I'm getting that result consistently. And some days, I do drag boulders, or large fence posts and farm implements, anyway. > I don't know why you feel you need something to "fill" you up? The > idea is to eat til you're no longer hungry, not til you're filled > up. "Filled up" means the same thing as "no longer hungry" to me. I don't mean stuffed, just feeling full -- not feeling the need for more. I only get that stuffed-and-needing-to-lie-down-and-stretch-out feeling when I eat a lot of carbs. > Tonight, for example, my husband and I each had about 6 oz. of > mahi mahi, marinated and grilled. I sauteed a lb. of baby spinach in > olive oil with garlic and red pepper flakes and we split that. We > each had salad of mixed baby greens with nuts, cheese and tomato with > dressing. Sounds great. I rubbed two 4-ounce tilapia fillets with spices and fried them in lard, then ate them with some mayo and cayenne pepper. That gave me my 40g of protein, but only 27g of fat, so I'll have to work on that. Some veggies swimming in butter/cheese sauce should do the trick. -- From nobody Wed Jul 25 10:02:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Induction Questions References: <46a664da$0$30684$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86k5spp8ki.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:02:52 -0500 Message-ID: <864pjsplur.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 DJ Delorie writes: > The little yellow packets of Splenda? Yes. Recall that sucralose > is 600x as sweet as sugar; if they only put sucralose in the packet, > you wouldn't be able to see it, there's so little of it in there. > So, they add fillers to make you see something come out of the > packet. The filler is maltodextrin, a tasteless complex > carbohydrate. There's not much in there, far less than an > equivalent sweetness of sugar, but it's non-zero. Thanks for the explanation; that's very clear. I knew there was filler in there, but I thought maybe it was something inert with no nutritional value. > It totals up to about 24 grams of carbs per CUP of splenda, vs 200 > grams of carbs in a cup of table sugar. Each packet is about 1g of > carbs. That's good to know. I wouldn't have guessed 24 packets would come close to a cup, but I've just started using the stuff. > Another alternative is to use liquid sucralose, in such products as > Sweetzfree, which use water as the "filler" instead of maltodextrin. I'll have to get some of that, and track down recipes that take into account the lack of sugar's texture. Ditto stevia. -- From nobody Wed Jul 25 19:49:30 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Induction Questions References: <46a664da$0$30684$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1185394103.831957.118640@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <46a7c172$0$32557$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 19:49:29 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm1kng4m.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 Dawn writes: > At any rate, I'll do my best, and the chips will fall where they > may. Believing that I'm staying on strict induction followed by > returning to known strict induction for another 2 weeks doesn't > appear to be worse than the other alternatives. Nothing against Atkins, but the Induction/OWL concept is only part of one of several popular low-carb plans. If you were doing Protein Power, you'd be allowed 0-30 grams of carbs per day (Phase I) for however long it takes for you to get below 20% overweight and correct any blood sugar-related disorders; then 0-55g/day (Phase II) until you reach your goal weight and are ready to shift to maintenance for the rest of your life. Other plans have other limits and phases. If trying to hit a carb target plus-or-minus 5g every week sounds too complicated to you, pick up and read Protein Power and see how that strikes you. If nothing else, reading more than one take on the subject helps tie all the details together. Also, since you mentioned raw broccoli causing you to crave broccoli: on PP, broccoli is basically unlimited (4 cups per meal or something ridiculous like that). -- From nobody Wed Jul 25 20:15:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185305887.826423.292770@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86wswppayj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13aemlt9shf3n04@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:15:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl7cnewu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: Right. That's why I do want to increase the amount of fat in my > :: diet, and make sure I'm not drastically overdoing the protein. > :: It'll just take a little more planning and effort, because the most > :: common protein sources -- meat and eggs -- don't have that high a > :: fat/protein ratio, so I'll have to supplement with things that do. > > This has not been my experience at all. Also, do you consider fish > to be meat? Have you tried salmon? I love fish. I just had some tilapia fillets for supper last night and lunch today, but they have a 1/8 fat/protein ratio. Very lean, so I deep fried them in lard and melted some butter over them. On that 2000 calorie diet, if I'm eating 30g of carbs and 120g of protein, I need 155g of fat. That's about 1.3g of fat for every gram of protein, or just over 5/4. According to FitDay, fried eggs have a 31/28 ratio -- leaner than that 5/4. Bacon is a bit fattier, about 5/3. Regular ground beef is 7/8 -- much leaner. Pork chops: 23/36, not even close! Catfish (I thought it'd be fatty): 20/27. Salmon: 10/32! Cheddar cheese is pretty close: 46/35. Bacon is the only meat I see that's actually fattier than I need, and most meats have much more protein than fat. It looks to me like a certain amount of fat has to come from condiments, oils, desserts with artificial sweetener, etc. It just isn't possible to eat "high-fat" on meat without eating "even-higher-protein" at the same time. That's why I was running into trouble when I was just slapping meat on the grill or frying pan and not bothering to add anything to it. Day 1 of journaling went pretty well: 2515 calories 16 carb 168 protein 197 fat That included bacon and eggs, fried fish with butter, hamburgers with mayo, and green beans with butter. Maybe a bit high on the protein, but at least I wasn't upside down, and I didn't have a craving all day. Good start, I think. -- From nobody Wed Jul 25 20:26:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gl3kqF3gjv42U1@mid.individual.net> <13aaobpchbhpd52@news.supernews.com> <86abtlqqtp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185373049.940305.147190@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:26:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86odi0neeo.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > Yup. This is why I always say that it's a high-fat diet. It's inescapable when you do the math. It's interesting that none of the books really get into that. Some say not to worry about fat, but they gloss over it as much as possible. I can understand that, as a self-preservation move: if you state clearly in your book that people will be eating 100+ grams of fat a day, you'll be pilloried. Imply it and let people figure it out for themselves, and the usual suspects won't make the connection. > I only aim at 1400-1600 calories/day... but keeping my carbs under > 50g and my protein around 80-100 g means my diet needs to be more > than half fat by calories. Right now my goal is 30 carb, 120 protein, 155 fat. If I'm able to raise my carbs after I hit my goal without hurting my BG, the fat may come down a little, but I'd guess it'll still be 50% or a bit more. > I frankly get most of that from dairy. That is not the healthiest > fat there is out there, but it's the one I can eat in large enough > quanitity to get the calories in. Fullfat cottage cheese, cream > cheese, ricotta, yogurt and hard cheeses. And a good bit of heavy > cream for my coffee a few times a day. I should use a lot more cream cheese, especially since I make it myself. A 3-egg cream cheese omelet instead of 4 scrambled eggs would help. > When I first started reading this group, years ago, there was a > group of people posting about sipping oil. Seriously... to get the > fat content up. I didn't find that an appetizing idea, myself. > Never tried it. I remember that too; never sounded very tasty to me either. -- From nobody Wed Jul 25 20:41:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low Carb AND Low Salt References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 20:41:40 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5sondpn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 jim buch writes: > I am wondering if anyone has looked into the combination of Low Carb > and Low Salt as an additional means for controlling Blood Pressure. > Of course, the major issue is that only a subset of people are > sensitive to the sodium content in their diet - for blood pressure > response. So, it may or may not be worth the effort. "Your Mileage > May Vary". I haven't studied it enough to speak authoritatively or anything, but I suspect that much of the anti-salt pressure is an off-shoot of the anti-fat hoax. Salt tends to go with fatty foods: meat, eggs, gravy. Not so much with fruit and sugary desserts. So when fat (especially meat) became evil, salt became guilty by association. For people who took on low-fat as a belief system, pushing people away from salt was an extra way to push them away from meat. Maybe salt has harmful effects in its own right, but I wonder. Sometimes I think if most people went low-carb, a lot of the other so-called dietary issues -- salt bad, fiber good, good-bad-maybe fats -- would turn out to be irrelevant. -- From nobody Thu Jul 26 07:22:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185305887.826423.292770@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86wswppayj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13aemlt9shf3n04@news.supernews.com> <86sl7cnewu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13ag2epqki27545@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:22:09 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy3bnymm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Roger Zoul" writes: > You're counting grams here...but the largest portion of your diet > comes from fat...calorie-wise. Yes. I calculated my fat-gram needs by working backwards from the number of calories I had left after my 30g of carbs and 120g of protein. Since the labels give each component in grams, it's easier to set goals for grams than for calories. If I compared calories, the ratio of fat to protein would be a much bigger number: 1400 calories fat / 480 calories protein = 35/12 = 2.92 fat calories for each protein calorie 155 grams fat / 120 grams protein ~ 5/4 = 1.2 fat grams for each protein gram As a percentage of dietary calories, I'd be getting 70% (1400/2000) from fat, 24% from protein, and 6% from carbohydrates. That's why I'm not surprised that none of the books focuses on the fat, even though it's the largest part of the diet. People would scream and run away if you were straightforward about it, and you'd never get invited to be on Oprah with "The 70% Fat Diet!" -- From nobody Thu Jul 26 07:25:20 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gl3kqF3gjv42U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:25:19 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqdznyhc.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 john writes: > Actually, protein is converted to glucose ONLY if the body needs it. > Here is a quote from "Diabetes Solution" by Bernstein, M.D. > > "Protein foods are only about 20 percent protein by weight (6 grams > per ounce", the rest being fat, water, or undigestible "gristle." > The liver, instructed by the hormone glucagon, can ...very slowly... > transform as much as 52 percent of the above 6 grams per ounce into > glucose IF blood sugar descends too low or the body's other amino > acid needs have been met." Interesting. So, what happens if you eat more protein than your body needs for protein purposes, but it doesn't need glucose either? (Mainstream wisdom says every calorie gets used somehow, but I think we know better than that.) Does it just pass on through you? Can much protein be stored for long? -- From nobody Thu Jul 26 07:54:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gl3kqF3gjv42U1@mid.individual.net> <13aaobpchbhpd52@news.supernews.com> <86abtlqqtp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gnl73F3g9dksU4@mid.individual.net> <868x95p5aw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13agov5n3an0cb3@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 07:54:34 -0500 Message-ID: <867ionnx4l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 75 "Roger Zoul" writes: > > Sounds great. I rubbed two 4-ounce tilapia fillets with spices > > and fried them in lard, then ate them with some mayo and cayenne > > pepper. That gave me my 40g of protein, but only 27g of fat, so > > I'll have to work on that. Some veggies swimming in butter/cheese > > sauce should do the trick. > That gave you 160 kals from protein and 243 kcals from fat. Yep, but that's not enough fat. For every 480 calories from protein, I need 1400 calories from fat, so for 160 calories protein, I needed 467 from fat. I'm getting there, though. When I cooked the other two fillets the next day, I had green beans with butter and dipped the fish in butter too, so it was much better. > Also, when you fry your fish, how do you really know how much fat > that adds to what you eat? That's a good question. Basically, I don't, and I'm already seeing the limits of trying to track all this stuff with much accuracy. It'll be fine for me, since I only need ball-park figures, but I can't imagine trying to track my calories with any less than 10% margin for error each way. And to be sure I was eating 35g carbs in my third week of Atkins OWL, and not 30g or 40g? Not a chance. Yesterday, I started the day with four strips of bacon from a locally-butchered hog from my parents' farm (no nutrition label) and four home-raised eggs. Is the bacon thick or thin, lean or non-lean? I'd guess thick, and I could weigh it to determine that. I'd guess non-lean,because the hog was about 100 pounds over normal market weight, but the bacon looks a lot meatier than store-bought bacon, so who knows? The eggs look about extra-large, but the size varies depending on the age and health of the chickens and the weather. The chickens run around outside and eat bugs and stuff that most egg-laying chickens don't get, so does that affect the protein or fat or calorie content? Who knows. For lunch, I had the fish which soaked up an indeterminate amount of lard, which is homemade, so I don't know its exact fat content anyway. (Water content varies from batch to batch.) In this case, the green beans were from a can, so I had a label to work with, but the USDA allows a 10% margin for error each way, and then there's the rounding. So while the label says 2g net carbs per serving, that really means something between 1.35 and 2.75. And if I start eating home-grown beans that may not be the same variety as the commercially grown ones, how much will they vary nutritionally? We know that home-grown vegetables are much different from commercially grown ones in things like vitamin and mineral content, but how about the caloric components? The ground beef I used for burgers for supper was 75% fat, so that should be easy to figure -- except how much fat cooked out of them, and how much cooked into them from cooking them in lard? Again, who knows. There are enough variables here to skew a daily calorie total by hundreds. Fortunately, I'm not concerned about calories, or about fat particularly, except to make sure that a lack of fat isn't causing me to eat way too much protein. Ball-park figures are fine for me. I just want to get my protein in the 120-160 gram range and keep my carbs under 30. > A better plan would be to make some kind of sauce for the fish. Plain butter on it was pretty good, but a thicker sauce sounds great. By the way, as long as I'm ranting, why the heck does FitDay make me login several times a day? It's just a food journal, and it has tighter security than my online bank account. Good grief. -- From nobody Fri Jul 27 08:12:48 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gl3kqF3gjv42U1@mid.individual.net> <13aaobpchbhpd52@news.supernews.com> <86abtlqqtp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gnl73F3g9dksU4@mid.individual.net> <868x95p5aw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13agov5n3an0cb3@news.supernews.com> <867ionnx4l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13ahc9c1bcs8p5b@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:12:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm1i6lde.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 77 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Yes, but it got you your protein quota and you can get the extra fat > by eating a few macademica nuts. Wouldn't that be like a treat? Sure, although I'd rather have pecans or almonds. They'll work too. Considerably more expensive than hamburger for the frugal LCer, though. > But what I'm really trying to say is that I personally don't believe > one will last long with such a hard concentration on numbers, which > I think is a problem with all these plans. With Atkins, though, you > really only paying attention to carbs.....it would seem that with > PP, you're worrying about carbs and protein, and trying to create > some kind of balance. If you ask me, this will drive you nuts. Yeah, I don't plan to be that particular about it; I was just realizing how difficult it would be to ever know exactly how much you're getting of everything, especially calories. It's no wonder "just cutting back" on calories almost always fails, no matter how much people will tell you to do it. If you're eating 2000 calories and you want to cut back to 1900, it'd be extremely difficult to verify that you were doing it. As you say, PP requires you to track two numbers, protein and carbs, but both are limits: less than X grams carbs and more than Y grams protein. That leaves you a lot of room to maneuver. Atkins OWL, with its requirement that I eat 30g of carbs one week and 35g the next, would be a lot harder to do accurately, at least with my eating and cooking style. But that's why there are multiple plans, right? > Well, if you're tracking for the purpose of weight loss, it's good > to simplify things. Buy store-bought bacon since generally those > terms in question will likely apply. No thanks. I like to know where my food comes from as much as possible. It's ok, though. If I keep my carbs under control for a couple months and my weight doesn't drop, I can cut one piece of bacon out of my breakfast without needing to know how many calories it has. > That works for living a LC lifestyle and control of BG...but it may > not work so well for weight loss....that depends. It would have > worked for me when I weighed 367 lbs, but it would never work for me > now. Sure, it may not. Since finding out about my BG issues, I've finally been able to shift from thinking of this as a diet I need to do for six months, to a way of eating for the rest of my life. So for now, my main concern is training myself to eat this way all the time and be satisfied with it. That's why I've been exploring things like Splenda that I didn't bother with before. If I were only doing this as a diet long enough to lose 40 pounds, it wouldn't matter that much if the meals were boring and repetitive and I never got a dessert; but as a way of eating for the rest of my life, I'm going to need more variety. There's a good chance that I'm going to lose weight in the process -- my mom told me yesterday my face is looking thinner -- so I'm not going to focus on that unless I have a genuine stall. If that happens, that'll be the time to start thinking about calories or other causes. > :: By the way, as long as I'm ranting, why the heck does FitDay make me > :: login several times a day? It's just a food journal, and it has > :: tighter security than my online bank account. Good grief. > In practice, it's no big deal. I make fitday.com my homepage. As > browsers will remember your username/password, it's just a matter of > clicking the sign-in button. Sure, I've done that, but it's still an annoying extra click-and-wait. -- From nobody Fri Jul 27 08:43:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gl3kqF3gjv42U1@mid.individual.net> <13aaobpchbhpd52@news.supernews.com> <86abtlqqtp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5gnl73F3g9dksU4@mid.individual.net> <868x95p5aw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13agov5n3an0cb3@news.supernews.com> <867ionnx4l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 08:43:43 -0500 Message-ID: <86vec66jxs.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Bill Eitner writes: > I have a program in my online briefcase that I use for > journaling. It's compact, stable and most importantly > it works on your local system. You can download a copy > and use it if you'd like. Here's a link: > http://briefcase.yahoo.com/kd6tas Thanks, I'll take a look. No Windows here, but it might work in an emulator. Fitday is very nice, though. I was just laughing at the fact that it forces re-login-on-idle sooner than sites like Ebay, where someone logging in as me could cost me lots of money. -- From nobody Fri Jul 27 09:56:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Too Much Protein? References: <86tzrur49e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 09:56:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6mt7v4f.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 157 Bill Eitner writes: >> Since getting my BG tester and scaring myself back to the righteous >> path, it doesn't seem to be as easy this time. > You might elaborate on the BG readings and what scares > you about them. For example, what is your fasting BG? My fasting BG is always fine. After a high-carb meal -- anything over 25g or so, at least -- it'll be anywhere from 130 to 200 after one and two hours, depending on how quickly the particular carbs I ate can be converted to sugar. I know some people have far worse numbers than that, but those are bad enough to "scare" me. (Also, I sometimes engage in hyperbole.) > When carbs are low cravings are likely to be psychological. > Can you tell the difference? Yes. Cravings from high blood sugar make me quite simply irrational. I'd be sitting at my computer working -- and suddenly find myself wandering around in the kitchen. Not that I blacked out and woke up there or anything, but I'd be there without even thinking about it. I'd tell myself I should finish some work first, so I'd go sit back down, and a few minutes later I'd be up walking again. Repeat until belly filled. Or I'd convince myself that -- for whatever rationalization I came up with that day -- I really *should* mosey down to the store and get some potato sticks or ice cream. This didn't happen every day, of course, but it happened often enough to prevent consistent weight loss. Hunger, on the other hand, is just a feeling in my stomach. If I'm working, I think, "Hmm, I'm hungry, I should probably eat something." Then maybe I go do that, or maybe I finish what I'm doing first. It's completely physical and doesn't control my mind at all. >> I'm not gaining weight, of course, but I don't feel like I'm losing >> it either; and while I've felt some increase in energy, it hasn't >> been as strong as before. Maybe a lot of this is because my >> insulin resistance has gotten worse; that seems like the most >> likely reason. > > How do you know that; do you have BG data from an earlier > time? Well, I don't *know* it; I said it seems the most likely reason. I've suspected that I had blood sugar spikes for a long time, for the same reasons a doctor would initially suspect it: all the symptoms. Now I've got the BG numbers to back it up. I used to be able to get away with cheating on carbs a lot more than I can now. A few years ago, one high-carb meal wouldn't affect me at all, but after a couple days of it, the symptoms -- heartburn, mental fog, low energy, irritability -- would all be back. Now 1-2 meals has the same effect, so I can't take those little vacations anymore. > Of course aging does make things worse (dieting is > less effective). I find that the weight loss and energy > benefits are related to caloric deficit. Not for me. I lost the first 60 pounds on low-carb without cutting back calories at all. Now, I know people are going to say that since I wasn't journaling, I probably cut back calories more than I thought, that cutting carbs is really just a way to trick yourself into eating fewer calories than you realize, thanks to the appetite suppression that comes with it. I don't buy that, because I was filling my belly just as full with calorie-dense foods like eggs, meat, and cheese (I didn't eat many veggies at all back then). If I was being tricked, it was a good job of it. I've only been journaling for a few days now, but the meals have been typical of the way I've been eating for the last several weeks, and I'm coming in at 2500-3000 calories a day. That's far from caloric restriction, but I've had two people this week tell me I look or feel thinner. I'm not trying to argue with Newton here or anything, but I think there's more to it than calories (if they matter at all). If I continue to eat 2500+ calories a day, documented in Fitday, and lose 20 pounds over the next few months, then what? Will you say I wasn't entering my foods accurately? That I'm an exception to the laws of physics? (That'd be kind of cool, actually; gravity is a real drag sometimes.) >> In any case, that got me to actually paying attention to what I'm >> eating (though no actual journaling yet), and I've come to the >> conclusion that I'm eating way too much protein -- enough that the >> surplus is getting converted into enough glucose to keep the >> cravings going and maybe even keep me out of ketosis. > I think I found it. I don't agree with your conclusion. > The rest of the thread is based on accepting this as true > when it may not be. What evidence do you have to support > it? It could just as easily be that your cravings are > psychological and you're not losing weight because of > calorie balance (an inadequate caloric deficit). I shouldn't have sounded so certain about that; let's call it a hypothesis that I'm now testing. Here's what I know: A) I've had more cravings this time on LC than last time, despite trying to do it the same way. B) My cravings have always been triggered by eating carbs, presumably because they raise my blood sugar. C) Symptoms suggest that my insulin resistance has gotten worse since the last time I seriously did LC. Putting all those things together, I came up with the possibility that excess protein being converted into glucose could be causing the cravings, and it didn't happen last time because I wasn't as sensitive to it then. It's worth testing, anyway. Since 3-4 days ago when I first started writing about this, I've made an effort to add fat to my meals in place of some of the protein, and it does seem to have eliminated the cravings. That's too short a sample size to prove anything yet, but it's a good sign. > It's not about your size now, but what size you want to > be and how your blood work (health) is. In the long run, > I don't see riding the protein minimum and loading up on > fat as being the best solution. Again, I think this > whole thing is based on a conclusion that has no actual > data to support it. With that in mind, what is written > below strikes me as a little bit crazy. A lot of people > including myself have lost a lot of weight on low carb > without any unusual protein/fat manipulations. There are only three numbers, and if you drop one down to almost nothing, that only leaves two. Not a lot of room for unusual manipulation there. I'm not talking about anything that's not implied in the plans or that hasn't been done by many successful low-carbs. The plain fact is: on low-carb, you have to eat a lot of protein or a lot of fat -- by mainstream standards. After all, the USDA and all the mainstream experts say you should get at least 60% (sometimes 65%) of your calories from carbs, so that only leaves 40% for protein and fat together. Any low-carber, especially in the early stages like Induction, is going to be getting 90+% of calories from protein and fat! That's a pretty radical difference, no matter how you divide that 90% between the two sources. I'm just opening up the box and seeing what's inside, and inside the box that says "Low Carb" is a whole lot of protein and fat. Since protein takes the place of carbs (in a sense) more so than fat does, I want to make sure I don't overdo the protein. That's all. If that means eating up to 70% fat (by calorie), I don't mind a bit; it just means adjusting my diet somewhat and relying less on meals of straight burgers or eggs. It'd be easier to do it 50 years ago when meat was fattier[1], but it's still possible now. Again, I didn't mean to sound like I was complaining. I'm fine with all this; just working the details out to my satisfaction. Mostly I was just making an observation, and I'm so long-winded it took several paragraphs. (See? I even need footnotes.) [1] I recently bought a BBQ cookbook from 1965, and the amount of fat on the steaks and other cuts in the pictures is amazing. And then it says things like, "top with a pat of butter before serving." And yet our modern obesity epidemic is caused by eating more fat than ever? Yeah, right. -- From nobody Fri Jul 27 10:03:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Induction Questions References: <46a664da$0$30684$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <5govkrF3gbuehU1@mid.individual.net> <46a7651c$0$20618$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46a7b72b$0$16539$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46a8b3e0$0$4690$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:03:00 -0500 Message-ID: <86myxh7uu3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 Dawn writes: > Yeah, most folks don't eat a lot of kale or collards. :) I need to > figure out the carb counts for a normal serving of my standard cooked > greens recipe - it's full of leafy greens and healthy fats and tasty > as all get out. I know you said elsewhere that you're sticking with Atkins because you like the restrictiveness of the Induction list of foods, and that's cool. But if you happen to run across a cheap copy of the Protein Power Life Plan, it's a cassette tape and VCR series that also includes a nice big poster chart with all the common foods and their carb counts. I bought a copy at the local thrift store for $5 and taped the chart up in my kitchen, despite not having a cassette player or VCR anymore for the tapes. I also picked up a little carb counting book from Atkins for 50 cents, but I don't have it in front of me to tell you the title. It's very handy, and gives carbs, fiber, net carbs, protein, fat, and calories for every food I'm ever likely to encounter. -- From nobody Fri Jul 27 10:09:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LC Icream: gone? References: <13a1lpn1vhtjl81@news.supernews.com> <13ajd04l20b47dc@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:09:06 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir857ujx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I could not help but laugh when I read that they "finely grind > select peanuts". Hmm....I wonder how they selected the peanuts to > grind? Doesn't they mind want to know.... I'd guess with a large robotic scoop that "selects" them from the incoming bin and deposits them in the grinder. -- From nobody Fri Jul 27 10:28:53 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Soda (including diet soda) and Metabolic Syndrome Linked - Boston References: <4ocda396j9urort0i6pgjlrqt7j0ltfncm@4ax.com> <1185367499.620344.258090@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1185463210.788410.300320@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 10:28:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejit7tmz.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > Unless the statistics are adjusted to account for this, it seems > logical that many of those with metabolic syndrome would be drinking > diet soda. This is like being surprised that people with arthritis > consume aspirin and trying to imply a cause and effect. Or as I tell people about the relationship between dietary cholesterol and heart disease: it's like looking at a house that was just demolished by a tornado, seeing all the nails sticking out of the wood, and concluding that too many nails make houses fall down. -- From nobody Mon Jul 30 09:29:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Induction Questions References: <46a664da$0$30684$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <5govkrF3gbuehU1@mid.individual.net> <46a7651c$0$20618$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1185608750.652390.180620@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:29:24 -0500 Message-ID: <864pjm0xtn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 53 Feeling mean this morning.... Cheri writes: > I just wanted to throw this out at you....when you're traveling, and > you want a sweet to eat or more food in addition to your daily > limit, - I'm not familiar with the diet that you're on You know, when you admit in your post that you don't even know what group you're posting in (alt.support.diet.LOW-CARB in this case), it makes you look like an automated spam bot, a troll, or a nitwit. > so I can't speak of it, but you may want to try this: keep Honey > Roasted Peanuts (does not have topical salt) Who gives a crap about salt? If salt is harmful at all -- a big *IF* -- it's still way down on the list of harmful things, somewhere below running with scissors or voting Democrat. If salt is like dropping a screwdriver on your big toe, sugar is like being hit in the head with a sledgehammer. Peanuts aren't a bad suggestion, since they're high in fat, but coating them with sugar sure is. Plain roasted peanuts have 3 net carbs per serving, and only 1 of those from sugar. Tree nuts like almonds and pecans are even better, but they're also more expensive, so if they don't fit your budget, peanuts are a good compromise. > in your pocket...a full baggie full at all times... THis may be > totally against your diet - not sure, but try it and see if you're > still hungry. When I was losing weight, I would eat these - a > little sweet, but less sodium - the brand (Planters) I'm looking at > has the following: 150 calories for 39 pieces - believe it or not, > you probably won't want more than this Yeah, right. Know what I want after I eat an ounce of peanuts? More peanuts. I don't gorge on them now that my blood sugar is under control, but I have eaten a pound at a time before, and at no point did my body say, "Nah, that's enough; you don't want any more." Coating them with sugar and raising the carbs to 5 fast-acting grams per serving just makes it more likely that they'll generate cravings and I'll scarf down the whole can. Then, with 100 carb grams of honey-roasted goodness in my blood, it's off to the races. > If you decide to try this, I hope it works for you too. If it does, > I'm curious to know. And I appologize if it messes your diet > up...but it did work for me. Try smacking yourself in the face with a herring three times a day. If it doesn't help your diet, I apologize. -- From nobody Mon Jul 30 17:14:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Kimkins? References: <1185522746.718725.274950@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <13ajp2qlvccq93a@news.supernews.com> <1185566151.806067.316090@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1185591726.720669.57020@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1185635886.286860.317780@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:14:28 -0500 Message-ID: <86wswhzghn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 Doug Freyburger writes: > Post on assorted topics. Find one that ends up a hobby you > love so much you're still at it years later and you've thought > out the parts of the hobby so you have your own system for > it. Have enough enthusiasm for the hobby that you have a > network of friends or fans. Decide that you may as well > follow the advice above, so start charging for your support. > Controvertial? Yup. But it's so classic a way to find what > job you were made for it's called a "calling". Yep. It's not at all unusual to read about someone who's running a thriving small business and see something like, "I just loved making cakes, and I'd been making them for my friends for years, so once the kids moved out and I had more time on my hands, I thought why not turn it into a business?" I've posted at least 531 messages in this newsgroup since June of 2002 (that's as far back as I have them saved) without any intention of making a dollar from it. If I decide one of these days to write my own book called "The Pig Out on Fat Diet" and it sells a bunch of copies, and then a food processing company approaches me to put my name on their new line of butter-soaked bacon treats, that won't mean all my posts for the past five years were part of a plan to reach that point, but some might think that. Of course, the big issue with Kimmer seems to be her secrecy; a few on-camera interviews would shut down a lot of the arguments and speculation. -- From nobody Mon Jul 30 17:41:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I think I'm addicted to food and alergic to exercising! References: <1185758982.764344.225010@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:41:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl75zf97.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 67 monalza2779 writes: > I think I'm addicted to food - correction - carbs and junk food. > I've never been a good eater my whole life. I hate most vegetables! > I really do wish I liked veggies and liked healthy food. You sound like a troll, but someone who's honestly having this problem might read this thread, so here goes. You don't have to eat a single vegetable to eat low-carb. Really. Many low-carbers and low-carb plans encourage you to eat vegetables because they're good for you, and because the likelihood of long-term success is partly proportionally to the variety of foods you eat, but they're not absolutely required. You can low-carb just fine on meat, eggs, cheese, yogurt, nuts, berries, oils, butter, spices, and possibly a few nutritional supplements like potassium. Again, this may not be sustainable in the long run due to boredom (although the vast majority of your ancestors lived with it), but it is a low-carb diet that can work if you stick to it. > Has there been a study done about people's taste buds being > different?? cause I don't get it! healthy food tastes gross! is it > just me and the way I taste things? or is that really how they > taste?? Who knows? Taste is an awfully subjective thing. I like almost all vegetables, but green peppers and alfalfa sprouts make me gag. Some think that a strong dislike for a food may be a sign of an allergy to it. I don't know if that's the case, and it's unlikely that you're allergic to *all* vegetables, but if they honestly do taste horrible to you, I'm not going to tell you to force yourself to gag them down. However, you said you hate *most* vegetables, which means there are some you *don't* hate, right? So feel free to eat lots of those. Also, look for alternatives, because I guarantee there are many vegetables you've never tried. Most Americans have only encountered a dozen or so vegetables, and there are dozens or hundreds more out there, and numerous varieties of many of them. I just recently discovered jicama, for example, a root vegetable from South and Latin America that tastes more like an apple than a vegetable and can be grilled, fried, or eaten raw. Also, once you've been low-carbing for a while, it's worth it to re-try some vegetables you didn't like before, especially ones that seems tasteless or bitter. Many people find that once they stop bombarding their systems with sugar, their taste-buds become much more sensitive to sweetness and other flavors. I used to think cauliflower was just a bland carrier for cheese sauce, but now I know it has a lot of flavor of its own just roasted. Anyway, if you're serious about getting this under control, the first step is to forget everything you thought you knew about food, diets, nutrition, and health. Seriously. Almost everything you've been taught is wrong, and you'll relearn the few tidbits that might have been right anyway. Then pick up a few low-carb books -- they're all available cheaply at used book stores and libraries -- and *read them* cover to cover. Pick the one that makes the most sense to you and follow it, making adjustments if necessary along the way using your own judgment. And of course, hang out here for inspiration, recipes, and answers to your questions. -- From nobody Mon Jul 30 18:01:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Two Week Induction Results References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:01:00 -0500 Message-ID: <86odhtzec3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 52 "em" writes: > End result: 253 down to 245 -- 8 pounds in two weeks. Considering > this was a switch from low-cal to low-carb, I think that's pretty > damn good, as I didn't have bags of water to drop. Overall, I am now > down more then fifty pounds from my original 298, and I'm really > happy about that. Excellent progress! As others have said, it sounds like what you're doing is working great, so keep it up. > I do think that 20 carbs/day may be a bit much for me in starting > out. In addition to counting carbs, I need to use a little common > sense. I'm not sure why that amount is "a bit much" for you. If it tends to cause cravings, you may want to start monitoring your blood sugar. Twenty g/day, or even 30g, shouldn't cause significant cravings if your blood sugar is at all under control, but it could if you're diabetic. Bernstein recommends staying away from even trace amounts of actual sugar, like the less than 1g of maltodextrin in sugar-free Jello. That may not be necessary, but you may find you have to watch out for certain things. > For example, a 1/2 cup of blue cheese dressing is very low in carbs, > but that's like 600 calories. A half-cup of that stuff, per day, split > between two or three green salads does not work for me. Why not? I don't know how many calories you think you should get, but 200-300/meal isn't that many out of the total, is it? > Another example: I have to learn to be satisfied with eating two eggs > and two strips of bacon vs. four eggs and six strips of bacon. The > carb counts are almost identical. The stupidity factor of the double+ > portion is pretty high. I eat almost that much (usually 4 eggs and 4 strips of bacon) and I'm losing weight, but I'm a pretty big guy; I don't know what size you are. But two eggs and two (thick) strips of bacon only gives you 21g protein and 343 calories; not very many unless you're a fairly small and sedentary person. > 3) Allow myself one or possibly two treats a week of something that > I've really been missing. A few oz. of almonds or 1/2 a cup of cottage > cheese, something like that. Most people can tolerate these things, on > low-carb, on a daily bases. NOT ME. I'm still not sure what you mean by "tolerate." Can you elaborate? -- From nobody Mon Jul 30 18:39:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie: Questions about carb treats? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:39:28 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcnlzcjz.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 Sonoran Dude writes: > Hi my name is Brad and I'm new to the group and on day two of my new > low carb diet. I'm weighing in at a whopping 330 lbs and need to drop > to at least 200. Welcome! > I tried Atkins about 10 years ago and had great success because it is > so easy to follow. At my local grocery store I noticed that the > Low-Carb diets are not as prevalent as they used to be. I only found a > handful of low-carb treats and they were very proud of them wanting > more than $2 a piece for a small 4 oz bar. Is there a good place to > save some money on these items? If you're doing Atkins, you know those things are forbidden during Induction anyway. After that, you may be able to find them cheaper at places like netrition.com, but the general consensus here seems to be that most low-carb bars suck. > I have an ice cream maker too and could use a link to some low-carb > recipes. Same here. The problem with most ice cream recipes is they include milk, so even if you replace the sugar with Splenda (which has enough carbs of its own to be a problem in that kind of quantity) it's still not terribly low-carb. And you can't just substitute a no-carb liquid sweetener, because the sugar is an important part of the emulsion process of the typical recipe. I'm going to be trying some frozen yogurt recipes with homemade, full-fat yogurt, so I'll report back here if they're any good. > How about pudding? if you substitute half and half or cream with the > sugar free pudding packages does this lower the total carbs that are > listed on the box or are the carbs on the box just for the powdered > product without the milk? The boxes I've seen all give the numbers for just the powder itself and also for the completed pudding with milk (usually 2%). If you use cream instead, just add 6.6g per cup of cream to whatever number of carbs the powder has. -- From nobody Wed Aug 1 08:43:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins Induction Questions References: <46a664da$0$30684$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <5govkrF3gbuehU1@mid.individual.net> <46a7651c$0$20618$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1185608750.652390.180620@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <864pjm0xtn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13asad2a6ei362@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 08:43:32 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl73qsjf.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: and I'll scarf down the whole can. Then, with 100 carb grams of > :: honey-roasted goodness in my blood, it's off to the races. > > You've got to admit, that honey-roasted goodness sure does taste > good! Nah, even in my high-carb days I never liked honey-roasted peanuts. The last time I bought some it was on accident, because a can of honey-roasted ones got stuck in with all the cans of normal ones and I didn't look closely enough. I like my salty foods salty, my sour foods sour, my sweet foods sweet, and very little mixing of them. -- From nobody Wed Aug 1 09:09:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I think I'm addicted to food and alergic to exercising! References: <1185758982.764344.225010@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86sl75zf97.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185841788.723195.227830@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:09:14 -0500 Message-ID: <86odhrqrcl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 monalza2779 writes: > also, I don't mean to cause controversy if that's what you mean when > you say "troll". I'm a little confused as to why you guys think I > am that? We get a lot of trolls and spammers here (although not as many as a few years ago), and they tend to ask clueless and/or provocative questions that make it clear they don't really know anything about low-carb. They also tend to post everything in one long paragraph with sloppy capitalization (if any) and lots of extra punctuation!!! So your post kinda tripped the possible-troll meter. It's not infallible, though, so my apologies if I mischaracterized you. > i've really gotten negative responses from people when I post > things...it's extremely discouraging. I thought the point of these > groups where for support and help and friendship? Am I wrong? Well, if you don't mind some constructive criticism, you'll get much better responses if you write better. You don't have to be as stilted and proper as me; but the easier your posts are to read, the more people will like you, think you're a real person, and want to help you. When you write sloppy, it looks like you don't respect the people who will be reading it, so they won't be inclined to help you. If English isn't your first language, or if you attended a typical American public school, then you can only do your best, but a few things will help a lot: Capitalize the first letter of every sentence and end each one with a single punctuation mark. Break your post up into paragraphs, because long unbroken blocks of text are hard to read. If you aren't sure where to put paragraph breaks, read your text out loud and put one wherever you stop to take a breath. Use your newsreader's spell checker if it has one. We all make spelling errors and typos, but the fewer the better. Proofread every post at least once. If it seems like I'm picking on you, I'm not, honestly. Usenet is a medium where people have to be very particular about whether to read a post all the way through and whether to reply to it, because it's just not possible to read and absorb everything. We have to be picky. If you can improve your writing, you'll get more and better responses. -- From nobody Wed Aug 1 09:23:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie: Questions about carb treats? References: <1185836716.600564.285950@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:23:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5sfqqp0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > It might be your scale. Boy howdy. This weekend I stepped on my girlfriend's scale, which is a fancy electronic one that's supposed to be accurate to 2/10 of a pound or something, and found out that mine's been reading about 15 pounds low. It doesn't really matter, since I'm on this diet for life to stave off diabetes, but I've got more left to lose than I thought. On the upside, that explains why I look in the mirror and see more than 30-40 extra pounds; there are closer to 60 there! I'm gonna look *great* when it's all gone. > There's *so* many reasons to do this besides weight loss! Absolutely. Even if I never lost another pound, I'd still have eliminated heartburn, acne, almost all headaches, pretty much any likelihood of tooth decay, mental fog, unexplained exhaustion, blurry vision in the evening, and irritability, just to name some of the highlights. -- From nobody Wed Aug 1 09:32:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity can spread...much like a virus References: <13as00no7956sb4@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 09:32:02 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy33qqal.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Obesity can spread from person to person, much like a virus, > researchers are reporting today. When a person gains weight, close > friends tend to gain weight, too. I don't think it's any surprise that people tend to pick up their friends' attitudes and habits, but they also tend to seek out friends who are like them, so it can work both ways. I know a guy who started low-carbing at a time when he was working from his home. He was doing most of the cooking for his family, so he stuck to it really well and lost about 100 pounds of the 150 he needed to lose. Then he got a job in an office where the other employees all had candy jars on their desks and they frequently have pizza or sandwiches delivered for lunch meetings. He gained the weight all back. Did he have to fall off his diet because he worked there? No, but the temptations sure made it easy to. So it's no surprise that being around fat people also means being around more temptations. (Of course, most of his co-workers fight with their weight while eating their low-fat candy and other snacks.) -- From nobody Wed Aug 1 19:21:51 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity can spread...much like a virus References: <13as00no7956sb4@news.supernews.com> <86fy33qqal.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13b18lt7pdrge21@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 19:21:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzripyzl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 95 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Please explain how we pick up the habits of our friends? I can see > the attitude thing, to some degree...depending on age and social > status. Young kids are more likely to adopt attitudes of their > friends, but I don't think that's so true for older adults. They > are more likely to have friendships with people who have attitudes > similar to theirs. I think older adults never pick up habits of > their friends. New habits are hard to adopt. It probably does happen less as you get older, especially once you have your own family. When I was 20 and working at Domino's Pizza, the people there didn't just work together, we played together, ate together, got drunk together, dated each other, and often roomed together. We picked up each other's preferences in music, movies, drinks, jokes, cars....and food and eating habits. > How did he get so overweight in the first place? He must have been > hanging around hungry fat people who ate lots of bad foods, right? You seem caught up in the idea that this is an absolute thing. I don't think anyone's saying that hanging around fat people automatically makes you fat, or that it's the only way you can get fat. It's just one small factor -- maybe enough of one to be measurable, but still just one possible factor among many. This isn't some radical idea. If you want to be wealthy, it's better to hang around with rich people than poor ones. If you want to be upbeat, don't hang out with people who complain all the time. If you want to exercise more, making friends with people who jog every day is better than spending all your time with couch potatoes. Again, it's not an absolute thing -- you can be friends with a bunch of millionaire marathon runners and still be broke and sedentary yourself. But it's a push in the right direction. People do rub off on each other somewhat; I don't think this is a controversial concept. > :: Did he have to fall off his diet because he worked there? No, but > :: the temptations sure made it easy to. > These same temptations exist nearly everywhere you go.....at home, > on travel, at supermarket, etc. So, I guess it's true that most of > us really cannot make a permnant change in our lifestyles, for as > soon as a hiccup comes - some fat people and too much cheap food -- > we'll regain all the weight. Life seems to be full of hiccups, too, > so why bother? I don't know what this has to do with anything I said. Yes, life has speed bumps, and sometimes those come in the form of friends and family. That doesn't mean you can't overcome them. One of the first suggestions in Saffire's FAQ is to get rid of the carby foods in your house. Why? If we're all supposed to be able to ignore temptations no matter what, why would that help? It helps because we're humans and we're fallible, so working in an office where there's candy on five different desks less than 30 feet away *is* different from working where the nearest high-carb snacks are down at the grocery store. It's still not anyone's fault but your own if you cheat, but the fact is that most people will cheat less if it's less convenient. > So, it's now the fact that these folks you don't know are fat people > (ie, obese) and he regained because these fat people have junk > around? Why didn't he just bring his food from home so that he could > have LC foods around? Why did he resort back to eating as he did > before? Oh, it sounds like the way a zillion other people regain > weight: the fat people around them cause them to live in temptation! No, like I said quite clearly, he didn't have to give in. His failure was entirely his responsibility, and he knows it. But that's got nothing to do with looking at large numbers of people and trying to determine whether certain lifestyle habits help or hinder success *in general*. If people who have fat friends are XX% less likely to succeed at dieting, that's useful to know. It doesn't mean any of them are off the hook. > I know plenty of people who can have goodies around and eat them > without gaining a lot of weight and certainly without becoming > obese. Of course; that's not the point. Again, there are many factors that cause obesity, and most are probably more important than this one. We're talking about statistical derivations here, not absolutes for individuals. Maybe one person in a hundred is right on the line between dieting success and failure, where having a more inspiring group of friends would tip him in the direction of success, and it wouldn't affect the other 99 at all. Maybe among people who are overweight, the ones with overweight friends tend to be 20 pounds heavier. The point isn't that there's an absolute, unavoidable rule; just that there's an interesting tendency that could make things harder for some people. -- From nobody Thu Aug 2 10:47:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity can spread...much like a virus References: <13as00no7956sb4@news.supernews.com> <86fy33qqal.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13b18lt7pdrge21@news.supernews.com> <86tzripyzl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13b2gtaodj4jpc3@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:47:46 -0500 Message-ID: <864pjios4d.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 65 "Cheri" writes: > Roger Zoul wrote in message > > <13b2gtaodj4jpc3@news.supernews.com>... >>I think your "maybe" is mostly something of a idealized world, where > one can >>dial up exactly the right friends who eat the right way and do the > right >>exercise to make everything alright. It's BS. > I think it's BS too. Another example of people wanting to blame > someone else for their own actions IMO. Too much of that going on > today...the finding of a convenient scapegoat. I'm truly amazed at how > eager some people are to jump on that bandwagon. At this point, I've lost track of what the original article even said, but again, I'm *not* trying to put the blame on anyone else. If I hang around with people who eat pizza and chips and I cave in and eat pizza and chips with them, it's still *my fault*, not theirs. Even if they encourage me to do it, it's still my fault and my fault alone if I do. And if hanging around with them makes it hard for me to stay on my diet, and I keep hanging around with them anyway, that's also my fault alone. I'm sure we've all had people say things like: "Come on, there's nothing wrong with sugar in moderation." "But you can have potatoes right? They're good for you!" "I made a pie just for you; it's sugar-free." I've encountered all those and more multiple times. Are the people who said them bad people? No. Did they force me to do anything? No. If I went along with them to avoid hurting their feelings or looking like an oddball, is that anyone's fault but mine? No. Again, some more, I'm not using this as a way to spread blame. Maybe someone else is; maybe those researchers are; but I'm not. I'm simply saying that removing yourself from temptation as much as possible is *likely* to help you stay on track, and spending a lot of time with other overweight people who aren't on the same diet as you is going to *tend* to put more temptations in your path. That's all. No one would tell a newly-recovering alcoholic that it's fine to spend a lot of time in bars, because, "Hey, you're going to have to deal with that temptation sooner or later; you can't avoid it forever." Of course not. You'd tell him to stop going there, to find new activities that aren't done on a barstool -- and if his friends are in the bar every night, to find new friends. No one tells a kid it's fine to hang around with the druggies at school because that temptation will have to be dealt with some day anyway, so you might as well deal with it every day. There's nothing new or controversial about the fact that people affect each other. We even have terms like "peer pressure" to describe it, and it doesn't have to be conscious or overt. If it *didn't* apply at least somewhat to things like exercise and eating habits, now *that* would be surprising. -- From nobody Thu Aug 2 11:24:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Two Week Induction Results References: <86odhtzec3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185986690.192691.85830@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 11:24:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86wswdoqel.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 "em" writes: > I'm a [insert word] addict. Carbs addict, food addict, whatever. I've always been resistant to calling it that, simply because there seems to be a attitude of victimhood that often goes along with addiction talk, and I suspect that doesn't help people take charge of their own actions. If you say you're "suffering from ", it makes it sound like something else has control of you. Still, the parallels between carbohydrate cravings and addictions to drugs and alcohol are pretty strong, so I do think there are things to be learned from the comparison. > There are a few things that have changed in my life that make me > believe that I will succeed this time for the long run. For one, I'm > older and more mature. Two is that I'm at the tail end of my divorce > and wanting to date. No women, it seems, wants to date an obese guy. You'd be surprised. Women really are attracted much more by personality than looks. If your gut isn't actually hanging out under your shirt, many women, especially older ones who aren't still caught up in the fantasy of bagging Brad Pitt, will overlook your size if you have the right body language. Just look around; there are tons of dumpy guys married to women far more attractive than them -- physically, anyway. What you'll probably find -- what I found, anyway -- is that losing weight improves your confidence drastically, which makes you both much more attractive to women and more likely to approach them. You don't have to finish one first; if you work on both, they can build on each other. Success breeds success, even in other areas of life. Lose a few pounds, gain some confidence and optimism, your body language improves, an attractive woman buys you a drink, up goes your dedication to continued success, more pounds come off, ladies are asking for your number, etc..... It's a beautiful thing. > Lets see, I'm at 245. I don't know exactly where I need to be weight > wise, but I am a very big framed person. I'm thinking between 210 > and 220 will be about right. Either way, I expect to be there by the > end of this year. Protein Power has a method for determining your ideal weight range, or you can just lose until you're happy with the way you look. Mine is about 200 pounds (I'm a very large-framed guy too), so I'm shooting for next summer to have it all off, but I want to hit 220 by the end of the year. -- From nobody Fri Aug 3 08:39:45 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Two Week Induction Results References: <86odhtzec3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185986690.192691.85830@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <1186086920.719832.85080@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 08:39:43 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy30n3ds.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 79 Doug Freyburger writes: >> I'm a [insert word] addict. Carbs addict, food addict, whatever. > Aaron Baugher doesn't like that because it sounds like a victim's > statement. Well, I'm ambivalent on it. Like I said, I do think there are a lot of similarities between carb cravings and other addictions, and things we can learn from addiction theory. My girlfriend just finished a college course on drug addiction, and we've talked about the many parallels: The way addicts rationalize "rewarding" themselves with cheats; the chemical euphoria that's triggered in your brain when you cheat; the remorse when the "high" wears off; the way people often fail to deal with it until hitting bottom or getting a good scare somehow. Carb addiction has all the same physical, mental, and social components of other types of addiction, so I think it qualifies. Where *some* addicts and addiction experts start to lose me is when they treat it like it's something that *happened to* them, instead of something they *did*, as if they were just walking along one day, and whammo, Fate slapped them upside the head with alcoholism. Granted, some people may have had genetic or social pressures that encouraged dependency, but they still had to drink the drinks or smoke the smokes to get there, just as I had to eat the potatoes to get to 285 pounds. I realize a lot of that is just a reflection of modern society's dislike of responsibility. Somewhere between the 1960s and the Clinton Presidency we went from, "The buck stops here," to, "Mistakes were made." Everything's in the passive voice now. So maybe that's all I'm seeing: people applying post-modern thinking to addiction theory. I'm pretty sure AA *does* try to get people to take responsibility for their addictions, so maybe the people I'm hearing are avoiding that part because it's harder to face than being a "sufferer." > I do like it because it makes it completely clear that the one and > only way I have to deal with [insert word] is complete and utter > avoidance. That's where the comparison breaks down a bit, though, because you can't completely cut out carbs like you can alcohol, tobacco, or other drugs, at least not as a practical matter in the long term. Going cold turkey and removing the substance from your life in every possible way is considered the key to dealing with addiction, but we can't do that. We can do it part-way, by clearing the high-carb foods out of our cabinets and things like that, but still, three or more times a day we're going to consume some amount of carbs, so we're going to have to decide how much and from what. If an alcoholic tried to curb his addiction by cutting back to one beer per meal, anyone would say that's a recipe for failure, but that's kind of what we carb addicts have to do. I like to think of carbs as a poison. Like arsenic and many other substances, they're harmless below a certain level but poisonous in greater quantities. I can have a small amount of carbs in each meal -- around 10g or so, depending on how fast-acting they are -- without any harmful effects. Triple that, and I'll start getting symptoms like heartburn and fatigue. Raise it to where the USDA says it should be, and I'll be injecting insulin in a few years. Sounds like a poison to me. > That doesn't have much to do with it. I love pecans as much > as cashews, but I can close the can of pecans and put it > back in the drawer. If I open the can of cashews the thing > is empty before I put it away. That's interesting. Do you suppose it's because of the higher carb count in cashews, or something else? I used to hate cashews, but since low-carbing, I don't mind them. I still wouldn't buy them alone, but in a can of mixed nuts, they aren't bad. Oddly, they seem *less* sweet to me than they used to, while most foods seem sweeter on low-carb. -- From nobody Fri Aug 3 09:02:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Two Week Induction Results References: <86odhtzec3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185986690.192691.85830@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <86wswdoqel.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1186098286.856094.57120@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:02:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqdon2by.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 63 jackiepatti@gmail.com writes: > I have *absolutely* used carby foods as a drug in the past. > > When a more "normal" person has a bad day - gets yelled at by the > boss, dumped by their girlfriend, etc. - they often want to knock > off a few drinks to unwind and relax. I would want a half pound of > pasta. For me it'd be chips or ice cream, but I agree. And it's definitely about carbs, not food, even if people don't consciously make the distinction. I don't think many people have ever gotten dumped by a lover and consoled themselves with a pile of pork chops; but chips, candy, ice cream, and the like? You bet; that's why we call them comfort foods. Mmmmm, dopamine. > I've also used food as a sedative... having insomnia or such, a > candy bar will put me right out. Same here, sort of. It wouldn't quite knock me out, but it'd kind of fog my mind like static on a TV screen, which is always handy when you don't want to face something. > Whether you chose to use the word "addiction" or not, I can > absolutely see that I have used carby foods the same way other > people use drugs. Absolutely. Maybe I should say that I don't object to the idea of "carb addiction," just to the methods some people use for dealing with addiction (of any kind). But I rambled about that enough in my other post. > I do think alcoholism is a reasonable metaphor. An alcoholic can > drink, just can't drink *alcohol*. The idea is that they lose > control after the first drink. > > I can eat, I just can't eat sugar or starch. Not that I completely > lose control after eating some, but the cravings are VERY strong, > making it a lot easier to continue eating carbs than not. You do eat some sugar or starch, though, unless you eat only meat, butter, and oil. An alcoholic is told his tolerance for alcohol is zero; our tolerance for carbs is some small number above zero, and it varies from person to person and also depends on the type of food. But we can apply the "one drink" method to a lot of foods -- bread, potatoes, sugar, rice, etc. -- so I think that's still a good way of looking at it. We're going to have to do the math and testing when it comes to low-carb and kinda-low-carb foods, though. > Alcoholism is more extreme, of course. While induction does feel > like withdrawal to me, I don't suffer DTs. ;) I don't have any personal basis for comparison, but if carbs were treated as an official addiction like alcohol or tobacco, the high rate of dieting failure might rank carb addiction as the hardest one of the bunch to break. The cravings, effects, and withdrawals may be more subtle, but not necessarily less powerful. -- From nobody Fri Aug 3 09:23:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity can spread...much like a virus References: <13as00no7956sb4@news.supernews.com> <86fy33qqal.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13b18lt7pdrge21@news.supernews.com> <86tzripyzl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:23:40 -0500 Message-ID: <867iocn1cj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 39 "nanner" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> This isn't some radical idea. If you want to be wealthy, it's >> better to hang around with rich people than poor ones. If you want >> to be upbeat, don't hang out with people who complain all the time. >> If you want to exercise more, making friends with people who jog >> every day is better than spending all your time with couch >> potatoes. > yeah, that's why the whole thing seemed likea totally rational and > obvious concept to me but everyone else flew off the handle Well, there's a tendency here -- and it's mostly a good thing -- to be very wary of anything that seems like a way to avoid personal responsibility for what you eat, because that's a great way to fail. I can understand the impulse to shoot down a study that suggests, "Outside influence XYZ will increase your likelihood of being fat," because at least some people will seize on that as an excuse to fail. However, there's still a big difference between saying your acquaintances *influence* your choices and saying your acquaintances *control* your choices. Unless you're an incredible narcissist or emotionally detached to a dangerous level, the people around you *do* have some influence on you. It's up to you to decide which influences are good and which are bad, and accept or reject them accordingly as best you can. Choosing your friends wisely is a method of taking responsibility for yourself just as much as choosing your foods wisely is. Of course, I'm not saying you should immediately dump all your fat friends, because that's mean; but you might not want to go to lunch with them every day while you're trying to get control over your eating. -- From nobody Fri Aug 3 16:44:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity can spread...much like a virus References: <13as00no7956sb4@news.supernews.com> <3xori.13$Ws2.0@newsfe12.lga> <13as9k8rfpjd6e5@news.supernews.com> <0Upri.16$Ws2.9@newsfe12.lga> <13asfck5c4aiec7@news.supernews.com> <4ouri.637$5N2.400@newsfe12.lga> <4JWdnarcZcpc4TPbnZ2dnUVZ_vihnZ2d@inreach.com> <13b6gsgfv0tglcc@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:44:58 -0500 Message-ID: <86myx8l2cl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I think part of the problem with young teens is that they feel a > strong pressure to follow the trends of their day. It's stronger > than worrying about having a model-like figure, apparently. I think sometimes (and not just with teens) there's an element of denial. If I keep squeezing into size X jeans instead of buying the size X+2 jeans that fit me, I don't have to admit I've got a problem. Unfortunately, if you're trying to hide extra weight, the *worst* thing you can do is wear tight clothes. Clothes that fit correctly can flatter a much wider range of figures. It's interesting, we're always hearing about how kids these days are all a bunch of little porkers, but I just don't see it. A couple months ago I went to my niece's First Communion, and there were about twenty 8-year-olds at the ceremony. One little boy was quite overweight (and his parents were built just like him) but all the other kids were quite slim. The little boys all looked like Opie Taylor. At the county fair this last weekend, there were tons of kids in the 8- to 18-year-old range running around, and I'd see the occasional heavy one, but they were rare enough to stand out. Many of the teenaged girls could have stood in for your average skinny pop singer. (And were trying to, judging by the way they dressed and made themselves up. I had to avert my eyes a lot lest I look like a dirty old man.) I've noticed this previous years, too. Maybe the heavyset kids stay home watching TV and don't go to the fair, or maybe it's because I'm in a rural area where kids eat better. I don't know the reason, but I don't see the huge childhood obesity numbers I read about. However, I *do* see kids drinking soda by the gallon and setting themselves up for obesity and bad health in the future. (No kidding, one food stand was selling *half-gallon* sippy cups filled with the beverage of your choice for $5, $3 for refills. Refills, after a half-gallon of soda!) -- From nobody Mon Aug 6 16:09:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Chain (Kroger) opts for milk free of hormone References: <13bbhlvgo16uab6@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:09:30 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6mg4bg5.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 Jim writes: > I've had a suspicion for years that the growth hormones in food > production somehow are involved in obesity rates. > > No data, just a suspicion. It wouldn't be at all surprising. Monsanto insists (and the US government backs them up) that rBST is harmless because it's no different from the natural BST that cows already have; but even if that's true, it misses the point. Monsanto isn't giving the stuff away for free, so livestock producers are using it for the same reason athletes use steroids: *they work*. Cows on rBST grow bigger faster and make more milk than cows that just have the hormones they were born with. We banned DDT, which could be saving millions of people from malaria, because it had the potential to work up through multiple steps of the food chain to humans and bald eagles. Yet we're injecting the actual animals we're going to eat with synthetic hormones and believing they can't possibly affect us. Amazing. -- From nobody Mon Aug 6 16:24:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Two Week Induction Results References: <86odhtzec3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185986690.192691.85830@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <1186086920.719832.85080@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <86fy30n3ds.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1186221931.584344.225100@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:24:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86myx44are.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Doug Freyburger writes: > Those folks who want to do nothing but Induction and then wonder at > why it eventually stops working (and how refuse to look at how none > of the books say to do that and at thyroid T3 release studies) are > also folks who are being extreme enough to feel deprived. I noticed something interesting in the copy of _Atkins for Life_ I picked up at the thrift store last week. This book is geared toward people who are past Induction and have found their CCLM or whatever (now re-christened "ACE" in this book, for "Atkins Carbohydrate Equilibrium"), and are eating 45-100 grams of carbs a day. (I may never get that high personally, depending on how my blood sugar reacts; I got it for the 125 recipes.) Anyway, it has some testimonials, and in one of them, a woman says: I started doing Atkins in June of 1990. By November, I was down 50 pounds! I stayed on Induction the whole time because I was comfortable with it and I wanted to continue to lose weight rapidly, which was what kept me motivated. If staying on Induction indefinitely is counterproductive according to Atkins, it seems odd that he would use a testimonial from someone who did just that -- and who claims it was to lose weight *rapidly*. Also, doesn't he say somewhere in the DANDR books that it's okay to stay on Induction longer if you want? I haven't read through that one yet, but I thought I'd seen that quoted here. -- From nobody Mon Aug 6 16:46:19 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: whipping cream & heavy cream References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:46:18 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir7s49qt.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "em" writes: > What the hell is heavy cream? I haven't bought it because I don't > know what it is or what to do with it. It doesn't sound like > something I'd drink. Do you put it in coffee, or ??? Heavy cream is just plain cream. (We can hope, anyway; who knows what mucking about the processors may do with it.) Depending on the breed of cow, 2-5% of the milk that comes out of her will be cream, which is mostly the fats in the milk. If you let this milk sit quietly, the cream will rise to the top, where it can be skimmed off, leaving behind skim milk. To get the 2% and whole (about 3.5%) milk you buy in the store, processors add back that percentage of cream to skim milk and then homogenize it, which means breaking the fats in the cream up into small enough pieces that they'll stay suspended in the milk and not float to the top. What to do with cream? Put it in a jar, let it get near room temperature, shake it for 15 minutes or so, and you'll have butter and buttermilk. It's also the basis for most ice creams. It's also good added to egg dishes like quiches and frittatas, or put in soups to make them thicker and richer. You might like adding some to a diet cream soda. I've heard of some people mixing it with water to get a drink with a similar consistency to milk and a lot fewer carbs. Many recipes call for half-and-half, but that's probably because everyone's afraid of fat. If you use cream where a recipe calls for half-and-half, you'll probably just make it better. -- From nobody Mon Aug 6 16:52:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Where's the SPAM Police? References: <1186197386.066637.129310@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:52:09 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqdk49h2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 JayC writes: > I haven't been to this site in several years so I thought I'd check > in and see what's going on. I'm shocked at the amount of SPAM and > advertising that's being posted! It kinda ruins the whole point of > coming here if you have to wade through a bunch of crap. Isn't > there a moderator or something? Seems like there used to be. For starters, this isn't a site; it's a newsgroup. Completely different things. And if you think there's a lot of spam here now, you should have been here a couple years ago. Use a decent newsreader, and you won't have to read the spam and trolls anyway. -- From nobody Tue Aug 7 16:28:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Two Week Induction Results References: <86odhtzec3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1185986690.192691.85830@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <1186086920.719832.85080@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <86fy30n3ds.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1186221931.584344.225100@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <86myx44are.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 16:28:12 -0500 Message-ID: <864pjb3uhf.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "em" writes: > A snippit from the Atkins website: > > If you're unsure when it's time to transition to OWL, > consider these factors: You want more dietary > freedom. OWL offers more food choices, while > still promoting weight loss. If you're willing to trade > slower weight loss for more dietary freedom, it's time > to move on [to OWL]. Well, that's pretty clear then. Atkins (the diet, if not the doctor himself anymore) says you lose weight faster on Induction than at higher levels of carbs, both in the books and on the web site. -- From nobody Tue Aug 7 17:57:10 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diet or regualr soda worst? References: <5sihb3da3ppp2ri297328f74nn6o0j7mk8@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2007 17:57:10 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm132bsp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 me@privacy.net writes: > I realize neither one is good for you. > > But sometimes wonder that if a person is going to drink > soda occasionally what is the least worst one to drink? Diet soda *might* be bad for you, although if you're worried about Nutrasweet, there are sodas with Splenda now. Sugar *is* bad for you, in the kind of concentrations soda has. Diabetes isn't just a possibility, it's a fact of life for a fast-growing number of people. As are heart disease, tooth decay, and other common results of high-carb diets. No contest, in my book. > What do you drink? And why? Mostly water, or decaf, unsweetened, iced tea. But when I want a soda, I drink Diet Rite, which is sweetened with Splenda. I'm not sure Nutrasweet is especially harmful, but I like to support competition in the field. -- From nobody Wed Aug 8 05:50:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fat March? References: <5hsne0F3mj4kmU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 05:50:50 -0500 Message-ID: <864pja2tbp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 "Pat" writes: > Did anybody watch Fat March on TV last night? I got in on the end of > it where they were telling everyone how much weight was lost in > "Phase 1" but I never did know how many days were in a phase. I felt > sorry for the guy who weighed 500 pounds and hurt both his > feet. That's a lot of weight down there hitting those feet with > every step. Some of the contestants could barely walk and yet were > out there going 13 miles a day. That takes guts! Or stupidity, if you injure yourself and have to go back to being sedentary. The 500 pound guy should have gone with swimming or a bicycle, maybe. (A really well-built bicycle.) I didn't see the show, though, so I'm not sure what the point was. -- From nobody Wed Aug 8 19:30:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diet or regualr soda worst? References: <5sihb3da3ppp2ri297328f74nn6o0j7mk8@4ax.com> <86zm132bsp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:30:12 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4xx1re3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 me@privacy.net writes: > Will try splenda based soda..... but do you think it > safer than aspartame based? Well, I don't *know* yet that aspartame isn't safe. Millions of people have complained of various side-effects, but millions of people play the lottery too, so that's not much proof. There's a lot of smoke, but no one's really pinned down the fire yet. The political process that got it approved was shady enough that anything's possible, though. Splenda, on the other hand, hasn't generated large numbers of consistent complaints yet, as far as I know. It was used in other countries for years before the FDA approved it here. (They protected that Nutrasweet monopoly as long as they could.) So far, the negative articles I see about sucralose talk about "potential" dangers, and stem from research in mice, which sometimes relates to humans and sometimes doesn't. Maybe someday we'll learn something harmful about it, but the FDA tried really hard and couldn't. -- From nobody Thu Aug 9 06:53:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My eating habbits are changing References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:53:15 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7gkzzys.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 "em" writes: > Anyhow, for the past week or more I don't think I've woken up once > in the middle of the night to eat. Not by intention, not through > discipline, it just happened by itself. > I don't know what it is. Maybe I should get some blook work done! I > hope this stuff sticks! Is this a direct result of low-carbing? In short, almost certainly. Your food binges were probably a result of large swings in blood sugar, and you don't have those now. When you eat large amounts of carbs -- as I assume you were on a low-calorie diet -- you produce large amounts of insulin to deal with it. Unless your body has excellent insulin response, producing just enough and shutting it down at exactly the right time, you'll have extra insulin floating around in your blood. Instead of just bringing your blood sugar back to normal levels, it ends up taking it too low, and you become hypoglycemic and crave more carbs. At the same time, the surge of "contentment" chemicals in your brain like dopamine that was produced when you ate the carbs is subsiding, so you're feeling out of sorts, and go looking to fix that. So there's a chemical/emotional component that works along with the physical one. I've known several people who claimed to be hypoglycemic, who -- on recommendations from their doctors -- would eat some sugar whenever they felt like their blood sugar was low. That'd be fine, except they wouldn't measure their blood sugar and eat exactly the amount they needed to get it back into the safe range, like an experienced diabetic might do. They just threw themselves into a bag of Skittles until they felt good again. No attention was ever paid to *why* they had these episodes, or any attempt made to stop them; they just "treated" the symptoms with sugar. -- From nobody Thu Aug 9 06:57:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Splenda Tablets at Netrition AND at Target References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 09 Aug 2007 06:57:59 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzr8zzqw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Jim writes: > FOB wrote: >> http://www.netrition.com/splenda_minis.html > > Target now has Splenda tablets too. Do these tablets have a sugar filler like the packets, or are they completely zero-carb like the liquids? -- From nobody Tue Aug 14 07:16:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My eating habbits are changing References: <1186717948.842460.309700@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5i37crF3n4m4cU4@mid.individual.net> <1186755163.805018.3130@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <5i3erfF3m767iU1@mid.individual.net> <1186808794.831006.116490@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <5i5qo3F3n43gtU1@mid.individual.net> <1186843470.068249.127820@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <5i61asF3nblt1U1@mid.individual.net> <1186884027.359280.180060@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <5i7ar6F3nj5i4U1@mid.individual.net> <46bf0dc6$0$25599$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5i8kreF3oga1cU1@mid.individual.net> <46bf3bab$0$25589$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5i8trdF3noks3U1@mid.individual.net> <46bfd593$0$22483$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ib41dF3nfe9vU1@mid.individual.net> <46c0e7ce$0$22497$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5icalbF3ou5psU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:16:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsvyz4yd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 Susan writes: > Jackie Patti wrote: >> That simply points to how the environment effects gene expression. >> It doesn't point to it being *only* environmental though, else all >> 5 year olds on the same diet would be diabetic, which is not the >> case. > I'm not arguing against predisposition as a factor, just as the > major determinant. I think it's one factor among many that > determines when and how one becomes diabetic. I can't remember which one, but one of the low-carb books I've read suggests that 25% or less of the population have no tendency toward insulin resistance at all, while the other 75% or more are in a range from very likely to less likely. A high-carb diet fattens up some people while they're still kids; some others don't have trouble until they're 40 and then are fighting with heart problems by their 50s; and some stay thin and seem very healthy all their lives but are eventually put on diabetic meds (along with other drugs) in their 90s. I suspect that almost all humans would develop diabetes, if they ate a high-carb diet for life and managed to not die early of anything else. Especially today's high-carb, low-fat, corn syrup diet, which is very different from the potatoes and gravy diet of just 30 years ago. -- From nobody Tue Aug 14 07:26:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What to bring to a pot luck dinner? References: <7aawi.2902$%55.1143@trnddc04> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:26:11 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl6mz4ik.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "BD" writes: > Does anyone have any recipes/ideas as to a high protein low or no > carb dish to bring to a pot luck dinner? Does it have to be high-protein? If you're supposed to be bringing a main dish, a meat and cheese tray is always good. I've seen recipes for low-carb spicy chicken wings in this group. Meatballs in a low-carb sauce or no sauce at all. Little Smokies in a low-carb BBQ sauce. Deviled eggs are always good, but most people don't think of them as a main dish. If protein isn't an issue, you could make a vegetable tray with low-carb vegetables like radishes, broccoli, cauliflower, celery, peppers, or mushrooms, with full-fat ranch dressing or a cream cheese dip. -- From nobody Tue Aug 14 07:45:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cheap glucose meter for low carb? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:45:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86odhaz3m4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 49 me@privacy.net writes: > Is it crazy to use a glucose meter to check your blood when on a low > carb diet and not a diabetic (as far as you know)? No, it's not crazy at all. First of all, you can be diabetic without knowing it, even if a doctor has said you aren't. But even if you're not, you could have impaired insulin function which could lead to diabetes in the future, in which case testing will help you control it and prevent it from getting worse. Testing could also show that your insulin function and blood sugar levels are perfect, which wouldn't be a bad thing to learn either: you could have a party! I personally think there are very few overweight people with perfect insulin function, though. Not *none*, but very few. > If no...what cheap glucose meters are worthy of buying? As others have pointed out, the cost of the strips is the important thing, because you only buy the meter once. Wal-Mart's Relion is under $10, and the strips are about 50 cents each. I got the Accu-Chek Active, which was about $30 I think, but the strips are just as cheap as the Relion's, and I can probably get them at other places besides Wal-Mart, which is nice because their supply of diabetes stuff is spotty here. In addition to the meter and strips (which must match each other), you'll also need lancets (needles) and a lancet applicator (thing that makes the poking as painless as possible). These two have to match each other, but they don't have to match the meter and strips; they can be a completely different brand if you spot a deal or a feature you like. You just have to draw blood somehow. One other thing you might need is calibration fluid for your meter. This is a controlled glucose solution that you can use to make sure your meter is accurate. The Wal-Mart here doesn't even carry that, though, and their "pharmacists" didn't seem to know what it was. All told, if you can get a small number of lancets and strips to start out, you should be able to get everything for under $50, maybe quite a bit less than that. I originally got my brand-name meter, 50 strips, 200 lancets (enough for a few years, at least), and the lancet applicator for about $80 total. -- From nobody Tue Aug 14 07:52:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Sunflower seed net carb count References: <1maub3lpvhj9q4uibjdsj9s723k3oqhsp6@4ax.com> <6sbub3tiq136lfquqcqnan1ft151ot8psu@4ax.com> <1186935512.897982.285250@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 07:52:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5ryz39y.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Bob writes: > I, like the birds, eat the shell and all. Lots less messy and why > would one toss aside the wonderful salty part!! It'd be nice to have sunflower seeds with edible hulls. The hulls on the ones I usually get are way too hard and woody; you could cut your mouth on the shards of broken shell. I eat pumpkin seeds, which I've found sold with much more edible shells. The nutritional info on them doesn't count the shell, but I assume it's all irrelevant fiber. And yummy salt, of course. -- From nobody Fri Aug 17 09:15:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What to bring to a pot luck dinner? References: <7aawi.2902$%55.1143@trnddc04> <46c524fd$0$26709$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2007 09:15:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86643ew8lw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Jackie Patti writes: > em wrote: >> And finally: just because you bring it doesn't mean you have to eat it. > I'd be more inclined to bring something I knew I *could* eat in case > no one else did. Same here. If I didn't, there would be family gatherings where I literally could eat nothing. I've also started eating a full meal before going to anything where food will be served, so I won't be hungry if there aren't any decent choices. Of course, not eating at all will have my grandma fussing over me, making sure I know there's ten kinds of pie and what-not, and asking whether I'm sick; so if I take some deviled eggs or a veggie tray, I can put something on my plate and nibble at it to avoid all that. -- From nobody Tue Aug 21 08:18:10 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Sunflower seed net carb count References: <1maub3lpvhj9q4uibjdsj9s723k3oqhsp6@4ax.com> <6sbub3tiq136lfquqcqnan1ft151ot8psu@4ax.com> <1186935512.897982.285250@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> <13chu1vauu51d96@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:18:10 -0500 Message-ID: <861wdxxbzh.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 "Roger Zoul" writes: > You mean people actually eat the shells of sunflower seeds? They > are just like wood, AFAIC. If you harvested them when the shells were still soft and shucked them off the head by hand, they'd probably be edible enough. But by the time they get dry and hard enough to be harvested with power equipment, not so much. -- From nobody Tue Aug 21 08:20:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 2PD-OMER References: <1187578736.649840.191100@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:20:58 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsvpvxad.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 Lenore writes: > Hi. Just new. Read about the 2PD-OMER. Perhaps I have lived under > a brick my whole life, as it never, ever occurred to me to have a > measurement of a total day consumption in pounds, rather that > calories, points, etc. Good grief, not the two-pound diet again. Could we get all the proponents of the two-pound diet to eat nothing but two pounds of lettuce every day, to put them out of our misery? -- From nobody Tue Aug 21 08:39:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cheap glucose meter for low carb? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:39:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl6dvwez.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 56 "em" writes: > wrote: >> If no...what cheap glucose meters are worthy of buying? > > For low-carb in and of itself, I don't see how it would help. Strictly for low-carb, it doesn't, but it will help you determine whether you have insulin/blood sugar issues, which is one reason why many people need to low-carb in the first place. It'll also help you pin down problem foods. Some people seem to metabolize some sugar alcohols, for example. Testing after eating a food that's not supposed to affect your blood sugar will show you whether it's a problem for you. Even people with great insulin response will see *some* rise in blood sugar from eating carbs, so if you see a reaction to a food that claims to be carb-free, you know something isn't adding up. > If you want to track your level of ketosis, then buy the keto > strips. If you want to see what kind of results you're getting, keep > an eye on your waste size and weight (over a period of time). You weigh your waste? Gross. :-) If you low-carb, you'll be in ketosis. I can also tell when I'm in ketosis by a change in my breath and the odor of other bodily functions. (They don't necessarily get worse, just different.) I wouldn't waste money on ketosis strips unless you A) aren't losing weight and want to know why, and B) you can't spot the change in your breath and other things. Then they might be useful. > If you haven't done so recently, it is probably a good idea to have > your doctor check your blood levels, for sugar and whatever else. If > you have insurance, it shouldn't be too expensive. That will only tell you if you're diabetic to the point where your basal insulin isn't enough to keep your blood sugar under control when you haven't eaten any carbs (fasting). It won't tell you anything about your Stage 1 and Stage 2 insulin release, which come after you eat carbs. If either or both of those are out of whack, your blood sugar can skyrocket and damage your organs for hours after every meal; but by the time you fast before the doctor tests, it'll be normal again. Basal insulin is a tiny little burst of insulin that happens every few seconds all day long, to fine-tune the glucose level in your blood. It's not unusual for your pancreas to be able to produce that tiny stream of insulin, but fall behind when a large flow is needed after eating carbs. The only way to test that is by getting a meter and using it regularly for a while. -- From nobody Tue Aug 21 08:51:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 08:51:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 me@privacy.net writes: > So you have no breads, cereal, ice creams, nothing like > that in your house at all? Correct. Also no sugar, pasta, rice, potatoes, corn, etc. The space those things used to take up is now used for canned tuna, salmon, mackerel, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and so on. I do keep a little oat flour for lightly breading things sometimes, because it has half the carbs of wheat flour, but that's pretty much it for grains in my kitchen. For breakfast, I eat eggs with bacon or sausage pretty much every day. I've been doing that for at least 15 years, so I doubt I'll get tired of it. There doesn't have to be any such thing as "breakfast food", though. When you're hungry, eat something low-carb that sounds good to you, regardless of the time of day. I've been known to eat leftover steak, tuna salad, or anything else on mornings when I forgot I needed to pick up eggs the day before. -- From nobody Tue Aug 21 09:14:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Starting to exercise, maybe NOT a good idea? References: <5imncmF3q0av1U1@mid.individual.net> <5ipaa5F3rdn3gU1@mid.individual.net> <1187625473.175724.31130@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 09:14:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5rpvusx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 39 "wifezilla@gmail.com" writes: > While exercise never did a damn thing to help me lose weight, it > does plenty of other good things. Do it :D Exactly. Exercise is good for you in lots of different ways. "Protein Power" spends a chapter explaining how weight lifting -- in combination with a low-carb diet -- promotes the release of human growth hormone, which does all sorts of good things for you. Of course, we all exercise. Unless you're immune to gravity and atmospheric pressure, or you're in outer space, your body is exercising against those forces around the clock. Your brain, heart, diaphragm, and many other organs also constantly exercise and burn calories. Even someone who is completely confined to a hospital bed burns hundreds of calories, after all, and can lose weight based on diet alone. So the issue isn't really whether you need *any* exercise, but whether you need more than you're getting in your day-to-day life, and what kind it should be. One summer, I went from being sedentary to running 3-4 miles every other day, and biking 10 hilly miles most of the other days. I didn't lose a pound doing that for a few months, because I was eating a maintenance level of carbs at the time. (It's called *maintenance* for a reason.) On the other hand, I've lost weight on a low-carb diet while getting no more exercise than walking to the mailbox every day. Now that I've spent a couple months getting my diet squared away, I'm starting a regimen of body-weight exercises (weight lifting without equipment), to use up some of the extra energy I've got now. Diet trumps exercise, as far as weight loss is concerned. Get the diet right, and exercise will do great things. Try to use exercise to avoid dealing with diet, and it's like running uphill. -- From nobody Wed Aug 22 16:32:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:32:15 -0500 Message-ID: <864pirw90g.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 me@privacy.net writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >>Correct. Also no sugar, pasta, rice, potatoes, corn, etc. The space >>those things used to take up is now used for canned tuna, salmon, >>mackerel, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and so on. I do keep a little oat >>flour for lightly breading things sometimes, because it has half the >>carbs of wheat flour, but that's prett > Was just curious as to how dedicated most are to low > carbing. Curious if there was SOME carbs in the > kitchen Sure, there are some, including the carbs found in some of the foods I mentioned: vegetables, nuts, eggs, cheese, oat flour. There just aren't high-carb foods that don't reasonably fit into a low-carb way of eating. Why stock things I won't be eating? If I have company over and want to serve something high-carb for them, I'll go buy just enough for that meal. But why would I want to do that? A low-carb meal isn't bad for *anyone*, and if you serve some sort of meat with a couple sides of vegetables, that's not going to seem like a weird diet to anyone. If I can go to their home and pass on the bread and cake, they can come to my home and decline more butter on their ham. (That's totally the title of the book I'll write someday about low-carb when I stop being too lazy: "I Want More Butter on My Ham!") -- From nobody Wed Aug 22 16:54:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <1rgmc3tioc7oghhoomo9afan7adkb2gq69@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:54:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm0jutfk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 67 me@privacy.net writes: > "em" wrote: >>Low-carb diets aren't right for everyone. If you're going to have >>that "oh, once a week or so" cheat of eating pasta or a sandwich >>with bread, then low carb *definitely* will not work for you. > why not? > > isn't reducing sugar and carbs worthwhile even if not > to the point YOU do? Not as much as you might think. Sugar is bad for you, so yes, any reduction in carbohydrate intake is a positive change in your life. But from a weight-loss or diabetes-prevention standpoint, just "cutting back" on carbs may have no effect at all. The relationship between the amount of carbs you eat and the effect they have on you isn't a linear one, because so much depends on that insulin/glucagon "switch". If you've been eating 300g of carbs per day (the USDA recommendation for the standard 2000 calorie diet), and you cut back to 150g/day, it may not make a lick of difference, because you'll still have tons of sugar pumping through your blood, tons of insulin chasing after it, and your insulin receptors going nuts trying to get it all stored. Instead of a steady, linear graph, carbs/weight-loss is more like a pair of plateaus with a mild slope between them. There's the high-carb plateau, where you're pretty much in high-insulin mode all the time, always storing any extra energy away as fat, always overworking and potentially damaging your organs. If you cut your carbs in half, but you're still up on that plateau, you haven't changed things much. At some point as you come down in carbs, somewhere between 50 and 100 for most people, you drop quickly to a lower region of the graph, where you start to have more of a balance between insulin and glucagon, your body isn't in stress mode at all times, and your cells are able to kick out stored fat at least part of the day. > From there, you have a gradual downslope, where the lower you bring your carbs, the more consistently you keep your glucagon high and your insulin low, encouraging more weight loss and other health benefits. When you get low enough that you stay in this mode around the clock, that's generally what people mean when they say "ketosis," although that's not exactly accurate. (Ketosis is when you burn fat for energy, so everyone does it sometimes. When people talk about being "in ketosis," they mean staying in fat-burning mode long enough to excrete a measurable amount of ketones, which is really called ketonuria.) At this point, the graph pretty much levels off again. If you're "in ketosis" around the clock, it's questionable whether you can burn fat any faster by taking your carbs lower. Some even say it's counterproductive, so the graph might dip back up again a little there. > I mean as someone else said even some carbs in veggies > and such? Sure. That's why you have to do a certain amount of counting, if you're not just going to eat meat and butter for every meal. -- From nobody Wed Aug 22 17:05:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <5j0h72F3l2imoU2@mid.individual.net> <5j0kmlF3m5bt8U1@mid.individual.net> <6lfmc3t2j07afb4l9hik697hhrsvg1kq5j@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:05:12 -0500 Message-ID: <86veb7usx3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 me@privacy.net writes: > So why not just stick with skim milk then? It surely > has less carbs than full fat? Why would you think that? You do realize fat and carbs are two different things, right? Whole milk is about 3.5% cream, which contains most of the fat. Remove the cream from a quart of whole milk, and you're left with 96.5% of a quart of skim milk. Most of the carbs are left in the skimmed portion. So by the time you fill the quart the rest of the way up with more skim milk, you've increased the total carb count. But it's worse than a 3.5% difference, because what really matters when it comes to fueling your body and keeping your belly full is calories. The cream, being high in fat, contains a lot more than 3.5% of the calories in whole milk. Since a cup of skim milk has fewer calories than a cup of whole milk, you'll have to drink more of it to fuel your body and stop your hunger, so you'll end up drinking a lot more than 3.5% more carbs. Here's the deal on packaged and processed foods: most of the natural flavor in foods comes from fat or carbs. Protein is pretty tasteless; that's why a skinless chicken breast is the dullest piece of meat you can get. Check out the label on low-fat peanut butter sometime, and see how much sugar they add to replace the flavor they removed by taking out the fat. So if something is marketed as low-fat, you can almost guarantee that it's high-carb -- unless it's something that's intended to be tasteless, like shirataki noodles. Of course, you can always check the labels, too. -- From nobody Wed Aug 22 17:22:03 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <5j0h72F3l2imoU2@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:22:02 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6lvus51.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 me@privacy.net writes: > I currently have low glycemic bread, rolled oatmeal, > non-fat milk, some soy milk, pomegranate juice, ect > Should Throw all that out? > Bottom line...don't eat this stuff? Seriously, if you think you might really want to do this, get a couple of the popular low-carb books and read them. It sounds like you're shooting in the dark, and that's not a good way to hit your target. I've picked up all the books in my low-carb collection for $2 or less at thrift stores, and your local library should also have the common ones. Even if you end up deciding not to do low-carb, you're out maybe $5 at most and were able to make an educated decision for yourself. There's more to this than just "eat this and don't eat that." The Atkins plan comes close to that for the first two weeks, but even it expands after that point. There are many foods that are fine, as long as you don't eat more than a certain amount. One peach is fine for me (if it's my only carb source in a meal); two peaches aren't. Getting the high-carb foods out of your cabinets is a great way to get started, but you still have to know how to eat all the low-to-medium-carb foods. Best of luck, -- From nobody Wed Aug 22 17:35:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Sunflower seed net carb count References: <1maub3lpvhj9q4uibjdsj9s723k3oqhsp6@4ax.com> <6sbub3tiq136lfquqcqnan1ft151ot8psu@4ax.com> <1186935512.897982.285250@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> <13chu1vauu51d96@news.supernews.com> <861wdxxbzh.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13cm1mm1hcvnjff@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:35:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86mywjuri6.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Why do they sell them in stores in various flavors with those shells > on? Are people supposed to spit them out or chew them up? I once > bought a bag...too much work to be spitting them out and certainly > didnt want to eat wood. Frankly, I don't understand sunflower seeds > in shells....but I do enjoy the kernels. I've bought them before, figuring if I had to crack them open one by one, I wouldn't be able to down the whole batch of them in one sitting as I'm wont to do with seeds and nuts. It's a lot of trouble, though. I think some people actually do chew them up and spit out the shells, but that just sounds nasty. -- From nobody Wed Aug 22 17:48:04 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 3-day meat fast? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 17:48:04 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir77uqxn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "em" writes: > I've notice my appetite has been increasing. Even though I'm staying > within my carb limit, about 20~25/day, I'm making worse choices, > such as too much cheese, more mayo in the salad and so on. My weight > seems to have crept-up just a little over the past week, too. (Maybe > meaningless, but could be an indicator.) Mayo shouldn't hurt, although you have to watch out for added sugar. Sometimes it can be 1g/serving, which can add up when you're making salads with it. When you say "about 20-25/day", how precise is that? If that could be sneaking up over 30 or so, you could simply be eating too many carbs. Weight change over a single week is pretty meaningless, though, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. I don't know how far along you are; if you're just starting the plan or have been on it a while. At the beginning, if your appetite increases, don't worry about it. Eat when you're hungry until satisfied, keep it safely low-carb, and give your body time to adjust. Appetite almost always retreats back to normal or less once you settle into the plan, especially if you get plenty of fat. > I did a 2.5 day meat fast about a month ago. It greatly reduced my > hunger levels and really brought things into check. Am thinking it > might be a good idea. Am open to comments and/or other suggestions. Well, it's probably not necessary at this point, but it's not going to hurt anything. Maybe doing something different will be a mental boost you need; who knows. -- From nobody Thu Aug 23 08:05:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <46cc2ed8$0$26709$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <3depc3tu7qaj77si32dncvr0jkrlfs9snp@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:05:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86zm0itn81.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 me@privacy.net writes: > But all the low carb ice creams I've seen always have > Splenda in them BUT also have sorbitol, etc I think they pretty much have to have the sugar alcohols to keep the ice cream soft. Without something in there to cause the emulsification that gives ice cream its consistency, you'd get a frozen brick. They could probably leave out the sugar alcohols, add more Splenda, and use gelatin or something to fix that, but then it'd be even more expensive than it already tends to be. Making your own is always an option, though, and there have been several recipes and methods for that posted in the last couple weeks. -- From nobody Thu Aug 23 08:44:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <1rgmc3tioc7oghhoomo9afan7adkb2gq69@4ax.com> <86zm0jutfk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:44:44 -0500 Message-ID: <86veb6tlf7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 77 me@privacy.net writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > >>At some point as you come down in carbs, somewhere between 50 and 100 >>for most people, you drop quickly to a lower region of the graph, >>where you start to have more of a balance between insulin and >>glucagon, your body isn't in stress mode at all times, and your cells >>are able to kick out stored fat at least part of the day. > > I'm certain I'm eating more than 50 grams of carbs a > day! > > that's a pretty low figure 50 grams..... in today's > diets anyway Yes, it is. That's why the first thing you have to do is forget everything you've been taught about diet, because *it's wrong*. Seriously. Everything government -- and government is where we ultimately get this information now -- has said about diet since the late 60s or so is either misleading or completely wrong and counter-productive. Like a blind squirrel finding a nut, they occasionally stumble across something that's at least partly true, like fiber being good for you. It probably is good for you, but not nearly as critical as they insist, and not for the reasons they give. Since the low-fat hoax began, all nutritional recommendations have assumed a high-carb diet including processed foods enriched with various nutrients; so when you break out of that mold, much of their advice just doesn't apply anymore. This isn't because of some vast conspiracy, by the way; it's just the usual bureaucratic screwup where a few radicals and a lot of well-meaning do-gooders made a big mess for everybody. If you're interested in the history of how it happened, google up Gary Taubes's article "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" I like to put it this way: Think about some field in which you are truly an expert, whether it's work, a hobby, or just something you know more about than most people do. Now think about how accurately that field is portrayed in movies and TV shows, and how much politicians seem to know about it if they talk about it. Now realize that that's true of *every* field; not just the ones you know about. For me, the top two would be farming and computers -- the thing I grew up doing and the thing I do now -- and I can promise you that the opinion-makers are completely clueless about both of those topics, and whenever they try to legislate them, they look like fools to anyone in the know. (Sales tax over the Internet? Are you kidding? Might as well try taxing birds for using our airspace.) Yet, it's easy for me to forget that when it comes to fields I'm *not* knowledgeable about, so I'll watch a cop show and think it seems realistic, when real cops would laugh it off or be insulted by it. It's easy to say, "Well, *everyone* says global warming is true, so it must be," even though I'd never say, "Well, *everyone* uses Microsoft, so it must be the best." We want to believe that "they" have the answers, because it's a heck of a lot of work -- maybe not even possible -- to find all the answers for yourself. Anyway, the point is, everything you've learned from school or the culture is suspect. Some of it may be true, but it's never wrong to question it -- to say, "What if this generally held belief was as valid as the earth being flat? What would that mean; how could you prove it one way or the other? Is anyone making the opposing argument, and if so, does that argument hold water any better? Given the actual facts, what makes sense to *me*?" (I strayed a bit off your original topic there, but that's a rant that's been building up for a while. I'll address your actual statement in a separate post.) -- From nobody Thu Aug 23 08:52:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <1rgmc3tioc7oghhoomo9afan7adkb2gq69@4ax.com> <86zm0jutfk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:52:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6lutl2c.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 me@privacy.net writes: > I'm certain I'm eating more than 50 grams of carbs a > day! > > that's a pretty low figure 50 grams..... in today's > diets anyway It's also a low figure for a basketball game, but that's not relevant either. Fifty grams a day is a low-carb diet for most people, and if you could just cut your carbs back to that level, you'd probably see some benefits -- weight loss, blood profile improvements, whatever you're after. Unfortunately, that's doing it the very hard way. Trying to go straight from a typical, USDA-recommended 300g to a moderate level of 50-100g is likely to cause intense cravings, especially if your insulin response isn't outstanding. That's why low-carb plans typically have you drop to a much lower level at first, and gradually let you work back up later for the sake of more variety in your diet. This first phase, which typically keeps you below 20-30g/day, gets you over the cravings as quickly as possible, switches your metabolism from sugar-burning to fat-burning mode, and gives you the best chance for ongoing success. -- From nobody Thu Aug 23 08:57:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <5j0h72F3l2imoU2@mid.individual.net> <5j0kmlF3m5bt8U1@mid.individual.net> <6lfmc3t2j07afb4l9hik697hhrsvg1kq5j@4ax.com> <86veb7usx3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 08:57:40 -0500 Message-ID: <86mywitktn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 me@privacy.net writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > >>Why would you think that? You do realize fat and carbs are two >>different things, right? > > Because when I pick up a carton of whole milk and look > at the carbs.... it appears to have as many carbs as > skim milk...or close It is close; as I said, the fatty cream is only 3.5% of whole milk by volume, so taking it off won't make a huge difference in carbs. Most low-carbers don't drink milk at all for that reason. Skim or whole, it's just too high in sugar. But if you already looked at the labels and saw that skim milk didn't have fewer carbs than full-fat, why did you ask: > So why not just stick with skim milk then? It surely > has less carbs than full fat? That's the confusion I was responding to. Glad you got it straightened out. -- From nobody Thu Aug 23 09:16:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Soccer A Better Exercise Than Jogging -- Intervals of intense effort and greater muscle mass ? References: <1187822968.730511.235510@r23g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <5j3v9vF3p8d80U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:16:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir76tjyg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "Pat" writes: > Oh, please! Even a so-called serious runner doesn't match the > demands on the body that soccer does. Yeah, you rarely get a soccer ball kicked point-blank into the family jewels while doing serious running. Writhing in pain in the fetal position while your friends laugh at you is pretty demanding, true. > Whereas training you do on the track with your spikes puts on large > muscle mass? Have you ever played soccer? Or are you just watching > others and thinking you're better? Unfortunately, everyone in my school was required to play soccer, either on the team or in intramurals. I will admit that it's less boring to play than it is to watch. Our basketball practice actually included a lot of sprinting at different lengths and running backwards, while soccer practice involved a lot more jogging laps around the field. Maybe that's why we *always* got beat at soccer. As far as the original article goes, though, I'd agree with whoever said it's an odd comparison. The point is well-taken -- intervals of intense work are better than plodding non-intense work like jogging -- but that doesn't say anything special about soccer. (And any writer who could call that "surprising" simply hasn't been paying attention.) They could just as easily have compared tennis to walking, or basketball to ping-pong. There are a lot of sports that require intervals of sprinting. Maybe the authors were hoping to piggy-back on the huge Beckham-induced soccer craze that's swept the nation. Oh wait, that's over already; never mind. -- From nobody Fri Aug 24 08:44:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <5j0h72F3l2imoU2@mid.individual.net> <5j0kmlF3m5bt8U1@mid.individual.net> <6lfmc3t2j07afb4l9hik697hhrsvg1kq5j@4ax.com> <86veb7usx3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86mywitktn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <09orc3hsdtsusa2lgg4msvabg8mm7s6tes@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 08:44:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsvlrqqu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 85 me@privacy.net writes: > Does it hurt to restrict fat AND carbs? Or is one > supposed to forget abt fats on low crab diets > completely? I don't eat much crab at all, actually. "Hurt" might be too strong a word, but it's not very practical to cut both carbs and fat. When you first learn about the success of low-carbing, it seems like a way to hedge your bets: go low-carb for all the benefits people are seeing, but stay low-fat in case the status quo beliefs are right. It's also easier for someone to sell a low-carb book/website/product if it's also low-fat, or at least not high-fat. The Oprahs of the world might invite you to promote your low-carb-low-fat book, "101 Ways to Bake Skinless Chicken Breast"; but they aren't going to touch me and my book, "Buttered Ham for Health." The problem is, if you go low-carb and low-fat, all that's left is protein (or starvation). The math is simple as always: if you get no carbs or fat at all, you'll need 500g of daily protein to maintain a standard 2000 calorie diet. Considering that the highest level of protein required according to the pro-protein book "Protein Power" is 120g/day, 500g is a boatload of protein! Of course, you're not talking zero carbs or fat, so maybe you'd only need 400g of protein, or 300g. That's still a heck of a lot. The problem with *that* is that once your body has used the 60-120g of protein -- depending on your lean body mass and rate of activity -- that it needs for rebuilding muscle and good stuff like that, any or all of the extra protein may be converted to glucose. It won't come gushing into your blood stream as fast as if you'd gotten it from a bag of Skittles, but it's still ultimately glucose. An extra 100g of protein can produce as much as 58g of glucose -- certainly enough to throw you out of the low-carb range, once you add it to whatever carbs you're eating. That's why I say that at some point you have to take your own stand, based on your own reading, observation, and judgment. You can't really have it both ways, although you can hedge a bit. (More on that below.) > My blood fats run high....am on statins.... the thing > I'm trying to do is alter lifestyle to get OFF statins > or severely reduce need for it > > BUT..... we are told over and over to limit fat > intake... doctor tells me this , etc Doctors tell us many things; some of them are actually true. I don't know enough about statins to know how they affect low-carbing, though others here probably do. I do know that many low-carbers have been able to reduce or eliminate drugs for things like blood pressure and cholesterol, after sticking with the diet for a while. > I can see the logic of carb limiting... as I've learned > here..... but does one forget abt worrying abt fats? > > Example.... instead of eating egg beaters like I've > always done (no fats just egg whites).... do I now > start eating whole eggs? In general, yes. Successful low-carbing in one sentence: Get enough protein to meet the needs of your lean body mass, keep your carbs low enough to stay in glucagon-driven mode most of the time, and fill in the rest of the calories you need to survive with fat. When you do the math, you realize that's a lot more fat than you were taught to eat (unless you learned about diet before 1960). That's when you have to make a choice. That doesn't mean you have to go bacon-wild, though, and start frying your eggs in a half-inch of lard every morning like I do. If it's scary, start small. Get plenty of the fats that even your doctor would probably admit are healthy, like oily fish and olive oil. It's ok if your protein is a bit higher than you need for now; you just don't want it super-high. When you go back to your doctor in 4-6 months and see how much your blood numbers have improved, you can get more adventurous about fats in your diet then. And read the book(s)! -- From nobody Fri Aug 24 09:53:22 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <1rgmc3tioc7oghhoomo9afan7adkb2gq69@4ax.com> <86zm0jutfk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86veb6tlf7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1187899170.585007.43180@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 09:53:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl69rnku.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 136 Doug Freyburger writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> For me, the top two would be farming and computers -- the thing I >> grew up doing and the thing I do now -- and I can promise you that >> the opinion-makers are completely clueless about both of those >> topics, and whenever they try to legislate them, they look like >> fools to anyone in the know. (Sales tax over the Internet? Are >> you kidding? Might as well try taxing birds for using our >> airspace.) > And you also know enough about nutrition to understand just how > wrong-headed the government's current recommendations are. Even the > recent change from the 4 food groups from the 50s to the food > pyramid of the 90s to the revised pyramid of the 00s is all a load > of bunk and the work on improving it has been optimizing the layout > of deck chairs in the Titanic. I do *now*. I guess I was always suspicious of the anti-fat theory, though. Growing up on a farm presented too much contrary evidence. When I raised hogs as a kid, I learned that when you wanted to fatten up hogs, you fed them unlimited grain and just enough protein/fat supplement to keep them healthy for the six months or so they would live until butchering size. (Nowadays, since people want leaner meat, the protein ratio is much higher.) On the other hand, breeding stock that you might keep for several years and didn't want getting fat and unhealthy got a limited amount of grain and a much bigger ratio of supplement. That's why I get a little mad when I think too much about this stuff: it's not like this is a new discovery, or a trade secret, or too complicated for the opinion-makers to understand. It was in my 4-H Swine Book when I was 10 years old, for cripes sake, and I understood it just fine then. > So it's the claim that humans are the main cause of global > warming that's the equivalent of saying that MicroSoft software > is the best because so many people use it. Human impact on > global warming has a lot of PR. It's a very handy club for beating Western Civ over the head -- a sport that's enjoyed by everyone, especially its own members. We're definitely at the peak of a warming cycle. But once you throw out the hockey stick graph that's been exposed as a hoax, it looks a lot like the peak 500 years ago -- which was followed by a very unpleasant cold cycle that we should all be glad we're not living through. Sun spots look like the most likely cause to me at this point. I'm not a big fan of our Wal-Martified consumer culture, and I'd like to see us get a lot smarter about energy. But even if Americans throw away all their engines and gadgets and start living in tepees, the rest of the human race will continue advancing and wanting their turn at the good life. If humanity's energy requirements only continue to expand at the rate they have been, our known and estimated fossil fuels will last until about the end of this century. Nuclear fission, if done very efficiently, could extend that to 2160 or so. If we're not harvesting energy sources from other bodies in the solar system by then, we'll be in trouble. > Note that the stated goal of every school I've ever been to has > been to teach people how to think and how to learn. There's > a lot of PR that schools indoctrinate (a point I agree with) and > that schools teach material (which I've always considered > irrelevant givent he rate of change). It's interesting how the > public perception and the stated goals are so different. That's because the stated goal isn't the real goal. The real goal of the common school system is to indoctrinate kids with the beliefs of the society's elites -- to turn them into good citizens, according to the mores of the day. If any learning takes place in the meantime, it's a happy accident that happens any time someone who enjoys teaching a subject spends time with someone who wants to learn about it. The founders of the first common schools in the mid-1800s were actually quite open about this. They were worried that the many Catholic immigrants at the time wouldn't fit into what was then a fairly homogenous WASP country. If they could get the children of these people into a controlled environment for several hours a day for several years, with teachers and subject matter chosen by the state, they could soon be assimilated into the culture. Things like age-segregated classrooms were inspired by the schools in Prussia, a militaristic system that was turning out fine soldier-citizens. (Catholics tended to rebel against this, building a system of parochial schools that survives to this day, although it's mostly been subverted by the values of the common schools.) That's why people think of 50 years ago as a sort of golden age of education, and older people remember schooling so fondly. At that time, the opinion-makers were patriotic, religious, pro-family, mom-and-apple-pie types. Look at the movies they made, and the WWII advertising that would be considered dangerously jingoistic if run today. The schools reflected those beliefs, so people were happy with them. Now the schools reflect the beliefs of our hyper-sexualized, hedonistic, fairly anti-American elite, so naturally the general public that still holds many of those "old-fashioned" values isn't so happy with it. See what I mean? Once you start challenging status quo beliefs, it becomes a habit, and you realize just how much screwed-up data people are accepting by rote. This stuff about the history of the schools isn't any more secret or hard to understand than the effects of carbs on the body, but it does take a minimum of effort to find anything that disagrees with the status quo. > For ASDLC it comes to - The current government recommendations are > utter crap and the above explains why that is. But what really is > best, folks who have genuine expertise disagree. One size does NOT > fit all. That's true; when you mix together "normal people," diabetics, and people with specific food intolerances or allergies, there's no way you can just write down a meal plan that will work for every person. Or if you did, it would be so repetitive no one could stick to it. I do think that a low-carb diet is good for anyone who needs to lose weight, though. As far as I've been able to learn, the only way to remove fat from your cells is to bring your insulin production down and your glucagon production up. The only non-drug way to do that is to bring down the amount of sugar you have in your blood. There are two ways to do that: reduce the amount of sugar you're eating (low-carb); or reduce the total calories you're eating far enough that even if most of it is sugar, it'll be burned up quickly and your insulin will have time to drop back down for a few hours before the next meal (starvation). Some people claim low-carb is just a way to trick your body into eating fewer calories. I see it just the other way around: starving yourself is a way to force your body into the mode that it naturally enters when you low-carb. -- From nobody Fri Aug 24 10:01:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb-ing is tough! References: <86odh1vvw4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <3c3mc3d6bjos7ek2i4tgek9immk4sdst3r@4ax.com> <1rgmc3tioc7oghhoomo9afan7adkb2gq69@4ax.com> <86zm0jutfk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1187901296.633985.68880@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 10:01:36 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkc1rn73.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Doug Freyburger writes: > Or did you see carb levels above that 100 as a 3rd plateau? If > not then we don't disagree on the number of plateaus. I think what you're calling the middle plateau, I was calling a gradual slope. It might be a plateau as far as weight loss is concerned, but for people who track blood sugar, there's a difference between 40g and 50g, even if you lose weight equally well on both. That's the only reason I saw that as more of a slope than a plateau, but I don't disagree with your version. The highest plateau would start at different places for different people, but yes, I see a top plateau where your body is always in high-insulin mode, whether it's being caused by 150g a day or 500g a day. At that level, you're doing damage and gaining weight (unless you're starving yourself), wherever you are in that range. -- From nobody Tue Aug 28 11:31:45 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: food poisoning? References: <46cd8abd$0$18800$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1187877446.020124.155160@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com> <1187973344.249764.198830@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <46cf845b.4061015@news.west.earthlink.net> <5j9gvlF3stuneU1@mid.individual.net> <46cfc8d9$0$26711$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:31:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkbvmxhu.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Jackie Patti writes: > Well, it's concentrated also. Coke syrup was one of the advnatages > of being ill as a child. And loads of comic books. Yeah, the only time we got soda when I was a kid was birthdays and when we were throwing up. Even then, it was from a 2-liter bottle that'd been in the back of the fridge since the last birthday party, so it was bound to be flat. -- From nobody Tue Aug 28 11:43:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: lessons learned References: <%rnAi.55402$Mu5.29692@newsfe15.phx> <46d224dd$0$26700$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <46d2661a$0$26695$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:43:58 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcmjmwxd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 Alice Faber writes: > Jackie Patti wrote: >> em wrote: >> > How do you cook a whole turkey (or a chicken) without stuffing it? >> > (That's the only way I've made turkey in the past.) >> >> Ummm... you DON'T stuff it. That's pretty much all there is to it. >> It cooks a bit quicker and it's a lot juicier cause stuffing pulls >> a lot of the flavor out. > > For a roast whole chicken, I put a quartered onion in the main cavity, > along with a branch of fresh rosemary. A quartered lemon works pretty well too. There's also something called "beer-butt chicken," which is just what you'd think it is. Open a can of beer and "sit" the chicken on it so the beer goes up inside it. It should sit up on the beer can and two feet. Roast or grill the bird, and the steam boiling out of the can is supposed to help keep the chicken moist. I'm a little iffy about the idea of cooking a coated aluminum can inside my food, but it does taste good. -- From nobody Tue Aug 28 11:49:00 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: lessons learned References: <%rnAi.55402$Mu5.29692@newsfe15.phx> <46d224dd$0$26700$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 11:48:59 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4x7mwp0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "em" writes: > How do you cook a whole turkey (or a chicken) without stuffing it? > (That's the only way I've made turkey in the past.) The same way, but without stuffing it. > I thought, by nature, all soups were pretty carby. Other than turkey > and water, what do you put in? Broccoli, cauliflower, green or yellow beans, leeks, cabbage, Brussels sprouts, Swiss chard, peppers, shirataki noodles, mushrooms, a little wild rice, spices, herbs, etc. If you need to thicken it, cream works. I recently got some guar gum for a thickener, but I haven't had a chance to use it yet. -- From nobody Wed Aug 29 19:10:38 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: lessons learned References: <%rnAi.55402$Mu5.29692@newsfe15.phx> <46d224dd$0$26700$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <46d2661a$0$26695$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <86hcmjmwxd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1188333448.537485.231040@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <5jjvb3F3srtogU1@mid.individual.net> <1188392279.158117.148760@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:10:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86veaxkhkx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Jim writes: > Hollywood wrote: >> As an experienced Beer Can Chicken cook, I will provide some >> information: >> 1- you empty half the beer (or whatever, it doesn't have to be >> beer), and it gets Very Hot > Are you saying that the beer doesn't flavor the chicken, that water > would be just as good? Or is there some benefit to seasonings or > flavorings in the liquid? A guy I know tried non-alcoholic beer, and he said he could tell a difference, that it wasn't as good. Maybe the alcohol has some effect. Hollywood, thanks for all the ideas. I'll be trying this more often from now on! -- From nobody Wed Aug 29 19:14:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: lessons learned References: <%rnAi.55402$Mu5.29692@newsfe15.phx> <46d224dd$0$26700$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1188246477.163018.319310@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:14:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6llkhf3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "em" writes: > Earlier in the day, maybe 2pm, I had some corned beef from the > deli. It could have been that but I doubt it. > > Overall for the day, depending on whether there were a few carbs in > the corned beef (which I doubt), I stayed between 20 and 25 carbs > for the day. The corned beef may have more carbs than you think. I've bought corned beef in a bag that you cook at home, and some has injected sugar solution and some doesn't. Almost any processed meat will have some carbs in it, though it may round down to 0g/serving. I'd agree that the bloated feeling more likely came from the peanuts, though. I get the same thing, but it usually doesn't hit me unless I have them a few days in a row. -- From nobody Wed Aug 29 19:25:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: carb list for nuts References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 19:25:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86myw9kgvm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "em" writes: > Anybody have a list of carbs in nuts, *per ounce*, that they could > copy/paste into a post? If not, I'll just look it up myself & post > it sometime. > > All I found on the net was by the cup or T, as follows (fiber > already subtracted): It's frustrating how all the books and lists measure some things in volume, some in weight, and some things in guesstimates like "1/2 medium peach". How accurate is "medium"? Probably varies at least as much as my appetite. The little Atkins carb-counting book I picked up does the same thing. I was looking at pasta the other day, because I was going to a dinner where the host knew I'm diabetic (it's easiest to just tell them that), so she cooked whole-wheat pasta for the spaghetti, since that's great for diabetics, right? (Yeah, I know.) On the same page, the book gives the amount for regular pasta by weight and the amount for whole wheat pasta by volume, so you can't even compare those two almost-identical items! Anyway, as far as I know, you're stuck making up your own lists from the USDA database if you want consistent measurements. -- From nobody Thu Aug 30 09:22:53 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Manual Uribe References: <13dda1jijmgtsd4@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 09:22:52 -0500 Message-ID: <861wdlje4j.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Roger Zoul" writes: > That seems to always be the underlying question for the really large > bed-ridden people: who enables them. They can't get out of bed, so > how is it they can manage to eat so much food to grow to such size? My first thought would be that their glucagon system is broken, the way insulin is in a Type I diabetic. They have to eat to stay alive, and it'd be impossible to prevent *any* energy from being stored as fat; but without glucagon, they can't ever take any fat back out of the cells once it's been stored. Makes sense to me, anyway. -- From nobody Thu Aug 30 15:26:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Manual Uribe References: <13dda1jijmgtsd4@news.supernews.com> <861wdlje4j.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13ddo0bep1jip0a@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:26:35 -0500 Message-ID: <86myw8ixac.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: "Roger Zoul" writes: > :: > ::: That seems to always be the underlying question for the really large > ::: bed-ridden people: who enables them. They can't get out of bed, so > ::: how is it they can manage to eat so much food to grow to such size? > :: > :: My first thought would be that their glucagon system is broken, the > :: way insulin is in a Type I diabetic. They have to eat to stay alive, > :: and it'd be impossible to prevent *any* energy from being stored as > :: fat; but without glucagon, they can't ever take any fat back out of > :: the cells once it's been stored. > :: > :: Makes sense to me, anyway. > > But how'd this latest guy managed to lose 400 lbs? Did he somehow > get his glucagon system fixed? I didn't watch the show, so I have no idea. I've wondered before why the non-production of insulin is somewhat common yet you never hear about the same thing with glucagon at all. I realize today's high-carb diets are making things worse on the insulin side, but it seems like there are a significant number of people who are Type I at birth or soon after. If there's such an affliction on the glucagon side, it's rare enough that I've never heard of it, or those babies don't make it to birth. I assume it'd be hard (impossible?) to survive without any, just as it is to survive without any insulin. Anyway, it's just a thought; I'm not selling a book based on it or anything. But I've wondered the same thing, because Robert Earl Hughes, who held the record for heaviest man in the world for a couple decades, lived about 15 miles from where I'm sitting now and was somewhat related to my brother-in-law. At 1069 pounds, he was way past the point where he could go out and get his own food. I think they had to cut a hole in his house to get him out to bury him. Was someone stuffing him with thousands of calories a day for his entire life? (He only lived 32 years.) Did they ever try a starvation diet, or any diet? I don't know. And to head this off: I'm not trying to make excuses for people here, either. But in these extreme cases, it wouldn't be surprising to find out there was more going on than a lack of will-power. -- From nobody Thu Aug 30 15:30:28 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Letter on Corpulance References: <1188332221.817506.181340@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <13d921834c58m68@news.supernews.com> <1188337241.663845.295140@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1188391351.358075.210130@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1188426921.075332.152290@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1188476775.693510.145720@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 15:30:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir6wix3w.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Hollywood writes: > After a lifetime of struggling, to no avail, with his weight. I > want to reiterate that the man was 66 when he started, and 72 at the > point where he was 152. That's simply amazing. And he did that while continuing to take in a lot of calories from alcohol, and managed it all on his own research and self-testing. Remarkable. -- From nobody Thu Aug 30 19:10:45 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: carb list for nuts References: <86myw9kgvm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13ddoekeegbt356@news.supernews.com> <0h3ed317jq8eari45hvju1pp33doal7dpu@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:10:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqcoimwq.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:26:48 -0400, "Roger Zoul" > wrote: > >>em wrote: >>. >>:: >>:: Even worse is the way they do things in stores with the prices. I >>:: really don't give a damn how much meat or cheese costs per ounce. >>:: Often times, you multiply out the price/oz and it doesn't match what >>:: they're charging. A real crock! The difference between .28/oz and >>:: .35/oz is $1.12 a pound. Not "oh, there's only a few pennies >>:: difference between this and that." Jerks. Marketing bullshit. >> >>Where do you shop? The stores I shop in never price meat and cheese per >>ounce as none buy them that way. Things that come in cans typcially will >>have price / oz, because that how they are commonly used. I'd object >>strongly to a store pricing meat & cheese on a per oz basis. Deceptive. > The additional "price per ounce" or "price per unit" information used > to be great for comparison shopping, but not so much anymore -- not at > my store, anyway. They've messed with the info so much, you still > have to do the mental math to figure out which is the better buy. Yeah, I'll be standing there looking at two brands of cheese slices, and one will give the price per ounce and the other will give price per pound. (These are for comparison shopping between items that are priced by the package.) I can multiply by 16, but if it's only going to save me a few pennies, is it really worth it? -- From nobody Fri Aug 31 07:14:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: carb list for nuts References: <86myw9kgvm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13ddoekeegbt356@news.supernews.com> <0h3ed317jq8eari45hvju1pp33doal7dpu@4ax.com> <86bqcoimwq.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:14:21 -0500 Message-ID: <867inbj3z6.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "em" writes: > Aaron Baugher said: >> Yeah, I'll be standing there looking at two brands of cheese >> slices, and one will give the price per ounce and the other will >> give price per pound. (These are for comparison shopping between >> items that are priced by the package.) I can multiply by 16, but >> if it's only going to save me a few pennies, is it really worth it? > > That's what *they* want you to think. Fact is those "few pennies" > turn into dollars per pound pretty damn quickly. Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't. I'm pretty cheap, so I do multiply it out and often there's no difference. I don't think they're trying to trick me. After all, if one item is $.49/ounce and the other is $6.28/pound, how is that supposed to make me buy the more expensive one? If I can multiply, I'm going to figure it out; if I can't, I'll be guessing and just as likely to pick the cheaper one. More likely two different people made the price tags for those items, and one thought per-ounce would be more useful and the other thought per-pound would be. Never assume a conspiracy when incompetence is enough explanation. -- From nobody Tue Sep 4 09:04:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Meridia -- does it work? References: <46db1aec$0$6374$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46db4fa8$0$18932$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46db56c8$0$18816$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46dbed2b$0$6824$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <46dc21a0$0$32554$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46dc4432$0$6893$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <46dc5a5e$0$6379$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46dc65b3$0$30539$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <46dc92ab$0$31861$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:04:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir6qa5nc.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 "teena" writes: > Wait a minute -- isn't low-carbing supposed to make you not have an > appetite? I read that. That's true, right? That's a common side-effect, but it's not a given, and it's not really the point. That's often the mainstream's take on low-carb, because it allows them to explain its success while hanging onto their calories-uber-alles beliefs -- low-carb is just a gimmick that reduces appetite so you'll eat less, so they were right all along. (Of course, even if that were true, what's wrong with a gimmick that *works*?) Low-carbing (or any diet or drug, for that matter) works to the extent that it switches your blood chemistry from fat-storage mode to fat-burning mode. It's really that simple. I continue to have a healthy appetite on low-carb. The difference is that when I get hungry, it's a controllable sensation, not an all-consuming need that must be satisfied before I can function properly. On the USDA-recommended diet, hunger has me wandering the kitchen in a daze looking for quick food, like a wino looking for a bottle. > So, if that is true, then how can you say a person has a > psychological addiction if the cure is not psychological but > biochemical? I don't see how you could ever separate the two. Our bodies are electro-chemical machines, including the brain. Every thought or desire you have is made up of biochemical impulses, so it stands to reason that any psychological problem has a chemical solution, if you can figure out what it is. If an alcoholic wants a drink because certain messages are being passed between certain neurons, a chemical that blocks that messages should stop the addiction. By the same token, every chemical problem may have a psychological solution. A positive attitude can do wonders for your health. As a practical matter, though, it's probably easier to kick-start improvement on the physical side. It's easier for most people to start taking a pill or change their diet than to suddenly start being cheery and positive all day long. -- From nobody Tue Sep 4 09:18:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Meridia -- does it work? References: <46db1aec$0$6374$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46db4fa8$0$18932$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <5k2ikjF1r7j8U1@mid.individual.net> <46dc2437$0$32510$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46dc2f70$0$28894$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:18:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejhea4zw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "teena" writes: > It had "diet" in the name and that is how I did my search. I did > notice the low carb thing, but I figured I would find people who had > experience with Meridia in a diet newsgroup. Basic Usenet etiquette is to lurk in a newsgroup for at least two weeks before posting (or read the last two weeks through Google Groups, I suppose) and read the group's FAQ if there is one. That would have told you that folks don't really cotton to diet drugs in these here parts. > I am not looking for points. I was looking for advice, for help. > Isn't this supposed to be a "support" newsgroup? Sure, but there are many different ways to support people, and you'll get the full range here, from touchy-feely to tough-love. When it appears that you picked the group almost randomly without regard for its charter, you may also get a subset of tough-love, called screw-you. > Tell me, how well has the advice "eat less and exercise more" worked > for you? Was it an epiphany when you heard it that changed your > life? Or, was it just the same old advice you had heard all your > life from judgmental people that didn't help you one bit? > We all KNOW that is what we are supposed to do. EVERYONE knows that. Not me; I consider that a recipe for failure in most cases. -- From nobody Tue Sep 4 09:21:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hard to find ingredients References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:21:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86abs2a4uh.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "FOB" writes: > CarbQuik, http://www.netrition.com/tova_carbquik_page.html I'll second the recommendation for CarbQuik. I've only made the biscuits so far, but they're quite good, and I'm looking forward to using it for other things. The pizza recipe on the box looks great. -- From nobody Tue Sep 4 09:32:51 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do fat people in this NG have a main problem in their life thatcould be a cause for the eating disorder? References: <46dc7730$0$417$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <46dc7dfb$0$8758$426a74cc@news.free.fr> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:32:51 -0500 Message-ID: <86642qa4bw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 Hueyduck writes: > Sometimes I sum up the way I eatlike this: "I eat like a diabetic". > This explains everything to my friends(no sugar in your house? no > rice cispies, no coke , no cookies, no bread?). That's what I thought I'd do too, but it turns out people have an even worse understanding of that than low-carb -- even some people who are diabetic themselves. After telling people I'm diabetic, I've been offered everything from baked potato to whole-wheat spaghetti to sugar-free pudding in a normal pie shell with Cool Whip. It hasn't helped as much as I expected. On a related note, why does it bother people so much to see a fat guy (I don't think fat women get the same treatment) not eating much? Are they afraid I just turned anorexic after a lifetime of pudgy? Do they assume I don't like their food, since a guy my size would *obviously* be stuffing himself if it were good? If my skin-and-bones cousin doesn't eat anything at all at a family gathering, no one will even notice; but if I don't go back for thirds, I get people reminding me there's plenty more. It's so backwards. I've gotten to where I can just smile and say I've had plenty, but it's still annoying to have to go through that every time. -- From nobody Tue Sep 4 09:38:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Health warnings on stairs could cut obesity "New Scientist.com" References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 09:38:02 -0500 Message-ID: <861wdea439.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 82 Jim writes: > Rsearchers found a way to get more pedestrians to take the stairs, > rather than the lifts [elevators]. If enough of this is done, some > weight will be lost. That last sentence is a big leap. People may just eat a little more to make up the difference, or exercise a bit less in other parts of their lives. > ======================================================================== > http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12576-health-warnings-on-stairs-could-cut-obesity.html > > > * 18:28 31 August 2007 > * NewScientist.com news service > * Mick Hamer > > > Health warnings printed on flights of stairs, encouraging people to > walk rather than take the elevator, could prove a potent weapon in the > battle against obesity, researchers say. > > Over the course of a six-week study researchers monitored the > behaviour of 82,000 pedestrians. > > Messages like "take the stairs" and "seven minutes of stair climbing > daily protects your heart" were printed on stair risers in a UK > shopping centre. This led to a 190% increase in the number of people > passing up the stairs each day. > > Simply decorating the risers with attractive patterns made no > significant difference to the number of people using the stairs, > suggesting that the increase was entirely due to the healthy messages. > > The messages also seemed to have a knock-on effect, increasing the > number of people who took nearby flights of stairs by more than half, > even though these stairs did not carry health messages. > > Encouraging signs > > The researchers behind the study, Oliver Webb of the University of > Kingston and Frank Eves of the University of Birmingham, both in the > UK, even found an increase of 25% in people walking down the staircase > – although the messages are not visible from the top of the > stairs. Webb and Eves say this suggests that stair messages would > encourage people to develop the habit of taking the stairs. > > Beckie Lang of the Association for the Study of Obesity in the UK > welcomes the study. "It's great that it makes people think about what > they are doing." > > But she also suggests complementing the positive message on stairs > with negative ones in lifts: "You would have a reinforcing effect if > you get the message in both places, and catch people who don't want to > feel lazy." > > > Four day's food > > According to the World Health Organisation, one billion adults are > overweight, and 300 million of those are obese. About 22% of British > adults and about 30% of American adults are obese, according to the US > Centers for disease Control and Prevention. > > Webb and Eves estimate that an 80-kilogram man walking up a flight of > stairs eight times a day for a year would burn off the equivalent of > four days' intake of food. > > "Even small changes can make big differences," says Lang. "People > often think they have to make drastic changes, but that isn't really > the case." > > Lang also argues that the design of buildings often encourages > obesity: "We want to make the healthy option the most attractive > option, the default option, rather than the most difficult." > > Journal reference: American Journal of Health Promotion -- From nobody Tue Sep 4 16:11:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do fat people in this NG have a main problem in their life thatcould be a cause for the eating disorder? References: <46dc7730$0$417$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <46dc7dfb$0$8758$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <86642qa4bw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <46dd98c7$0$19603$426a74cc@news.free.fr> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:11:15 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqci87bg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 Hueyduck writes: > Now, I even found an easier way to let people know that thay won't > find bread ion my house: I leave the ketostix in plain sight in the > bathroom. Works like a charm. Wouldn't they have to know what Ketostix *are* in the first place for that to help? How many people who don't know a diabetic shouldn't eat noodles would recognize Ketostix? > This is quite true. I guess that one assumes that if you are "big > boned", you must eat much more than the skinny cousin (wich, on a > primary level is true). And so, if you don't take seconds, it just > means that you are shy or too polite to ask. That's probably a big part of it. I'm pretty quiet in groups of people, so maybe they think I'm not eating as much as I'd like because I'm shy and don't want to look like a pig. (People misunderstand introversion even more than diabetes.) I know it's all very well-intentioned. > I have an answer that is a bit harsh, but I try say it with a smile. > When someone askes me again and again if I rrrreally don't want to > finish the bowl of watchcallit, on the third time, I smile and I say > "The fact that you're asking me three times will not change the fact > that I'm not hungry anymore, you know". When the food in question isn't someone's pride and joy, I've started to use, "If I eat that, I'll probably fall over and die." That gets people's attention, at least. -- From nobody Tue Sep 4 16:15:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New Study Suggests High-fructose Corn Syrup(soda) Linked To Diabetes References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:15:08 -0500 Message-ID: <864pia874z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 53 Jim writes: > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm > > They found a lot of the kinds of reactive chemicals in HFCS sweetened > sodas that are also found in the blood of individuals with > diabetes. It is alleged that this is bad for you. Of course, they have to blame it on some chemical that's specific to HFCS, because it couldn't *possibly* be that huge amounts of concentrated sugar contribute to diabetes! Tomorrow's bulletin: New study suggests that fire makes things hot. > A few extracts below: > ====================================================== > > In a laboratory study of commonly consumed carbonated beverages, the > scientists found that drinks containing the syrup had high levels of > reactive compounds that have been shown by others to have the > potential to trigger cell and tissue damage that could cause the > disease, which is at epidemic levels. > > In the current study, Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D., conducted chemical tests > among 11 different carbonated soft drinks containing HFCS. He found > 'astonishingly high' levels of reactive carbonyls in those > beverages. These undesirable and highly-reactive compounds associated > with "unbound" fructose and glucose molecules are believed to cause > tissue damage, says Ho, a professor of food science at Rutgers > University in New Brunswick, N.J. By contrast, reactive carbonyls are > not present in table sugar, whose fructose and glucose components are > "bound" and chemically stable, the researcher notes. > > Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with > diabetes and linked to the complications of that disease. Based on the > study data, Ho estimates that a single can of soda contains about five > times the concentration of reactive carbonyls than the concentration > found in the blood of an adult person with diabetes. > > Ho's group is also probing the mechanisms by which carbonation > increases the amount of reactive carbonyls formed in sodas containing > HFCS. They note that non-carbonated fruit juices containing HFCS have > one-third the amount of reactive carbonyl species found in carbonated > sodas with HFCS, > > This research was reported August 23 at the 234th national meeting of > the American Chemical Society, during the symposium, "Food Bioactives > and Nutraceuticals: Production, Chemistry, Analysis and Health > Effects: Health Effects." -- From nobody Wed Sep 5 10:31:55 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New Study Suggests High-fructose Corn Syrup(soda) Linked To Diabetes References: <864pia874z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:31:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5r56sd0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 Jim writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> Jim writes: >> >>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm >>> >>>They found a lot of the kinds of reactive chemicals in HFCS sweetened >>>sodas that are also found in the blood of individuals with >>>diabetes. It is alleged that this is bad for you. >> Of course, they have to blame it on some chemical that's specific to >> HFCS, because it couldn't *possibly* be that huge amounts of >> concentrated sugar contribute to diabetes! >> Tomorrow's bulletin: New study suggests that fire makes things hot. > > If you had read the actual article you would have understood that > there is something about the combination of HFCS AND CARBONATION that > create this alleged class of harmful reactive chemicals.... that are > also found in the blood of individuals with diabetes. You're right; I should have read the article. I wouldn't be surprised at all if that were true, but it still seems like it would be hard to measure the effect of something like that compared to the huge amount of sugar it comes with. The signal to noise ratio would be so high. My apologies, though, for jumping to conclusions. If it gets people to avoid HFCS, that can't be a bad thing. I drove by McDonald's the other day, and they were promoting a 42-ounce soda! I wonder why 42 ounces; maybe that's all that can fit in a car's drink holder without making it top-heavy on turns. -- From nobody Wed Sep 5 10:46:18 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hard to find ingredients References: <86abs2a4uh.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:46:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy1t6rp2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 10 Has anyone tried FiberFit from Netrition.com? It's a fiber supplement sweetened with sucralose. I'm not that concerned about the fiber, but apparently people are using it as a way to get Splenda without the sugar fillers that you get in the packets. The reviews are all very positive, but it sure is expensive. -- From nobody Wed Sep 5 11:14:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Meridia -- does it work? References: <46db1aec$0$6374$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46db4fa8$0$18932$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <5k2ikjF1r7j8U1@mid.individual.net> <46dc2437$0$32510$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46dc2f70$0$28894$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86ejhea4zw.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <46ddd4cb$0$6409$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:14:28 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqch6qe3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 42 "teena" writes: >>> We all KNOW that is what we are supposed to do. EVERYONE knows >>> that. >> >> Not me; I consider that a recipe for failure in most cases. > > Really? Interesting. Why? Why do I consider it a recipe for failure? Because I have eyes and ears. I can look at and talk to people who have tried to "eat less and exercise more" and failed to lose weight, some numerous times. Why does it fail? Lots of reasons, depending on the individual. Calories from food are hard to measure accurately; the USDA allows 10% error on labeling, and with fresh foods you're on your own. Calories from exercise are also hard to measure. First of all, you burn hundreds of calories just being alive and maintaining a 98.6 temperature. If you go for a 30-minute jog today, how many calories is that? Will that affect the calories that you would have burned the rest of the day if you hadn't jogged? Might you walk a little slower around the office that day because you're worn out? Might your metabolism slow down a bit? There are so many factors, and as Dr. Bernstein points out when he talks about the law of large numbers, if you're measuring any of those factors wrong, there goes your supposed calorie-based diet in a hurry. Then for those of us with blood sugar problems, which I'd guess includes most obese people to some extent, cutting back on calories while continuing to eat a typical diet of 300g/day of carbs is like pushing a really *big* rock uphill. While rabid dogs bite at your heels. All that'll do is kick your cravings into overdrive, so you'll need enormous amounts of will power around the clock to stay on your diet. It's amazing that anyone's able to pull it off even temporarily. -- From nobody Wed Sep 5 14:38:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New Study Suggests High-fructose Corn Syrup(soda) Linked To Diabetes References: <864pia874z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86k5r56sd0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13dtne3fd4uhu16@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:38:36 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps0w6gxv.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 69 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > :: Jim writes: > :: > ::: Aaron Baugher wrote: > :::: Jim writes: > :::: > ::::: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm > ::::: > ::::: They found a lot of the kinds of reactive chemicals in HFCS > ::::: sweetened sodas that are also found in the blood of individuals > ::::: with > ::::: diabetes. It is alleged that this is bad for you. > :::: Of course, they have to blame it on some chemical that's specific > :::: to HFCS, because it couldn't *possibly* be that huge amounts of > :::: concentrated sugar contribute to diabetes! > :::: Tomorrow's bulletin: New study suggests that fire makes things hot. > ::: > ::: If you had read the actual article you would have understood that > ::: there is something about the combination of HFCS AND CARBONATION > ::: that create this alleged class of harmful reactive chemicals.... > ::: that are also found in the blood of individuals with diabetes. > :: > :: You're right; I should have read the article. I wouldn't be > :: surprised at all if that were true, but it still seems like it would > :: be hard to measure the effect of something like that compared to the > :: huge amount of sugar it comes with. The signal to noise ratio would > :: be so high. > I'm not getting why you think this? These are chemical compounds > which can be measured, studies, and analyzed. Why do you think the > SNR would be so high as to prevent this? In order to really have a > learned opinion on it, one would need to have experience in doing > what the researcher did when doing his study. Not prevent it, just make it difficult. Any time you have a substance A that's always consumed together with substance B, that's going to make it harder to pin any effects on substance A, especially when substance B is already known to cause those effects. (Of course, they don't really make any claims about the effects of carbonyls, except to say they're "believed" to cause tissue damage.) I've read the article now, and I'm underwhelmed. Ok, HFCS soda has a lot of carbonyls, and so does the blood of diabetics. Fine. But do elevated carbonyls contribute to diabetes, or does diabetes raise your carbonyls, or neither, or both? It doesn't touch on that at all. Maybe if I were a learned researcher I'd already know the answer to that question. Since a diabetic's blood is sometimes overloaded with sugar, and so is a soda, it wouldn't shock me if both were producing these carbonyls. Maybe there are a few diabetics out there drinking non-diet sodas on a regular basic, but surely when they say "Reactive carbonyls also are elevated in the blood of individuals with diabetes," they aren't just talking about those people. There was no "some" before "individuals" in that sentence. I'm not really even sure why they brought diabetics into the discussion, now that I think about it. The article's conclusion seems to be that we should keep drinking just as much sugar, but make it HFCS. Or if we can't bring ourselves to give up our cheap HFCS, at least add some tea chemicals that reduce the carbonyls. Whoopie. -- From nobody Thu Sep 6 09:01:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New Study Suggests High-fructose Corn Syrup(soda) Linked To Diabetes References: <864pia874z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86k5r56sd0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13dtne3fd4uhu16@news.supernews.com> <86ps0w6gxv.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:01:35 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcm76gg0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 Jim writes: >> The article's conclusion seems to be that we should keep drinking >> just as much sugar, but make it HFCS. Or if we can't bring >> ourselves to give up our cheap HFCS, at least add some tea >> chemicals that reduce the carbonyls. Whoopie. > No, that isn't the conclusion I intrepreted. I can't see anywhere > where they are recommending HFCS or to keep drinking just as much > sugar. You made these things up, Aaron. Or you parse the words a lot > differently than most people. They never recommended that anyone cut back on sugared drinks, only that HFCS be replaced with table sugar or possibly that chemicals from tea be added to lessen the carbonyls. To me, that implies that simply cutting back on these drinks doesn't even need to be considered as an option. Of course, diabetics shouldn't be drinking any of these things in the first place, even if they can be made carbonyl-free, so that's where the article loses me a little. Why mention that diabetics have high carbonyl levels at all, if you aren't going to draw a comparison or claim some causation? The study itself is pretty simple: carbonated HFCS drinks have high levels of carbonyls. That's interesting, and may be useful to know, but the article kind of wanders around from there without giving much reason for where it's going. I suppose my knee jerked because we see so many studies where carbs are treated like an inert substance, like all the studies of dietary cholesterol or fat where they completely ignore how many carbs the participants were eating, as if they have no effect. At first glance, this looked like another one of those, but I was wrong. The study doesn't make any claims about the effect on the human body at all; only the article about the study does that. -- From nobody Thu Sep 6 09:13:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New Study Suggests High-fructose Corn Syrup(soda) Linked To Diabetes References: <864pia874z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86k5r56sd0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13dtne3fd4uhu16@news.supernews.com> <86ps0w6gxv.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13dvn3ojcrliha2@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:13:27 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4wv6fw8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Roger Zoul" writes: > This is interesting: > > http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2007/08/24/new_study_suggests_hfcs_linked_to_diabet Yes it is, but I still wonder about what that other article said about diabetics having elevated carbonyl levels. They didn't say "some diabetics." If that's true of all diabetics, and not just the ones who are currently consuming carbonyls, that raises more questions. If an adult diabetic who's been low-carbing for years has elevated carbonyls, are they still hanging around from when his pre-diabetic days when he was drinking Mountain Dew every day, or is he producing them somehow? Either way, can we reduce them by drinking tea, the way they say some of the carbonyls in HFCS can be blocked with tea chemicals? That'd be useful to know. If corn prices keep going up due to the current fascination with ethanol, maybe HFCS will become too expensive to use, and make this a moot point. :-) -- From nobody Thu Sep 6 09:25:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Lean Genes - Discovered in Mice and Earthworms References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:25:12 -0500 Message-ID: <868x7j6fcn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 149 Jim writes: > Ever wish you were like some "intrinsically thin" people, who seem > never to put on fat? Maybe there is a genetic reason they are thin, > a "Thin Gene". New research may have discovered the "Thin Gene" in > animals. There's amazing stuff going on in gene research. (I'm no expert, just someone who's interested in the subject.) It doesn't get nearly as much press as it deserves, because when you talk about genetic differences you're often talking about race and that's the most dangerous topic there is; but the discoveries are coming fast and furious. It seems self-evident that body shape is genetic to a great extent, but it's still useful to track down the specific genes if we want to find ways to treat it directly. Now if they could just find the gene for laziness, I'd be all set.... That reminds me: about a month ago, I wrote about how almost all the kids at the county fair were quite slender, so I wondered where the childhood obesity epidemic was. Well, I was at Burger King this weekend, and now I know. > Reference: Suh et al.: "Adipose is a conserved dosage-sensitive > anti-obesity gene." Publishing in Cell Metabolism 6, 195--207, > September 2007 DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2007.08.001. > > --- sprinkled quotes from news release ----- > > The gene involved is known a Adipose (Adp). > > Animals without a working copy of the gene, known as Adipose (Adp), > become obese and resistant to insulin, while those with increased Adp > activity in fat tissue become slimmer, the researchers > found. Moreover, the gene's "dose" seems to determine how slender an > animal turns out to be. > > "We made mice that expressed Adp in fat-storing tissues, and lo and > behold, what happened"" Graff said. "They were skinny--weighed less > with markedly less fat--and their fat cells were smaller." Smaller fat > cells usually translate into better metabolic function, he said, > including better blood sugar control. > > "It's a striking conservation of genes that restrain fat," he > said. While fat storage is an important mechanism for getting through > lean times, "too much fat in times of plenty has deleterious > consequences." > > The search for molecules underlying weight gain and poor blood sugar > control "has taken on additional urgency due to the recent dramatic > increase in obesity and diabetes," Graff said. But in a modern world > where many people have essentially unlimited access to food, it's a > wonder that even more people aren't overweight, he added. If this gene > plays a similar role in humans, "it may be that some people's Adp > works very well." > =============================== Full News Release Below =============== > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904122443.htm > > > > Gene Therapy, Genes, Mice, Life Sciences, Diet and Weight Loss, Genetics > Anti-obesity Gene Keeps Mice And Worms Lean > > Science Daily — Researchers have revealed an antiobesity gene that has > apparently been keeping critters lean during times of plenty since > ancient times. The gene, first discovered by another team in flies, > also keeps worms and mice trim, according to the new report in the > September issue of Cell Metabolism. If the gene works similarly in > humans, the findings could lead to a new weapon against our burgeoning > waistlines, according to the researchers. > > > Animals without a working copy of the gene, known as Adipose (Adp), > become obese and resistant to insulin, while those with increased Adp > activity in fat tissue become slimmer, the researchers > found. Moreover, the gene's "dose" seems to determine how slender an > animal turns out to be. > > "Maybe if you could affect this gene, even just a little bit, you > might have a beneficial effect on fat," said Jonathan Graff of the > University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, noting that people > often become overweight very gradually--adding just one or two pounds > a year. "After 30 years, that's a lot." > > While worms and flies are routinely studied as models of human health > and disease, that trend has been less true in fat biology, Graff > said. That's because unlike mammals, worms and flies store their fat > in multifunctional cells rather than in dedicated fat cells known as > adipocytes. However, those differences didn't preclude the possibility > that the animals might use similar genes to accomplish their fat > storage goals, he added. > > In the new study, Graff's team found that worms lacking Adp activity > became fat, although they appeared to be otherwise healthy and > fertile. The researchers scoured the genetic database in search of > related genes and found one with "tremendous" similarity in flies. > > Indeed, another scientist, Winifred Doane, had found a naturally > occurring strain of plump flies in Nigeria almost 50 years ago that > carried a mutation in their Adp gene. The flies lived in a climate > marked by cycles of famine, where they may have benefited from being > highly efficient at fat storage, Doane had suggested. > > To explore Adp's function even further, Graff and his colleagues > produced a strain of mutant flies like those that Doane had found > years earlier. They found that the mutant flies were indeed fat and > also had trouble getting around. Flies with only one copy of the Adp > mutation fell somewhere in between the fat and normal flies, evidence > that the gene's effects are "dose dependent," they reported. > > Treatments that increased Adp in the insects' fat tissue led them to > lose weight, evidence that the gene operates within fat cells > themselves. In mice that expressed the gene in fat-storing tissues, > the same patterns emerged. > > "We made mice that expressed Adp in fat-storing tissues, and lo and > behold, what happened"" Graff said. "They were skinny--weighed less > with markedly less fat--and their fat cells were smaller." Smaller fat > cells usually translate into better metabolic function, he said, > including better blood sugar control. > > "It's a striking conservation of genes that restrain fat," he > said. While fat storage is an important mechanism for getting through > lean times, "too much fat in times of plenty has deleterious > consequences." > > The search for molecules underlying weight gain and poor blood sugar > control "has taken on additional urgency due to the recent dramatic > increase in obesity and diabetes," Graff said. But in a modern world > where many people have essentially unlimited access to food, it's a > wonder that even more people aren't overweight, he added. If this gene > plays a similar role in humans, "it may be that some people's Adp > works very well." > > The researchers include Jae Myoung Suh, Daniel Zeve, Renee McKay, Jin > Seo, Zack Salo, Robert Li, Michael Wang, and Jonathan M. Graff of > University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. > > This work was supported by awards to JMG from the NIH and the NIDDK. > > Reference: Suh et al.: "Adipose is a conserved dosage-sensitive > anti-obesity gene." Publishing in Cell Metabolism 6, 195--207, > September 2007 DOI 10.1016/j.cmet.2007.08.001. -- From nobody Thu Sep 6 09:30:00 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hard to find ingredients References: <86abs2a4uh.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86fy1t6rp2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <8ZCDi.34$i92.11@newsfe02.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 09:29:59 -0500 Message-ID: <864pi76f4o.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 "UsenetID" writes: > "Aaron Baugher" wrote: >> Has anyone tried FiberFit from Netrition.com? It's a fiber supplement >> sweetened with sucralose. I'm not that concerned about the fiber, but >> apparently people are using it as a way to get Splenda without the >> sugar fillers that you get in the packets. The reviews are all very >> positive, but it sure is expensive. > I have used it for several years. I won't be without it. A little > bit goes a long way, and a large bottle (can't remember size...12 > oz? 16 oz?) lasts me several months. Excellent, thanks. It is a 16 oz. bottle (although the one in the picture is 4 oz., which they don't carry). $18 for something that lasts months doesn't sound bad at all. -- From nobody Thu Sep 6 11:45:13 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What Jillian Michaels said about diet "Biggest Loser" References: <1189035926.717752.306060@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:45:12 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6lb4uav.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Lankerbig219 writes: > "Experiment to find your own diet. Some foods are obvious no-nos: > trans fats, processed food, white sugar and excessive alcohol. Beyond > that, though, everyone's body is different. "Some people thrive on a > strictly high-protein diet, while others do great with fruits, grains > and beans," says Jillian. "Sometimes it takes a lot of trial and error > to find the right combination of foods. And, as a trainer, I've > learned that you also have to take human frailty into account. If you > can't bear the idea of giving up bread, choose whole grain and try to > eat it with some protein." The protein, she explains, will slow the > breakdown of the bread so its carbs won't cause your blood sugar to > spike and then-as so often happens-crash, making you hungry again for > something starchy." > She is saying we can be flexible and do not have to eliminate bread > from our diet. Just make sure it is healthy bread (whole-wheat). I > wonder if she is going to advise this when the new season starts on > 9/11? I watched most one of the previous seasons, and they didn't say anything specific about diet at all, except vague things about eating "lighter." I feel lighter after eggs and bacon than I do after potatoes, so that makes sense to me. When they did show people eating, I remember seeing fish, asparagus, steak -- the same kinds of things I eat. I'm sure they weren't on a low-carb diet, but with the enormous amounts of exercise they do, they may very quickly burn up whatever carbs they do take in. -- From nobody Fri Sep 7 08:54:04 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New Study Suggests High-fructose Corn Syrup(soda) Linked To Diabetes References: <864pia874z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86k5r56sd0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13dtne3fd4uhu16@news.supernews.com> <86ps0w6gxv.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86hcm76gg0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13e06gus94slk83@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:54:04 -0500 Message-ID: <86myvy4m4j.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 45 "Roger Zoul" writes: > :: They never recommended that anyone cut back on sugared drinks, only > :: that HFCS be replaced with table sugar or possibly that chemicals > :: from tea be added to lessen the carbonyls. To me, that implies that > :: simply cutting back on these drinks doesn't even need to be > :: considered as an option. > > You're not looking at it from the POV of the researcher. He sees > his work as something that can contribute to slowing down the spread > of diabetes, but he's not a diabetes researcher per se. He's more > into chemistry and nutrition, etc. Cutting back on sugared drinks > is simply not a part of his mindset and is not the point of his > work. It's about HFCS & carbonation for him. This angle is much > different than yours or mine. I'm actually not talking about the research so much as the article about the research. I don't expect the researcher to make recommendations. He was measuring the presence of carbonyls in HFCS and non-HFCS drinks, and the effects of other added chemicals on those carbonyl levels. He seems to have done that job well. All the rest, the aside about carbonyls in diabetics and the suggestions of how we could lower carbonyl intake without changing our sugar intake, appear to have come from the article writer. > I think the whole point of this article is that the man-made HFCS > may not be such a good thing, especially when consumed in soft > drinks. I thought one point of the article was to suggest that the harmful effects of HFCS drinks come specifically from the carbonyls, so if the carbonyls could be reduced, the HFCS itself may be harmless. That's what the talk about adding tea chemicals was about. > Moving to real sugar, those not good for a diabetic, might slow the > spread of the disease even though it might not slow obesity. I don't disagree with you there; I wouldn't be surprised at all if HFCS were more harmful than other sugars, whether it's because of the carbonyls or other factors. -- From nobody Fri Sep 7 08:57:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: New Study Suggests High-fructose Corn Syrup(soda) Linked To Diabetes References: <864pia874z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86k5r56sd0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13dtne3fd4uhu16@news.supernews.com> <86ps0w6gxv.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13dvn3ojcrliha2@news.supernews.com> <86d4wv6fw8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:57:07 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir6m4lzg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 Jim writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> "Roger Zoul" writes: >> >>>This is interesting: >>> >>> http://www.accidentalhedonist.com/index.php/2007/08/24/new_study_suggests_hfcs_linked_to_diabet >> Yes it is, but I still wonder about what that other article said >> about >> diabetics having elevated carbonyl levels. They didn't say "some >> diabetics." If that's true of all diabetics, and not just the ones >> who are currently consuming carbonyls, that raises more questions. >> > > Aaron, this website cites the same Science Daily information by the > same author. It is the same study. The author was Chi-Tang Ho, Ph.D. I realize that. I was talking about the two *articles* about the study, not the study itself. The first *article* you posted claimed that diabetics have elevated levels of carbonyls, but didn't say why that is. Since it's presumably not because diabetics are sucking down lots of HFCS drinks, I wonder what the reason is. That's all. -- From nobody Fri Sep 7 09:02:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What Jillian Michaels said about diet "Biggest Loser" References: <1189035926.717752.306060@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:02:16 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejha4lqv.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "Cubit" writes: > "Lankerbig219" wrote in message >> She is saying we can be flexible and do not have to eliminate bread >> from our diet. Just make sure it is healthy bread (whole-wheat). I >> wonder if she is going to advise this when the new season starts on >> 9/11? > (Where is JC?) > > Bread is not low carb. She and the show haven't recommended a low-carb diet, although having watched some of it, I'd guess the people on there eat a diet much lower in carbs (at least by percentages) and higher in protein than they used to. With the enormous amount of exercise they do every day, they can keep more sugar burned off quickly and stay in that glucagon-driven fat-burning mode that low-carbing gives you without having to go as low on carbs. -- From nobody Tue Sep 11 09:49:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What's in a Hospital IV? References: <46e07a60$0$24586$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <8S%Di.31990$RX.22206@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> <46e09cfd$0$4102$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46e0b017$0$24574$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <46e134ae$0$19623$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <46e153a9$0$24568$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:49:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86ps0p2r5o.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "arkienurse" writes: > Don't get me started about a diabetic diet. We are killing our > patients that haven't found out about lowering carbs. I work with a > nurse who is T1, and buys into the whole diabetic diet. Often, like > every other day at least, her breakfast is DONUTS. And she always > has pie or cake with her meals. ??? How do people like this survive? Do they just inject lots and lots of insulin? I'm only borderline T2, but if I go high-carb for more than a few meals, I feel like crap. I guess maybe if I were T1 and assumed I had to inject myself anyway, I might be willing to inject more so I could eat whatever treats I wanted, but doesn't insulin cost money? -- From nobody Tue Sep 11 10:00:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What's in a Hospital IV? References: <46e0800e$0$24591$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13e317ja21kg48e@news.supernews.com> <5kfmfuF3c4v3U1@mid.individual.net> <46e2a8a5$0$24565$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:00:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir6h2qn9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Jackie Patti writes: > Pat wrote: >> No, it's part of the general anti-doctor fad that I see on this >> newsgroup. It's anti-intellectual, anti-medical training, etc. > There are good doctors and bad doctors. My current internist is > pretty good. Nevertheless, he doesn't know half what I do about > diabetes. Why should he? I've been studying it for 20 years as my > *only* medical interest. No one can be an expert on *everything*. > But there's no reason for *my* health to suffer because of what > someone else doesn't know. Apparently only those who have been certified in a subject by government-approved institutions can be trusted. All other knowledge is useless. If you spent four years in college with a 3.0 grade-point average getting a degree in subject A, but studied subject B all your life as a hobby, you're qualified to make life-and-death decisions about A, but any opinions you have about B are those of a crackpot. -- From nobody Tue Sep 11 10:10:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low carb rocks - and a tip References: <1189316133.753088.208860@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:10:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejh52q6u.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 kev984 writes: > I have lost 40 lbs following a low carb diet. I love it - and I have > kept it off for over a year. > > I have a tip to add. > > I recently learned something about calorie shifting. Often when we > diet, if we decrease our calories, it can slow our metabolism. > > If we vary our eating, with some high consumption days, we can keep > our metabolism high, and burn calories better. > > What I learned is to have a high calorie day at least every 10 or so > days, to keep matabolism strong. I have a high-calorie day every day, so that's 10 times better, right? > I have more at my blog: http://everything-is-spam-at.blogspot.com/ > Come see what I've got and tell me your favorite tips. You can have that one for free. -- From nobody Tue Sep 11 10:17:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Substitutes for flour question References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 10:17:29 -0500 Message-ID: <86abrt2pva.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "Me" writes: > I wonder if anyone can advise me as to which substitute for flour is > most appropriate for which type of foods. I see in George Stella's > first book he uses soy flour and wheat or oat bran, many people say > they use almond meal and I believe there is a comment by Dr Atkins > to use protein powder if you aren't using his low carb baking mix. > Are all of these alternatives interchangeable for any type of food > or is one more suited for pizza dough and breads and another more > suited for something sweeter? Is it all just a matter of personal > taste or is there some rule to using flour substitutes? It depends both on personal taste and what you're using it for. If you're coating meat with it, ground pork rinds or parmesan cheese can work quite well, but they wouldn't work as the main ingredient in pizza-dough. For biscuits and other bread-like foods, Carbquik works well, and I happen to think it tastes pretty good too. I made some cookies with almond flour, and they were good, but awfully rich, so next time I plan to mix almond flour and Carbquik half-and-half. > I am especially interested in which low carb flour substitute would > make a good white sauce. I really want to make cauliflower and > cheese similar to baked macaroni and cheese made with white sauce. I'm planning to try Carbquik in a white sauce to pour over Swiss Chard this weekend, so I'll try to remember to report back how that works. -- From nobody Wed Sep 12 17:26:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Substitutes for flour question References: <86abrt2pva.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:26:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy1j1pwy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "Wizzzer" writes: > "Aaron Baugher" wrote: >> I'm planning to try Carbquik in a white sauce to pour over Swiss >> Chard this weekend, so I'll try to remember to report back how that >> works. > How about it Aaron, how did the white sauce turn out? When I posted this on Tuesday, I meant this coming weekend. Unfortunately, I don't have a time machine. :-) As it turns out, the guar gum I ordered arrived, so I probably won't try a white sauce with CarbQuik after all. Instead, I'm off to find a white sauce recipe using guar gum as the thickener. -- From nobody Fri Sep 14 15:40:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: More on Taubes Book References: <46E9517E.2090004@SPAM-revealed.net> <13einicqmb6dfc7@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:40:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7f9m14e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Jim wrote: > :: It is unfortunate that he will be open to easy attack as a "Mere > :: Newswriter, not a trained MD". > In reality, though, it makes little difference. The mainstream will > overlook anyone and anything that doesn't agree with the party line. > Taubes' points need to be made again and again and again, until > people finally listen. The case must be made. Yep. Dr. Bernstein went back to school for an extra degree just so the health professions would have to let him play in their sandbox, but the mainstream press still doesn't seem to be knocking down his door. > I ordered the book. It's on the top of my wish list for my next order. The guy deserves to sell a lot of copies, after going out on a limb like that in the NY Times (and it was an excellent article besides). -- From nobody Mon Sep 17 09:45:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cannot find Glycemic Index resources on the Internet??? References: <1189891940.479528.101350@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:45:28 -0500 Message-ID: <863axdjqpj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Worthless Person writes: >>You must not have looked very hard. > That sentence is my favorite reply by the way, I always expect it. I > almost feel lost without it being said. If you hear it a lot, perhaps it's true? Just a thought. I haven't followed a GI or GL diet, but from what people have said here, I think a problem with them is that a given food doesn't always have the same glycemic effect on all people. As I understand it, the whole point of eating low-GI/GL foods is to prevent spikes in blood sugar, and that varies from person to person. So rather than basing your diet on a list of foods, you may need to get a blood glucose tester and measure the effects of different foods on your BG. The lists you've already found can get you started, but for long-term success you may have to fine-tune it according to your own reactions to foods. -- From nobody Mon Sep 17 10:06:48 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: LOW-CARB DIET References: <1189923392.786415.23750@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:06:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7f5ib5l.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 bren writes: > What is so good about a low-carb diet? It works. You don't have to starve yourself. You can eat lots of tasty, healthy, natural, filling food that most people see as a guilty pleasure, if not an outright sin. It often has other happy side-effects which kick in before the weight is even lost: improved cholesterol numbers, elimination of heartburn or acid reflex, control or prevention of diabetic complications, more energy, less or no acne, less tooth decay, and stabler emotional outlook. I've seen all those benefits in myself except perhaps the first one, and I might be able to count that one too if I'd ever had my cholesterol checked. But for example: when eating a typical, USDA-recommended high-carb diet, I got acid reflux so bad it'd often wake me up at night. On low-carb, I have no acid reflux, no indigestion, no heartburn, NONE. And that happens to me within a few days of starting the diet. -- From nobody Mon Sep 17 10:07:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fat Loss 4 Idiots References: <1189930269.947469.226110@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <46ed563c$0$24294$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:07:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzptib3t.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 c writes: > mabrules111@hotmail.com wrote: >> Found this nifty site, It is great it explains things nice and easy, >> and it is easy to keep to its plan. Defiantly worth a look. URL is: >> http://spam.us/56r5 >> > > I "defiantly" choose not to click your link. That's my favorite spell-checker-induced typo. -- From nobody Wed Sep 19 14:46:00 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Bread question. References: <13f273ikk0r2d7c@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:45:59 -0500 Message-ID: <866426l9qg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Briton" writes: > Hi all. Roughly how many carbs would there be in an average slice of > wholemeal bread? It depends. I've seen anywhere from 10-25g/slice on labels. I assume you're not buying this bread packaged, or you'd just look on the package. If you're making it yourself, you'll have to add up the carbs in the ingredients and divide by the number of slices. If you're buying it unlabeled, like fresh from a deli, you're probably out of luck unless they can tell you. Or you could look for a packaged loaf that seems similar, and go with its numbers, guessing on the high side. Or the short answer: too many. Too many to have even a single sandwich on a low-carb plan, unless you're into maintenance and eating well over 50g/day. There are low-carb breads that claim to have around 5g/slice, so that could be manageable. -- From nobody Thu Sep 20 08:01:55 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Alternate Day Fasting Diet, next "breakthrough"? References: <13f2hdlqjm5href@news.supernews.com> <1190218946.187051.250930@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:01:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86myvhwkvy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Doug Freyburger writes: > Some of the hormones in the various feedback loops use the recent > highest dietary intake somehow. For example the type of leptin > released by the liver somehow reflects the highest one day carb > intake of the last couple of months. Eat a high carb day and you > can eat excessively low carb for weeks without cutting leptin > levels. T3 thyroid follows a similar pattern over weeks - It's why > weight lifters do cyclical plans. I've been meaning to learn more about this leptin/T3 stuff you keep mentioning. Is there a good source you'd recommend, or should I start googling? Thanks, -- From nobody Fri Sep 21 09:01:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dr. Dean Edell promotes HIGH Carb Diet References: <1bf5f3loj34n6qbfmvoh31bbq5unfs61nh@bbb.org> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:01:06 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkb0unh9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 116 Worthless Person writes: > Dr. Dean Edell promotes HIGH Carb Diet. I realize you're just a troll, but hey, I'm bored and don't feel like starting work yet this morning. > Dr. Dean Edell says on his radio show that he regularly eats, and > has his entire life, a high carb diet. He also says he weighs about > 5 pounds within his college weigh. He says he is able to do this by > exercising and also portion control and calories control. Ok, so regular exercise, and he controls his portions and calories. Remember that; it'll come up again later. > He says people who eat cardboard low card diets are doomed to fail > because it is ALMOST as boring as a low fat diet. You do get a quick > benefit at first but that levels off, plus the bad breath and > constipation. You also have to take loads of supplements that his > diet doesn't require. If you're eating cardboard, you're doing it wrong. I love the way they always have to admit the "quick benefit at first" from low-carb, because everyone's *seen* that for themselves. By now, everyone has a relative, friend, or co-worker who lost a lot of weight quickly on low-carb. If he just said low-carb doesn't work at all, people would know that was a lie and turn off the radio, so he has to turn it into the usual backhanded compliment. Low-carb doesn't cause constipation, unless you're also being too low-fat and just eating a lot of dense, high-protein foods. At the risk of being too graphic, fat greases the works, so to speak. I've gone for weeks of very low-carb without getting any fiber worth counting, and had no trouble at all. If you do think fiber has anything to do with it, many formerly high-carb products are made lower-carb by replacing some of the carbs with fiber, and low-carbers who eat vegetables and fruits gravitate toward the high-fiber ones, so many low-carbers probably get more fiber than the average person. The only supplement I take is potassium, and I get that from the salt I'd be putting on my food regardless of diet. Low-carbers eat nutrient-rich foods; there's no reason they'd need "loads of supplements" compared to anyone else. The bad breath thing doesn't exist, so kudos to him for not getting *everything* wrong. That can be a slight issue when going very low-carb, but it's easily dealt with and is usually only an issue during the early, heavy ketosis phase. A temporary problem that can be covered up with a few mints seems like a small price to pay for getting your weight down and staving off diabetes, heart disease, and death. In the long-run, eating low-carb means better dental health, and bad breath from someone with dental problems is a *lot* worse than ketosis breath. > Dr. Dean also mentions how his HIGH CARB diet allows him to eat at > ANY restaurant at any time and not pick and choose because he knows > he has portion control and exercise to back him up. Whoopie. There are restaurants that aren't practical in the first phase of low-carbing (although almost every place serves a salad), but again, that's temporary. There's no restaurant out there without something that will fit on the maintenance diet that I'll be on a lot longer than the temporary weight-loss phase. Again, note how he's always having to restrict his portions, which is big fun when you're going out and paying for a meal. Guess he doesn't order the buffet very often. See how much he has to think about portions and exercise, just to be able to eat the same things cows do? > Also a reminder is that humans have a limited amount of time on > earth that people have very LITTLE control over especially when you > consider things well beyond your control like car wrecks, fires > etc. Why note enjoy life like that people did who lived thousands of > years be you? Say who what now? If that last line means what I think it's supposed to mean, I *am* enjoying "life like that people did who lived thousands of years be" me -- including the same foods. That's kind of the point. Only in the last century, and especially the last 30 years, have we tried to subsist almost entirely on carbs while trying to cut out all animal fats. Who's enjoying his food more: me, eating a steak without guilt; or Dr. Edell, eating a controlled portion of his high-carb meal of choice and planning his next bout of exercise? If you want to be a fatalist and figure you might as well eat whatever you want because you might die tomorrow, that's fine, but what does that have to do with any of this? If that's your philosophy, you sure won't be counting portions. > You MIGHT get 10-20 years more time but for that you will live a > life of tinkering and misery, almost like a factory working spending > untold hours per working preparing and preparing some more. Yeah, whatever. The guy measuring portions for the rest of his life sounds like he's the one doing the most tinkering. > Try that parking spot at the farthest point from where you work and > walk that distance, do that same anywhere you shop. When you do get > ready to check-out, find the LONGEST line. Try time find ways to > make yourself stand longer and walk longer. Then EAT what you like > in moderation. Wow, it's so easy! Wish I'd thought of that. > ENJOY and throw down those chalk tablets and burn the books... Yeah, especially all those books and tapes Dr. Edell puts out, I'm sure. Chalk tablets? You lost me there. -- From nobody Fri Sep 21 09:12:32 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: evolutionary approach to diet References: <1190309767.424579.203100@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <1190325011.513585.68170@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:12:32 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcloumy7.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 Doug Freyburger writes: > From the interview: >> If you read the last Atkins book, he talks about eating fish, not a >> ton of saturated fat. > This crap about a ton again. Do authors EVER read the books they > comment on? Don't they understand how stupid it makes them sound? Yeah, I noticed that too. No low-carb book has ever pushed a "ton" of saturated fat; at most they've said not to be so afraid of it. And although I haven't read the latest Atkins book, I really doubt that it pushes fish to the exclusion of other meats the way she is here. Oh well, if Senators can almost pass an immigration bill that they've never read, I guess a psychologist can bad-mouth diets she doesn't comprehend. It's good to see more people coming around to the idea that refined carbohydrates are bad, but boy, they sure don't want to let go of their anti-fat beliefs, do they? They'll grudgingly give up some of their carbs; but offer them some butter, and look out! -- From nobody Fri Sep 21 09:31:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dr. Dean Edell's diet works All the time though References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:31:11 -0500 Message-ID: <86abrgum34.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 Worthless Person writes: > Calories count people. Well said. > I think I'll go have an Ice cream and Die a whole 4 years earlier > than you, oh my the horror. Your life must not be very enjoyable, if four more years wouldn't mean much to you. Personally, I'll take every extra day I can get. Life is awesome. > I highly suspect 100% of the low-carb crowd also belong to the > Global Warming crowd and are Liberals too. Nope. Knuckle-dragging conservative here, who thinks global warming is a natural cycle that humans have little or no effect on. But I still enjoy talking to low-carb liberals and leftists, because it shows they can be open-minded enough to challenge the status quo and do their own thinking, so there's hope for them. I'm not so sure about you. -- From nobody Fri Sep 21 15:56:30 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dr. Dean Edell promotes HIGH Carb Diet References: <1bf5f3loj34n6qbfmvoh31bbq5unfs61nh@bbb.org> <86lkb0unh9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:56:30 -0500 Message-ID: <861wcrvitd.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 9 Aaron Baugher writes: > The bad breath thing doesn't exist, so kudos to him for not getting Er, I meant "does exist," of course. -- From nobody Fri Sep 21 16:14:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How rare is OK? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:14:47 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsuju3eg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "em" writes: > I remember something, somewhere, someplace saying that chicken and > pork had to be heated to a certain temperature to kill the various > "germs", because there are diseases that chicken and pigs carry that > humans can catch, but that with beef, that is not the case (except > BSE, I suppose). I've eaten some pretty rare meat in the past. What > is the limit? I'm not interested in eating raw meat, but then again, > I thought raw eggs were gross until I tried them. The numbers have come down over the years. A meat thermometer is the only way I can do a good job on the grill, so I always cook chicken to 165, pork to 150 (I think; I'd have to check that one to be sure), and beef to 145-150 (for medium-rare to medium). The main concern with hogs used to be trichinosis, but that's almost unheard of in US-raised hogs now. Brucellosis has been completely wiped out (at least here in Illinois and neighboring states). Likewise with chicken and eggs (and dairy), a lot of the old diseases have been wiped out by cleaner raising and butchering practices. Of course, with some of our food coming from overseas nowadays, and much of it unlabeled as such, all bets are off if you don't know where your meat is coming from. Those diseases aren't so rare everywhere. And even if the animal itself is healthy, you have to trust everyone who handles it along the way not to infect it somehow. The more food you can get from local farmers you know, the better. > On another note, is it possible to cook beef in the microwave? > (Newly single guy here, so.... sorry if this is a dumb question.) I think you can cook anything in the microwave; the question is whether you'd want to. I've browned hamburger in one before, and that worked okay, although it ended up more boiled than browned. You might check your nearest thrift store or used book store; they usually have a bunch of microwave cookbooks that people threw out when they realized all they ever use the thing for is popcorn, leftovers, and TV dinners. -- From nobody Mon Sep 24 09:05:04 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What's your XXXX level? References: <13f80v58abf6u9c@news.supernews.com> <1190473103.573226.326080@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <13fap9v8c121p6a@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 09:05:00 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzpkw44z.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "Roger Zoul" writes: > If you had to labor everyday to just survive, an ear of raw corn > would pose no problems. The problems start when we sit all day and > there is no need to worry about where the next meal is coming > from. Also, in the techno-age we live in, we can make cheap products > from corn. And a century ago -- heck, even twenty years ago -- sweet corn wasn't nearly as sweet as it is now. Any gardener who gets seed catalogs has seen the escalation from sweet corn to super-sweet to extra-super-sweet and so on. One of these years I expect to open the catalog and see "Sweeter than the candy corn you get at Halloween!" I don't know whether the overall carb content has increased, or if they've just converted more of the starch into sugar, but I wouldn't be surprised if the total carb load has gone up. The same thing is true of tomatoes and a lot of other vegetables; a lot of work goes into making the latest varieties sweeter. -- From nobody Wed Sep 26 16:35:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie looking for recipes? References: <0PidnSuOaY8SimTbnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@comcast.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:35:34 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5qd2jq1.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "Master-Wrench" writes: > Is anyone sharing recipes here, or can recommend sites for low-carb > recipes? Will be starting diet on Monday, so any induction related > ideas would be most helpful. Thanks There are recipes posted here many days, and there have been a ton of them in the past. Search on groups.google.com for "alt.support.diet.low-carb steak grilled", for example. Also, whatever low-carb plan you're following (since you mentioned induction, I assume you have an Atkins book) almost certainly includes a bunch of recipes and meal plans with it. Feel free to share any you come up with, too. I've also picked up several low-carb cookbooks at thrift stores for $1 or less. Aside from actual recipes, you can improvise. Cook some meat, put it on a plate, put some green leafy vegetables next to it, and eat. Vary the meat between steak, burgers, pork chops, ham, brats, and fish; and the vegetable between lettuce, broccoli, asparagus, summer squash, and swiss chard. Combine those different ways, and you've got dozens of different meals right there. (Melt butter over everything, of course.) I've also decided I need a "default meal." One thing that gets me in trouble is when I'm hungry but "nothing sounds good" and I don't have a meal planned. That's when I start to get tempted to blow off one meal. To head that off, I've decided my default meal is now four fried eggs. That way, if I'm hungry and looking around the kitchen and nothing sounds good, I already have a plan of action: I turn the skillet on, drop in four eggs, wait five minutes, eat them, and get on with my life. -- From nobody Wed Sep 26 16:41:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: carbs consumed by animals present in meat? References: <5ls22lF9mqifU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:41:15 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy112jgk.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "em" writes: > "Sir Benjamin Nunn" wrote in message > news:5ls22lF9mqifU1@mid.individual.net... >> Is the makeup of meat affected by the diet of the animal? > > Check out the USDA database for info on carbs, protein, etc. > > http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/ > > I have no idea what the little guys eat, but they sure are tasty :-) Great MST3K line from Crow, when the narrator of a short is talking about studies of animal intelligence: "How do animals learn? Well, as long as they learn to taste good, I don't really care." -- From nobody Thu Sep 27 10:56:54 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: questions about low-carb diets References: <1190676355.258612.59510@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1190737731.768439.245730@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <1190747505.213666.18530@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1190757638.935405.29530@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <5lvch0Faje6fU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:56:54 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqbo14qh.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 me@privacy.net writes: > So fresh pineapple is pretty much just all "candy" > then.... nothing but sugars? Pretty much. 1/4 cup of pineapple has about the same net carbs as 3/4 cup of strawberries, or 1/2 cup of most other berries or watermelon. The more popular commercial fruits, like apples, oranges, grapes, bananas, and pineapple, are basically bags of sugar with a few vitamins thrown in. When people recommended fruits like oranges for getting nutrients and fiber, that's because they simply aren't considering better options like berries. -- From nobody Fri Sep 28 10:45:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diet References: <1190860187.095960.45010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <5m1mm0Fb9t7gU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:45:40 -0500 Message-ID: <86641uztcr.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "Loco~Motion" writes: > "Pat" wrote in message > news:5m1mm0Fb9t7gU1@mid.individual.net... >> >> wrote in message >> news:1190860187.095960.45010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com... >>> I've never cut back on carbs to lose weight and I know that every >>> person is different. Has anyone lost any weight off just cutting carbs >>> alone? >> >> Get to the library, used book store, or new book store and get a >> copy of Dr. Atkins' book. Once you've read it, you will understand >> the concept. It's not just cutting back on carbs. It's an entire >> system. > What about those of us who can't get out there and walk several > miles a day anymore. Since my accident I've stuck to low carbing > and already GAINED back 10 lbs. Now what? Exercise is a wonderful thing for many reasons, but it's not *required* for maintaining or losing weight on low-carb, so there's some good news for you. You really should have at least one of the popular low-carb books, though, to make sure you're doing it right. If you're confined at home and can't get out to your local used book store, maybe you could get a friend to go look for you, or try eBay or Amazon.com. You might also call your local library; they probably have copies of 'Protein Power' (my favorite) and DANDR, and I know the libraries here will deliver to people who aren't mobile enough to get there. Good luck healing from your accident. -- From nobody Sat Sep 29 08:54:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diet References: <1190860187.095960.45010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <5m1mm0Fb9t7gU1@mid.individual.net> <86641uztcr.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 08:54:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86ve9tinkg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "Loco~Motion" writes: > Thank you I already have those books. I can't drink the oil > suggested by Atkins because it made me gag. What do you folks do > when you can't walk long distances anymore? Well, I've never been unable to walk, but I'm lazy and (usually) have a sedentary job, so the result is the same, especially in hot or cold weather. What I do is keep my carbs down and my protein reasonable, which keeps my insulin down, which prevents my cells from storing fat and promotes glucagon, which encourages my cells to give up fat. Exercise may enhance some of those steps in a roundabout way, but it's not required. (I'm very interested in what Gary Taubes has to say on this topic in his new book, by the way. Others have already challenged the fat and cholesterol status quo, but I haven't seen anyone take on the exercise-for-weight-loss dogma.) Anyway, in your case, since you can't walk, exercise is a moot point; you're going to have to focus on diet. Maybe you could post your meals from a couple days and get people's opinions on them. If you track your meals with something like fitday.com, you could point us to them. Possibly you've been getting more carbs than you thought all along, but when you were walking several miles a day, you were able to keep them worked off. I'm not sure what the "oil suggested by Atkins" is, so I don't know about that. I'm taking a fish oil supplement, but I started doing that to improve my omega-3/omega-6 ratio, for other reasons than weight loss. It's not the tastiest stuff in the world, but it's not bad -- flavored with lemon, but still a bit fishy. -- From nobody Sat Sep 29 09:17:09 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diet References: <1190860187.095960.45010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <5m1mm0Fb9t7gU1@mid.individual.net> <46fd6833$0$15937$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:17:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6khimjf.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 64 "Loco~Motion" writes: > "Jackie Patti" wrote in message >> How many carbs do you eat? > About 20 to 50 a day. Less than that and constipation becomes a real > issue. I eat a lot of greens and low-carb veggies. Does "about 20 to 50" a day mean sometimes it goes over 50? That's getting high enough to put some people back in fat storage mode, especially if you're insulin resistant. For constipation, there seem to be two options: increase fat or eat lots of fiber. I think there are no-net-carb fiber supplements, but I haven't tried them. I just try to get at least 60% of my calories from fat, and it's never a problem. I've gone for weeks eating virtually no fiber at all, and been fine in that regard. Constipation seems to creep in when a diet goes very heavy on protein and/or non-fiber carbs, which makes intuitive sense since those foods tend to be very dense. >> Are you on a ketogenic diet or just >> generally skipping the white stuff? Are you low enough that >> appetite suppression kicks in? > I'm just low-carbing. I gave up the white stuff as you said above. I > was walking up to 3 miles a day, 5 times a week on my thradmill and > losing up to 2 lbs a week. As soon as I was unable to get the > exercise the weight loss reversed and I started to slowly gain. I'm > sitting steady at 165 lbs now for several months. How many is several? You were losing weight at a pretty fast clip before (great job, by the way!), so it wouldn't be surprising if your body stopped for a while to regroup, especially if you were healing from an accident. If you seem stuck now, sometimes people try to break a plateau with a drastic change in diet for a set time before going back on low-carb; either going high-carb for a bit or doing a meat-fast or fat-fast. I think the Atkins book talks about breaking plateaus. If you post a typical day's menu, you might get some insights about what you're eating. Not saying you're stupid or can't comprehend the books, but sometimes a fresh look helps. >> How many calories do you eat? If you overeat enough, you'll gain >> weight even on a low-carb diet. > I don't know. I read you don't count calories on a low-carb diet. > I honestly couldn't even guess. You *don't* count calories on a low-carb diet -- unless you're following the diet properly for an extended period of time and still not losing weight. Then you may have to look at other things besides your daily carb intake, although I wouldn't put calories at the top of that list. First, I'd look for hidden carbs in the foods you're eating; things like sugar alcohols that don't seem to be as no-carb for some people as they're supposed to be; food intolerances, etc. Counting calories is sort of a last resort for when you've checked everything else. -- From nobody Sat Sep 29 17:21:53 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Nice Reader Review of Taubes New Book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" References: <13foph36536v3c1@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:21:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86myv5i03j.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 44 "Cubit" writes: > "Jim" wrote: >> We are the experimental animals..... we are the long term test >> animals. > I wanted to nit-pick on this, given the bad science, politics, and > commercial incentives that have formed our food supply. However, in > effect, you are right. People aren't patient enough for a 20 year+ > study before a food is added to the mix. > There is also the factor that we inherited many foods and additives > that were added 50 to 100 years ago and presumed to be OK. Yeah, if you read stuff from the early-to-mid 1900s, you get a strong vibe of "Science is The Answer." There was no greater authority than a man in a white coat and spectacles. Large manufacturing companies were trusted because they were booming and that's where the jobs were. People envisioned a future where houses were mass-produced and planted in rows in neat little rows, food came in heat-and-serve packages, and plastics made everything better. If it was invented by scientists and made in a factory, it had to be good. Eventually people started to realize that polyester clothes really aren't comfortable, TV dinners suck, and suburbs are boring; and in the backlash to all that, we got hippies and low-fat. > I don't think the creators of trans fats even dreamed of long term > problems with it. Being test animals sort of implies intent on the > part of the testers. I don't think there was such an intent, just > arrogance. > Being the long term test animals is the unintended reality. I agree; I don't think anyone was trying to poison us. They really believed they were doing the right thing in pushing those products. Their beliefs may have been influenced less by the facts and more by a prejudice against "luxury" foods like meat and butter, but they were still honest beliefs. -- From nobody Sat Sep 29 17:25:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Carbalose vs. Carbquick From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:25:49 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir5thzwy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Hi All, My fiance and I recently got some Carbalose Flour from Netrition, because while we've had good luck with Carbquick, it does have trans-fats. The carbalose (from which Carbquick is made) doesn't have the trans-fats, but it also doesn't have some of the leaveners, so I assume we can't just substitute one for the other. There are a lot of Carbquick recipes on the net and very few for carbalose, though, so does anyone know how to convert recipes from one to the other -- what to add to carbalose flour to get Carbquick? Or alternatively, know a source for carbalose recipes that I'm not finding? Thanks, -- From nobody Mon Oct 1 10:45:43 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diet References: <1190860187.095960.45010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <5m1mm0Fb9t7gU1@mid.individual.net> <5m4emgFbla6iU1@mid.individual.net> <5m70c9Fc2m3tU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:45:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86ve9q7s9m.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "Loco~Motion" writes: > I'm low-carbing, not following the Atkins plan which from what I read > is rather extreme. Many of us have designed our own low-carb eating plans by combining concepts from Atkins, Protein Power, and others; and there's not necessarily anything wrong with that. But if you gain ten pounds, you might have to take a break from the Loco~Motion Low Carb Plan, whatever that involves, and stick to one of the tried-and-true ones for a while. > No swimming where I live. I'm not sure about aerobics. The accident > precludes things like riding bikes. The exercises you suggest don't > burn many calories unless done for hours at a time. They're more > fitness oriented, not weight loss. Walking uphill at full speed on a > treadmill really burns the calories. If you want a hard workout, check out the exercises at Body by Fish: He sells tapes, but has full descriptions and pictures of the exercises for free on the web site. Most of them take no equipment, and they *will* kick your ass. Some of them look like they'd be doable with a leg brace. -- From nobody Mon Oct 1 10:58:30 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Diet References: <1190860187.095960.45010@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <5m1mm0Fb9t7gU1@mid.individual.net> <86641uztcr.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86ve9tinkg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 10:58:30 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6ke7ro9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Loco~Motion" writes: > Well in my case the exercise was working wonders! One month I lost > almost 11 lbs. So there was definitely a connection between the > walking and the weight loss. A connection, perhaps, but probably not the causation you're assuming. As Gary Taubes recently discovered when he tried to find the research behind that belief , no one's ever been able to show that exercise causes weight loss, and it hasn't been for lack of trying. (I thought it was fascinating that no one believed that before about 1970, yet today it's a truism. I'd also never thought about the implications of the phrase "work up an appetite" before. Hmm.) It's at least as likely that your low-carb diet caused you to burn fat, which gave you more energy, which caused you to want to get out and walk it off. Now that you can't find ways to expend the energy (and it sounds like you still want to), it's getting stored again. It's a very different way of looking at it, that takes some getting used to. > Atkins recommends drinking oil when you hit a plateau. It's supposed > to get you started again. He doesn't say why or how much or what other changes to make? I haven't read any Atkins books all the way through, but that seems odd. You seem to be picking up little bits of Atkins here and there without all the context. If he recommends that, I'd assume it's as part of a fat fast, not just in the sense of adding fat calories to what you're already eating. But again, I haven't read it; I think I'd want to read it and understand the point before I started sipping oil. -- From nobody Mon Oct 1 11:25:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Carbalose vs. Carbquick References: <86ir5thzwy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:25:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86myv27qex.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 48 "FOB" writes: > Okay, here's what CarbQuick contains: > > Carbalose Flour (Enzyme-Enriched Wheat & Wheat Protein, Wheat Gluten, Wheat > and Vegetable Fiber, High-Protein Wheat Flour, Canola Oil, Salt, > Emulsifiers, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid, Sucralose, Calcium Propionate), Palm > Oil, Buttermilk Powder, Baking Powder, Egg White Solids, Lecithin, Salt, > Natural & Artificial Flavors. > I don't see where the transfats you claim come from. Interesting. The box I have in front of me says: Ingredients: Carbalose flour (enzyme-modified wheat, vital wheat gluten, wheat fiber, high-protein wheat flour, vegetable fiber, soy oil, salt, dextrose, emulsifiers, enzymes, ascorbic acid, sucralose, calcium propionate), *partially hydrogenated soy oil*, buttermilk powder, baking powder, egg white powder, lecithin, salt, natural and artificial flavors. We got this box a few weeks ago from Netrition, but I don't know how old it actually is. Could they have changed the recipe recently? > But that said, you will need to add some baking powder to the recipe, > and salt. Depends what you are making what else you need to add. I > would just start with plain old recipes and use the Carbalose instead > of regular flour and some artificial sweetener instead of any sugar. That's what I gathered, sort of. The bag says to use it in place of ordinary flour, but I've seen suggestions online that say to increase the baking powder/soda, because it doesn't rise as much as ordinary flour. Guess some experimentation is in order. > I use CarbQuick in my muffins but the Carbalose flour would probably > do me just as well since I add milk (or yogurt), butter, eggs, baking > powder and salt. The CarbQuick is only a small part of the total > muffin recipe so these items that it contains wouldn't be enough. I > don't think the flour was available when I started making the muffins, > will have to order some and try it. Aside from the trans-fat concerns, it's also about a dollar/pound cheaper than CarbQuik. -- From nobody Mon Oct 1 12:01:03 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: questions about low-carb diets References: <1190676355.258612.59510@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1190737731.768439.245730@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <1190747505.213666.18530@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1190757638.935405.29530@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <5lvch0Faje6fU1@mid.individual.net> <86bqbo14qh.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 12:01:03 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir5q7os0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 me@privacy.net writes: >>The more popular commercial fruits, like apples, oranges, grapes, >>bananas, and pineapple, are basically bags of sugar with a few >>vitamins thrown in. When people recommended fruits like oranges for >>getting nutrients and fiber, that's because they simply aren't >>considering better options like berries. > So berries...all kids of berries.... are MUCH better > fruit options than any fruits above apples, oranges, > grapes, etc? > IOW..... should I eliminate apples, oranges, grapes, > etc form my diet totally ad replace with berries only? Yes, in general, if you're trying to low-carb and/or control blood sugar. Not that you can't *ever* have the others. If you're cutting up apples for the kids and you eat a couple slices, that shouldn't blow your diet as long as you count the carbs (and as long as you aren't highly sensitive to sugary foods). It's more a question of "spending" your carbs where they make you the happiest. If I can eat 1/4 cup of Tasty Food A or 3/4 cup of Tasty Food B, I'm going to go with B almost every time, especially if B is also higher in vitaminy goodness. But once in a while I might get a hankerin' for A and settle for that 1/4 cup. -- From nobody Mon Oct 1 16:39:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Opposition Speaks : "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs" claimed to be nonsense References: <13g22n6qeogkv26@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2007 16:39:46 -0500 Message-ID: <86ve9qldjx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Roger Zoul" writes: > So, now it's the researcher against the science writer (is that a fair > desciption of Taubes?)...next it will be the associations. Poor > lonely little Taubes! BTW, is he a low carber? I'm pretty sure he mentioned in one of his articles/interviews that when he started studying all this, he went on a low-carb diet himself (to improve his blood/cholesterol numbers, I think) and had good results, which encouraged him to get into it further. > My copy of his book should arrive today. I won't have time to read it > front to back quickly, though. Shoot! My fiance beat me to ordering it, so now I'll have to wait until she finishes it, darn it. I'm also interested in "The Brain Trust Program," by Larry McCleary. It's all about improving yourself in areas related to the brain -- memory, migraines, mood, etc. -- and according to a (very long) review on Amazon, he stresses a low-carb diet as a major part of the program. -- From nobody Tue Oct 2 11:45:56 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low HDL cholesterol, even when LDL levels are low, is cardiovascular dynamite, new TNT analysis shows References: <13fqapre6km9le2@news.supernews.com> <%MiLi.9468$JD.7820@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> <1191261234.347252.22660@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:45:56 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4vxh3cr.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Doug Freyburger writes: > Drs Eades get the science wrong here and there. Eventually they > reverse their opinions when it's clear they got something wrong. I'd heard they revised their thinking on some things since Protein Power, which made me wonder if they offered an Errata sort of document to follow up on it, that a person could print out and keep with the book. Guess I should go ask them on their site. -- From nobody Tue Oct 2 11:56:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: carbs consumed by animals present in meat? References: <5ls22lF9mqifU1@mid.individual.net> <1190721287.803831.318090@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <46f93e73$0$15931$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1190897486.340802.97440@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <46fbae0d$0$15916$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13fpva06h6nml71@corp.supernews.com> <46fd6782$0$15937$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13fsjb559n54rb6@corp.supernews.com> <46ffef6f$0$15918$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13g1locajkmej35@corp.supernews.com> <47016100$0$15922$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 11:56:14 -0500 Message-ID: <868x6lh2vl.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Jackie Patti writes: > RRzVRR wrote: >> I hear you and can understand how crossing over to taking insulin >> could be dramatic. > No, it was just stupidity. Insulin is absolutely no big deal. The > shots hurt way less than the poking-your-finger business for bg > testing. Really? Wow. That's hard for me to accept, because every time I've gotten a shot it hurt a lot more than poking my finger does. Are insulin shots less painful than most other shots for some reason? -- From nobody Wed Oct 3 11:16:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low HDL cholesterol, even when LDL levels are low, is cardiovascular dynamite, new TNT analysis shows References: <13fqapre6km9le2@news.supernews.com> <%MiLi.9468$JD.7820@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> <1191261234.347252.22660@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> <5md8bhFcn2huU2@mid.individual.net> <1191333001.859418.184610@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <470355be$0$15912$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:16:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzp8fa1i.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 Jackie Patti writes: > I never quite "got" why Atkins was so popular. I think his books were > muddled and confusing for the average reader and annoyingly > hand-waving for the science-minded. He wasn't the first to suggest > low-carb and he wasn't the last. But he's the one more people follow > as far as I can tell - he's like the "head" of low-carb. I figure one big reason was that he named his book "New Diet Revolution," which immediately told people what it was: a diet plan, and likely an unconventional one. "Protein Power" sounds more like an instruction manual for weightlifters, and "The Schwarzbein Principle" sounds more like a German grammar textbook. Switch the covers of DANDR and one of those other books, and that other plan might be "the" low-carb plan today. > IMO, the biggest thing Atkins brought to the low-carb world was the > idea of induction. To me, that is probably his most useful idea. My > personal reaction to sugar is very much like a drug addict's so I > largely benefit from a detox strategy. I think induction is the other main reason Atkins got so popular. Atkins as a whole plan is really pretty complicated, with the ladders and trying to increase carbs 5g/week and so on; but induction -- which is probably as far as most dieters read anyway -- is pretty simple: eat from this short list. Simplicity is always appealing, probably even more so to people who have tried a lot of diets. The fact that it's fairly restrictive probably also makes it seem more powerful than a plan that says you can eat any foods as long as you count the carbs. -- From nobody Wed Oct 3 11:27:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Opposition Speaks : "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs" claimed to be nonsense References: <13g22n6qeogkv26@news.supernews.com> <86ve9qldjx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1191335115.626880.226890@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:27:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86przwf9j8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 Doug Freyburger writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> >> I'm also interested in "The Brain Trust Program," by Larry McCleary. >> It's all about improving yourself in areas related to the brain -- >> memory, migraines, mood, etc. -- and according to a (very long) >> review on Amazon, he stresses a low-carb diet as a major part of the >> program. > When I first read the 1993 edition of the Atkins book before I > started low carbing in 1999 just before the 1999 edition came > out, I read his claim that low carbing tends to cure migraines > but he didn't know why. My thought was "Yeah, right. It > slices, it dices, you can even fish with it and mend your socks > with the handy adapter." But that was 8 years ago and in that > time the only migraine I've had was during a month extremely > far off the wagon. Yeah, I come off like an evangelist sometimes when I start telling people all the things that low-carbing has done for me, but it really is a long list. I get headaches so rarely now that I forget to even mention that particular blessing. The only thing low-carbing hasn't fixed or improved for me yet is snoring; and since being overweight often contributes to snoring, it might take care of that eventually too. -- From nobody Wed Oct 3 11:42:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Carb Counting & Package Labels References: <48CMi.114626$xZ2.72900@newsfe10.phx> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2007 11:42:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86lkakf8u6.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "em" writes: > What is the deal when a package is labeled as having 1g of carbs, 2g, > etc? Does 1g mean >= 1 and <1.5? Or does it mean >= 1 and <2? I'm > thinking that foods marked 0g and <1g can be less of a problem than > foods marked 1g/serving. Maybe that 1g actually goes up to 1.9, > meaning that 3 servings of such-and-such, at 1g/serving, could be much > closer to 6g than 3. Anybody have any insight on this? Thanks! -- Mike .5 <= "1g" < 1.5 In other words, "1g" means greater than or equal to .5, and less than 1.5. Normal rounding. However, labels are allowed up to 10% error, so that really makes the range from .45 to 1.65. Not a big deal when you're dealing with small numbers, but like you say, the difference can add up when you're eating several servings of something. And that's if everything's correctly labeled. I've seen Consumer Reports tests that showed things like canned soup having 2-3 times the sodium they claimed. Not that CR is the ultimate arbiter of correctness or anything, but food labeling definitely isn't perfect. Take it all with a grain of salt, and maybe check brands against each other or against generic charts if one claims a suspiciously low number of carbs. -- From nobody Thu Oct 4 08:38:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Opposition Speaks : "Good Carbs, Bad Carbs" claimed to be nonsense References: <13g22n6qeogkv26@news.supernews.com> <86ve9qldjx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1191335115.626880.226890@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <86przwf9j8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1191434541.711292.98770@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2007 08:38:57 -0500 Message-ID: <86abqzf18u.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Doug Freyburger writes: > For me snoring is caused by either 1) Any exposure to wheat > even as a touch in some cream-of soup, or 2) being over 210 > pounds. Both handled by week 4 back when I started. > Once I realized I could turn snoring on and off by eating > wheat or not I started reporting that to any friend who mentions > snoring. Turns out well over half of the folks who've tried it > stopped snoring by going either wheat free or corn free. > Amazing the crap that happens when folks eat grass seeds. Thanks for the suggestion; I'm going to try that, starting today. I think I've been grain-free for as much as a month before, but I don't recall whether it was when anyone was in a position to tell me whether my snoring changed. I haven't noticed any other particular sensitivity to grains -- a certain amount of carbs from grain seem to affect me the same as the same carb load from something else -- but it's worth a shot. I don't just snore when I'm sleeping deeply; it starts as soon as I fall asleep, apparently even if I'm sitting up in a chair. So it's annoying. > If further loss doesn't handle the snoring please get checked > for obstructive sleep apnea. It causes breathing to stop at > night then gasping. The sudden swings of CO2 and O2 in the > blood are a major heart risk. Yeah, that's the plan: lose the weight, and then move on to any health issues that remain, including the snoring. -- From nobody Fri Oct 5 09:04:32 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: They are poets, they don't know it (yet) References: <4704c39e$0$26145$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <13ga0dag0l423b1@news.supernews.com> <47051571$0$9007$426a34cc@news.free.fr> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:04:32 -0500 Message-ID: <86641lfyj3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Hueyduck writes: > But still, I can't figure out how low-carb can relief people from bone > pain. ANd my friend here has no back pain whatsoever when he eats > low-carb. I guess there are other factors that counts as well > (stress, position aquired duiring his job, etc...). I don't have my copy in front of me, but I think "Protein Power" talks about how the reduction in insulin improves the eicosanoid balance, moving it away from an "inflammatory" state. Don't quote me on that, because I might not have the details right; but when I read it, I remember thinking that it sounded similar to what omega-3s are supposed to do for you in terms of reducing inflammation. -- From nobody Fri Oct 5 09:18:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: my BF has a numb upper thigh... References: <1191555087.181378.61210@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:18:40 -0500 Message-ID: <861wc9fxvj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Mandy writes: > Hey people. I am kinda new to the whole Google groups things. I was > just typing in a search request for my boyfriend. He is in his mid > forties. He has been having a numbness on his upper left thigh. he > thinks it may have started when sitting at our computer -chair. It got > numb one day after sitting , then another. I used to have this pretty bad before I got orthotics (custom-made arch supports), as a result of falling arches after I got a stress fracture in my foot and had it mis-diagnosed as a sprain at a hospital. (They eventually stumbled over it, after having me wear the wrong kind of shoe for a while that made it worse.) In my case, three things helped it: chiropractic adjustments to my foot and hips, wearing the orthotics, and stretching the hamstring muscle for 60 seconds several times a day. However, since this seems to have come up on him in a hurry, and you're seeing what could be bite marks, it could very well be something completely different. He could see a chiropractor to determine whether it's sciatica or some other pinched nerve, but make sure to see one who's willing to recommend an M.D. for things outside his own area of knowledge. (In my experience, that's easier to find than an M.D. who's willing to do the same in reverse, which is why I'd see them in that order.) -- From nobody Fri Oct 5 09:46:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Being Fat Sucks Rocks References: <1191563191.101051.79790@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 09:46:23 -0500 Message-ID: <86wsu1ei0w.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 77 Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes: > After that, I had to do another month of Taper. I tapered and watched > the scale explode with glee. Three months later now, after my ER > visit, I am a big fat monster and I want to kill these people for > plying me with drugs. What is it with doctors, women, and drugs? It's not just women; they've got over 10% of boys stoned for the sake of school now. Not that that's primarily the fault of doctors. Teachers, administrators, and parents are the main drive behind that, with the doctors as accomplices. I've heard that many doctors are invested in pharmacies or pharmaceutical companies, but I don't know if that's true or relevant. I think prescribing drugs is just the easiest way to go, and it's also what most of their patients want, so it's what they develop the most expertise at. Thanks to all the commercials, many people walk in demanding particular brands of drugs now. And drugs are very powerful: give someone a drug, and you'll probably see a reaction. With things like diet and exercise, results aren't as immediate or predictable. > So I've gained about thirty pounds. Since I lost almost 150 pounds and > stayed lost on maintenance for five years, I can't be too upset. Yeah, that's not bad. After losing 150 pounds, you can do 30 standing on your head! :-) > On the other hand, I am upset. I've been on very strict induction for > two weeks and lost only five pounds. My metabolism is crap. They said > it might take up to six months for my adrenals to go normal if like, > ever. I'm hungry all the time. I was hungry on Induction and that > has *never* happened to me before. I feel like my body has turned into > some alien toxic swamp. I nearly destroyed my adrenals back around 1990, with a combination of pizza, chips, Mountain Dew, caffeine/ephedrine pills, and 80-hour work weeks. A bad case of mononucleosis that nearly hospitalized me brought things to a head. The idiot doctors told me to lay off the alcohol for a while, but never told me anything about diet or what I needed to do to get my organs back in shape. After a few years of being exhausted and spaced-out and weak all the time, I saw a chiropractor who explained a few things to me about adrenals and got me to remove the "white" stuff from my diet: flour, sugar, potatoes, rice, etc. Not exactly low-carb, but pretty close. He also gave me some adrenal supplements, but I've never been able to swallow pills, and they were so incredibly nasty I only got a few of them down. Before long, I was feeling a heck of a lot better, and even started riding my bike a few miles a day. I don't know if my adrenals have ever fully recovered -- I still like my naps, even on low-carb, although they're not required now -- but just cutting out the really high-carb stuff made a big difference. It can take a while, when your system has been beaten down like that. > :). So...I'm back! I made myself reread Dr A but I'm pretty bummed > out he's dead. His company tanked. All the lowcarb stores have > closed. We never had the stores around here anyway, just a corner shelf in some of the bigger groceries. The specialty products that were worthwhile, like the low-carb tortilla shells, are still available; they're just mixed in with the regular items now. For anything you can't get locally, there's Netrition.com and their awesome $5 flat-rate shipping. Of course, you don't need any of that anyway; you can eat hearty on meat, eggs, cheese, and vegetables from any grocery. That other stuff is nice for variety, but not required. > Guess we're back to the good old days, sort of. Except, you know, for > the dead people. We're working on a way to stop that too. -- From nobody Fri Oct 5 10:08:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Did everyone here...... References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 10:08:34 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl4pegzx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 "Loco~Motion" writes: > Did everyone on this NG start an exercise program when you started > low-carbing? Has anyone lost weight with just their normal activities, > without extra exercise? Yes. I lost 60 pounds my first time low-carbing (in three chunks of about 20, separated by a couple plateaus) by staying below 30g/day of carbs (Protein Power's stage I), without any extra exercise. I was getting some exercise at the time, but no more than I had been before starting the plan. On the other hand, a few summers ago, my sisters talked me into running in a 5K with them. We were all overweight and pretty sedentary, so we spent three months training for it, running three days a week and riding bikes most of the other days. By the time we finished it, I was up to running five miles on running days. I felt good, and the progress we made, from gasping to a stop after 1/4 mile at first to handling five miles just fine three months later, was amazing and gratifying. But I didn't lose *a single pound*. We ran at our parents' farm, which meant I was there for at least one high-carb meal every day. My meals at home were still pretty low-carb, or who knows, I might have *gained* weight while doing all that running. Some will say I must have just eaten more calories to match the increased exercise. Fine. It didn't seem like I ate more, but maybe I did. I'll be the first to admit it's easy enough to vary your calories drastically without realizing it (one big reason why controlling calories doesn't work). Whatever the reason, I didn't lose weight despite drastically increasing my exercise. Diet trumps exercise, at least for me. When I'm getting the diet right, exercise might - might - help; but the diet comes first. -- From nobody Fri Oct 5 18:14:04 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: just a dizzy girl References: <1191622767.323325.264730@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:14:03 -0500 Message-ID: <86abqxduis.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes: > This winter, pre-drugbinge, I noticed that an especially lowcarb day > plus a heavy workload made me really dizzy. A couple times, driving > home in the dark on a snowy road I would pull over and ride out the > wave behind my eyes. > > I really thought it was just stress and the burden of too many neurons > firing at once overloading my head. > > I also remember feeling really wiped out when I first started LC. I > was assured by Dr. Atkins that this was transient, and that eventually > my hormones would even out to give me a nice even keto burn. > > Kinda dizzy today. A few hours ago I felt my eyes sort of drifting in > a minor brain fog. I decided to lie down; Still not hungry at all, > though. You might need some extra potassium if you aren't already supplementing that. That's the one nutrient low-carbers do sometimes run low on, and a lack can cause weakness and other symptoms. Also, make sure you're drinking plenty of water, because a lot of it flushes out when your glycogen stores are burned, so you can end up dehydrated in a hurry. Some people really lose their appetite on low-carb, which probably isn't healthy if it gets extreme. Make sure you're getting enough protein, at least, even if you aren't hungry. > I finally got my mom's BG kit and scored an 80. > > Wow, now that is low, especially without hunger, eh? That's normal, not low. What sort of number were you expecting? > What do you think, alt support diet lowcarb? Do you think I'll even > out and get to a nice keto burn, or are my carbs too low at -35? That's higher than the first stage of either Atkins or Protein Power, so I don't know why it would be too low. Too high, possibly, if you're shooting for serious "ketosis." Are you following one of the plans, or rolling your own? -- From nobody Sat Oct 6 07:12:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Did everyone here...... References: <86sl4pegzx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 07:12:40 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzp4cuh3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 48 "Loco~Motion" writes: > Thank you Aaron. I probably will never be able to jog/run again but I > think the Dr will allow me to start walking the threadmill soon. I > should know something next week. Do you think if you had eaten > low-carb at the farm you would have lost weight? I'm sure of it. But my family's always eaten a very Midwest American farmer's meat-and-potatoes diet. Lots of good protein and home-grown garden produce, but lots of carbs too, and plenty of baked goods. My parents work it off with an enormous amount of physical labor on the farm, but my brother and sisters and I are all overweight. I'm by far the leanest, but if I hadn't started low-carbing a few years ago, I'd probably be well over 300 pounds by now and just as heavy fat-percentage-wise as the others. (That's not an excuse, by the way; I could have exercised with them and not eaten with them. I made that choice, probably thinking that the huge increase in exercise would make up for the carbs -- which it did; I maintained my weight.) I give exercise a hard time here, but it's not because I think it's bad or useless (although Taubes talks about studies suggesting that exercise makes it harder to lose weight, they're hardly conclusive), but because I think it's the wrong place to put one's primary focus. The "Oh, just eat less and exercise" paradigm is so pervasive that people have to be shocked out of it. That's why I say things like, "Calories are irrelevant," and, "Exercise has nothing to do with weight loss." They may not be technically true, but they're truer than most people think, and they do get a conversation going. I just think when the question is, "Why am I not losing weight?" the best answer is rarely, "Lack of exercise." I've started a bodyweight exercise program myself, because I want to get stronger and I want to tighten up some of the flabby skin I've got that's only going to get flabbier as I lose weight. I'm a pretty muscular guy -- when I went to college, I lived in the same building as the football players, and people at parties used to ask me what position I played -- but those muscles have gone awfully soft over the years. (They also said I looked like Governor Arnold, but this was 1987, so both of us look a bit different now.) My plans are to be healthier and look better, and low-carbing and exercise will both contribute to that, albeit perhaps independently of each other. -- From nobody Mon Oct 8 07:08:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Did everyone here...... References: <86sl4pegzx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86tzp4cuh3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13gig4em6qlnrce@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2007 07:08:13 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4vpajwy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "Roger Zoul" writes: >> I've started a bodyweight exercise program myself, because I want to >> get stronger and I want to tighten up some of the flabby skin I've >> got that's only going to get flabbier as I lose weight. > I do not see the connection. I've always heard here that exercise is the only way (short of plastic surgery) to tighten up loose skin. Of course, that's just as anecdotal as the theory that exercise causes weight loss, so who knows. -- From nobody Tue Oct 9 08:49:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: They are poets, they don't know it (yet) References: <4704c39e$0$26145$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <13ga0dag0l423b1@news.supernews.com> <47051571$0$9007$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <86641lfyj3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1191874075.073647.177180@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 08:49:38 -0500 Message-ID: <867ilwl7nx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 Doug Freyburger writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> I don't have my copy in front of me, but I think "Protein Power" >> talks about how the reduction in insulin improves the eicosanoid >> balance, moving it away from an "inflammatory" state. Don't quote me >> on that, because I might not have the details right; but when I read >> it, I remember thinking that it sounded similar to what omega-3s are >> supposed to do for you in terms of reducing inflammation. > I do plan on that as my prevention plan for heart attacks, but for me > the low carb difference was simpler and more mechanical - Yeah, they do say that low-carbing will go a long way toward restoring this balance on its own, but that some people need to go further with supplements. Since I've had a minor head cold continuously for at least a few years now, I figured it wouldn't hurt me to get some extra omega-3. I've also been grain-free for a few days now. I'm looking forward to seeing if that helps with the sinuses and snoring and some other things. My fiance just picked up a copy of PPLP, which I haven't read yet, and she says in there they explain why humans really should never eat grain, period. I just started reading "The Brain Trust Program," and it looks like it's heading in the same direction. Interesting stuff. -- From nobody Tue Oct 9 15:16:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: They are poets, they don't know it (yet) References: <4704c39e$0$26145$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <13ga0dag0l423b1@news.supernews.com> <47051571$0$9007$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <86641lfyj3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1191874075.073647.177180@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <867ilwl7nx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1191941978.941998.125890@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <470baa38$0$7207$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13gnbulrgmerl5e@news.supernews.com> <1191949504.640843.77110@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 15:16:05 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejg4jb7e.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 Doug Freyburger writes: > I never knew of my wheat intolerance before Atkins taught me. > If I had been asked before I would have asserted I had no problems > eating wheat. But I'd never gone a week wheat free in my > post-weaned life before I went on Atkins. Folks who have never > tried a week without dairy - You should try the experiment some > time. A week without, see if you feel better. Then add dairy back > in, see if you feel worse. It's easier to tell when symptoms come > back then when they go away. I've talked about this before, but back in the early 90s a chiropractor (oooh, scary, not an MD!) tested me for food allergies, and came up with basically a list of high-carb foods as far as I can recall, though this was before I knew what a carbohydrate was. I was supposed to eliminate them all for three months and then re-introduce them one at a time, to see which ones I could tolerate again and which I might have to avoid for good. Of course, after a couple months, I felt so much better that I pretty much forgot the whole thing, as people tend to do, although I never did go back to drinking regular soda or using a lot of sugar or white flour. -- From nobody Wed Oct 10 06:34:54 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:34:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86wstvi4o2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 81 Jim writes: > When I started reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" I breezed though > over 100 pages. Then I realized that very little of what had been said > was in memory, and the only solution was to begin again and take notes > or write comments in the book and underline or circle text. > I'm really not that far along yet, but I am astonished at the lack of > scientific principles that have been revealed in this older medical > research. Yeah, it's sad to think I'm still naive at 38 years old, but until I started reading Taubes's work, I just assumed that research - at least the kind of research that gets reported in reputable journals and news outlets - followed basic scientific principles. I figured they were generally double-blind, or at least did their best to isolate the factors being studied. Instead, it turns out that a lot of research behind the "X has been found to cause Y" reports is really nothing more than surveys -- pick out a group of people, measure things about them and ask them questions, and look for correlations (often with certain ones in mind already) and call them causations. That's the kind of "research" that's used to sell shady products like breast enlargement pills on late-night TV, but it turns out we're using the same quality of research to make everyday health decisions. Amazing. > They pick the variable they think is the solution, and ignore > everything else. "My way, or the highway" is a good saying, but on > the other hand it shows astonishingly lousy science. > The strongly opinionated and argumentative and even devious > "researchers" appear to often become the champions and leaders of > fields. Another good (but depressing) book along these lines is "Inventing the AIDS Virus" by Peter Duesberg. He explains how and why the entire medical establishment can go stampeding down the same path to a single theory with very little evidence, ignoring any contrary facts, when it supports what they already believe and what will boost their careers. It's happened several times over the last century or so; but the low-fat/cholesterol example has probably hurt the largest number of people. > I have never read of such a bunch of self centered individuals vying > for control of the minds of collages and the public ... well, I forgot > Congress.... Sorry. > Maybe that up above explains WHY it became such a mess. Yeah. In general, when Congress steps in where the Constitution didn't specifically give it responsibility....look out. One thing I notice about all this stuff is that, to paraphrase Fox Mulder, the truth was always out there. Dr. Mike Eades recently quoted from McGovern's Congressional sessions that produced the 1977 anti-fat edict, pointing out that at least one expert stood up and presented the evidence behind the low-carb case, but McGovern just said that wasn't what his doctor told him, and that was the end of that. They had an agenda, driving by a frighteningly small number of true believers, and it wasn't going to be derailed. > I haven't got the slightest idea of how I could ever explain much of > this information to someone who hasn't read the book. Heck, it's hard enough to explain low-carb to people who have only spoken low-fat all their lives, let alone an entire book of research that overturns everything they believe. Just a couple weeks ago, I was told *by a diabetic*, "Oh, it won't hurt you any to have one spoonful of mashed potatoes!" Where do you start? Dive into a lecture about the role of insulin in the body and watch their eyes glaze over? Even if you explain it well and they listen, they won't believe it anyway. You can't change their minds with evidence and logic, because those aren't what those beliefs are based on in the first place. I usually opt for friendly sarcasm: "Yes it will! If I eat that, my foot will fall right off." -- From nobody Wed Oct 10 06:48:55 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Shopping while Hungry References: <2didnU0Bc4Dnl5TanZ2dnUVZ_qmlnZ2d@softcom.net> <1191960950.043190.274670@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 06:48:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86sl4ji40o.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 "fred.genrest@gmail.com" writes: > And also, I heard on T.V. that firstly, don't shop on an empty > stomach, and secondly don't take a cart, lol....apparently, if we have > to carry it we'll take less and only what we came for....that's > understandable I live just three blocks from the grocery store, so I grocery shop the way I've always heard Europeans do -- a little at a time. Every day or two, I put the dog on the leash and we walk down and get a few things to eat that day or the next day. Since I'm walking, I don't want to carry more than ten pounds, so that helps keep me from buying a lot of extra junk or stuff that'll end up going bad in the fridge. Generally I walk in, grab a low-carb vegetable if one is on sale, steer through the snack area for nuts or a bag of pork rinds, grab a dozen eggs, get some cheese if it's on sale, and see what's on sale at the butcher counter. Check my list to see if I need anything special like toiletries, and I'm usually in and out in ten minutes or less. It's working pretty well for me. Since I'm not wandering the store with a cart trying to stock up for a week, I don't seem to be as tempted by the bad stuff. By the time I even get to the last aisle with the ice cream, I've already got my hands full, so I breeze right through. It wouldn't be practical if the store wasn't so close, of course. -- From nobody Wed Oct 10 14:22:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: They are poets, they don't know it (yet) References: <4704c39e$0$26145$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <13ga0dag0l423b1@news.supernews.com> <47051571$0$9007$426a34cc@news.free.fr> <86641lfyj3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1191874075.073647.177180@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <867ilwl7nx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1192017941.425687.270730@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:22:06 -0500 Message-ID: <86641eixlt.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 Hollywood writes: > On Oct 9, 9:49 am, Aaron Baugher wrote: >> My fiance just picked up a copy of PPLP, which I haven't read yet, >> and she says in there they explain why humans really should never eat >> grain, period. > Yet, from Dr. Mike Eades's blog, they eat reduced carb bread. So, go > figure. > If I recall correctly, it was some leaky gut discussion. I think an > occasional grain isn't gonna kill you, but the Food Pyramid suggestion > might. Yeah, if low-carbing is working slowly or not clearing up the usual symptoms like heartburn, a person should try the "purist" routes; but in the grand scheme of things, if someone cuts back on carbs, eliminates all the refined "white" foods, and eats mostly meat and healthy vegetables, I'm not going to give him a hard time for eating some low-carb bread. What's the quote? "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of good"? -- From nobody Thu Oct 11 10:03:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Did everyone here...... References: <86sl4pegzx.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <86tzp4cuh3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13gig4em6qlnrce@news.supernews.com> <86d4vpajwy.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <13gkb2nqr4jc16@news.supernews.com> <1191988759.317183.261400@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <13gp6rd2rtj8t98@news.supernews.com> <1192017200.077641.311560@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <13gqiaq64j3hm86@news.supernews.com> <1192105661.757127.129860@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:03:05 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6k13d92.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Hollywood writes: > What I'm saying is, I like what I get from exercise, even if it > doesn't move me more towards the scale goal. If it helps, that's > bonus. Exactly. Even if exercise slightly slows down weight loss, that's not enough to counter all the good things it does for one's health. Refusing to exercise on that basis would only make sense if one were overweight but in perfect health in every other way, which isn't likely. I don't think there's any question that, on balance, exercise does the body good. I do have my doubts about certain kinds, like jogging, though. > But I cannot sit and look and my history of dieting and exercising, go > over my spreadsheets with weight data, measurement data and exercise > data, and tell you that there's any real correlation, much less > causation. It's a weak study (one person, no study of other factors), > but based on Taubes's recounting of the low fat + exercise research, > it might be up to standard. Heh. I'm starting to think that asking my dog questions and having her answer by peeing on a big Bingo card of answers might be up to the standard -- as long as she gets the "right" answers. -- From nobody Thu Oct 11 10:23:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks References: <86wstvi4o2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1192039226.110774.17100@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:23:58 -0500 Message-ID: <86myup3ca9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 54 Losertown USA writes: > I've been lowcarbing since 1998. I *always* knew it was right, always > ended up sick and fat and bummed out when I tried something else, and > always eventually came right around and cut carbs. I was talking about this just this morning: I wish I could remember when and how I discovered the truth about carbs. I don't think there was any one Eureka moment when I read or heard something and had my outlook changed. Growing up on a farm and having ancestors who lived long lives on lots of fatty pork, I never did buy into the anti-meat theories, even when they were pushed in school. Later, books like "Eat Right or Die Young" introduced the idea of eliminating refined carbs from the diet without getting into the endocrinological reasons why; and again, I think the rural background made me a little suspicious of highly processed foods anyway. Low-carbing seemed to be a natural progression from all that, but I can understand how people with different backgrounds find it completely foreign and scary. > A year would pass and I would realize that Nilla wafers and spaghetti > turned me into an obese crazy person. And then I would have to start > again, weighing it all, researching it all, and coaxing myself back to > the inevitable conclusion that whatever the hell these people > believed, MY body thiought sugar in all forms was slow cyanide. Yeah, in my past run at low-carbing, it was just a way to lose weight. I realized it made me feel better in other ways, like the complete lack of acid reflux, but I assumed I'd be able to ease off it and hang onto those benefits. This time around, thanks in part to testing my blood sugar, I realize it has to be for the long haul, and sugar is a poisonous drug for me. When I was about 20 or so, I drank a lot. I never considered myself an alcoholic, but I worked and played with a group of people who got drunk pretty much every night after work -- that's just what we did for fun. For me it was a way to get my shy self to loosen up. One friend even told me he thought I might be an alcoholic once, yet when I got mono, I dropped alcohol entirely on the spot, and didn't miss it. So for me, alcohol was a much easier drug to give up than sugar. Starting to view sugar that way has helped me avoid the carb equivalent of that "just one drink" that gets alcoholics in trouble. > I think at this point most people are starting to quietly agree, Slow > carbs, "good carbs" -- it's all the same concept. I don't know; I still see a lot of stuff about "whole grains" and "complex carbs" in the mainstream press. I'd agree that we're gaining ground, though. I'm an optimist when it comes to believing that the truth does eventually win out. -- From nobody Fri Oct 12 16:04:26 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks References: <86wstvi4o2.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1192039226.110774.17100@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <86myup3ca9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1192131692.091997.92240@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:04:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5psvycm.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes: > Slow carbs, good carbs -- actually what's happening is that people who > make money telling us what to eat are lopping off the back part of the > Atkins diet and wearing it like a cape. Nutrisystem has a new 300 > dollar a month packaged meal deal that runs around fifty effective > carbs per day. Apparently you can sell lowcarb without actually > *saying* so. I've noticed that too. Even the low-fat packaged meals are quietly dropping in carbs. You don't exactly see them pushing a lot of baked potatoes anymore. Of course, I don't think those companies *really* want people to be lose all the weight and keep it off, but they do need people to have a little success, or they won't keep paying. A diet that's reduced enough in carbs to cause some weight loss, while still having enough carbs to cause cravings, would be just the ticket -- but I'm not sure even I'm cynical enough to think that's the plan. -- From nobody Fri Oct 12 16:10:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Book - Requires Slow Reading -- and cooling off breaks References: <1192039226.110774.17100@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <86myup3ca9.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1192131692.091997.92240@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1192132649.889834.152440@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <13gt2qveu9mjn3b@news.supernews.com> <1192148855.951423.313110@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:10:41 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy0gvy26.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Hollywood writes: > Mike Eades seems to back it up (consistently will cite Atkins the man > as a royal jerk who was insufferable). In a recent blog post, he talked about Atkins's statement that his diet "seemed" to repeal the laws of thermodynamics, and said that that "claim" set low-carbing back 50 years. I think that's a little harsh, because Atkins didn't claim to have repealed anything; he said it *seems* that way when you first get into it. Also, people who were willing to condemn a whole field of research because of one bombastic statement from one man had to already be headed that direction anyway. If it hadn't been that line, it would have been something else. Still, he's probably right that Atkins wasn't the best spokesman when it came to gaining the respect of the elites -- although the same qualities that hurt him there probably helped him sell to the general public. -- From nobody Fri Oct 12 16:18:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: never fails References: <1191986151.590061.321450@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <5n41d1Fg7c4jU1@mid.individual.net> <1192032812.944724.83550@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <470d06ea$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5n4fa7FfnndlU1@mid.individual.net> <13gqam0r6ko4s78@news.supernews.com> <5n4qegFg93uvU1@mid.individual.net> <13gqidvao5j08a4@news.supernews.com> <470e6b75$0$7227$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:18:12 -0500 Message-ID: <867ilsvxpn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Jackie Patti writes: > The Lindt 85% stuff has 8 gram of carb (5 net after fiber > subtraction), in a serving of 4 squares. Personally, this is one of > those cases where the servings seem too big to me; dark chocolate is > awfully rich, so it's rare for me to eat more than 2 squares. This is > probably the only real sugar I have eaten in years, just there's so > little it hardly matters. I had some of that just yesterday, and was pleased to have no cravings from it at all. I'd prefer it just a bit sweeter, though, so I'm going to try your coconut oil/DaVinci syrup method. I've made some chocolate with Baker's unsweetened squares, Splenda, and some butter and cream to smooth it out. That wasn't bad, but it melted in the hand pretty easily. -- From nobody Fri Oct 12 16:41:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 16:41:28 -0500 Message-ID: <863awgvwmv.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes: > What does a 20 carb day look like to you? Do you watch calories at all > or do you just make yourself sick on steaks? What if you had to stay > there *forever*, what would you do? I doubt I'd want to eat steaks every day, but I'm pretty easy to please. I've had eggs with bacon or sausage every morning for as long as I can remember, and I haven't gotten tired of them yet. Usually fried in lard, sometimes omelettes when I'm feeling ambitious and have leftovers to put in them. For lunch yesterday, I made Cheeseburger In A Bowl: brown some hamburger, put it in a bowl, mix in some cheese and whatever condiments you'd put on a cheeseburger -- in this case just mayo and mustard, but sometimes I'll add onions, diced jalapenos, whatever sounds good. Supper last night was a ham steak sauted in a bit of butter long enough to heat it, with sides of Swiss Chard. I separated the leaves and stems and boiled them. Then I stirred butter and a little salt into the boiled leaves, and made a white sauce for the stems with cream, water, cheddar cheese, and guar gum to thicken it a bit. (I overdid the guar gum and it had a slimy feel I didn't like. I'm still getting the hang of that stuff.) So that was a pretty typical day: My usual breakfast, one very simple throw-it-together meal, and one more complicated meal. Trade the Swiss Chard for broccoli, salad, asparagus, etc; and the meat for other meats, and you can get a lot of variety. -- From nobody Fri Oct 12 17:07:17 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192218497.052165.40450@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <6CQPi.111$RW2.90@newsfe11.phx> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 17:07:17 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7e8ugve.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "em" writes: > Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know > that. I love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and > am afraid to touch them. What about other mellons? Watermelon is even better on the carb count. As fruits go on the carb scale, strawberries are the low-carb king, followed by blackberries and raspberries, then watermelon, then cantaloupe and honeydew, then peaches, then sour cherries. Beyond those, most fruits are too carby for me to bother with, and the low-carb ones tend to be my favorites anyway. I'd never eat and apple or orange when there are berries and melon to be had. Special mention of avocados, which are technically a fruit although most people probably don't think of them that way. They're quite low-carb and high in fat and other good stuff. -- From nobody Mon Oct 15 09:32:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192218497.052165.40450@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <6CQPi.111$RW2.90@newsfe11.phx> <86y7e8ugve.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1192239072.531406.264800@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 09:32:14 -0500 Message-ID: <86myukphxt.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes: > I get 10/9 effective per serving for watermelon, 5/4 for canteloupe. What's a serving? Here are the net carbs for some berries and melons from PP's ECC charts, per 1/2 cup in each case: Strawberries 3.3 Raspberries 4.2 Blackberries 5.9 Watermelon 5.5 Cantaloupe 5.7 Honeydew 7.8 I was correct that watermelon is lower than cantaloupe, but they're closer than I thought -- practically the same. I was also surprised to see that blackberries are slightly higher than those two melons. However, blackberries are awfully full of nutritional goodness, and 1/2 cup of blackberries seems like a nice treat, while 1/2 cup of watermelon seems like teasing myself, so I think I'll still go for the blackberries. -- From nobody Mon Oct 15 10:10:27 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192218497.052165.40450@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <6CQPi.111$RW2.90@newsfe11.phx> <86y7e8ugve.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:10:26 -0500 Message-ID: <86ir58pg65.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 Alice Faber writes: > In article <86y7e8ugve.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz>, > Aaron Baugher wrote: > >> "em" writes: >> >> > Woa! I just looked that up. Cantaloupe is low carb!!! I didn't know >> > that. I love that stuff. I buy my daughter fruit bowls all the time and >> > am afraid to touch them. What about other mellons? >> >> Watermelon is even better on the carb count. As fruits go on the carb >> scale, strawberries are the low-carb king, followed by blackberries and >> raspberries, then watermelon, then cantaloupe and honeydew, then >> peaches, then sour cherries. Beyond those, most fruits are too carby >> for me to bother with, and the low-carb ones tend to be my favorites >> anyway. I'd never eat and apple or orange when there are berries and >> melon to be had. >> >> Special mention of avocados, which are technically a fruit although most >> people probably don't think of them that way. They're quite low-carb >> and high in fat and other good stuff. > > > You forgot the blueberries! That's probably because they've always seemed tasteless and disappointing to me, so I forget they exist. Maybe it'd be different if I got some very fresh ones, but they aren't grown much locally here. On the carb count, PP's chart puts them at 8.6 net carbs per 1/2 cup, which is in the middle somewhere between the high-sugar fruits like apples and the low-sugar ones like the other berries, but I understand blueberries have some other nutritional perks that may make them worth an extra carb or two. -- From nobody Mon Oct 15 10:22:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192218574.383760.242250@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192220502.292663.204630@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1192222717.046459.84470@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192238686.605536.63840@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192401424.892634.56220@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:22:42 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejfwpflp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 Doug Freyburger writes: > And I'll repeat - Lots of folks who stay at 20 stall. Then they fail > to follow the directions of moving on to OWL. Instead they assert > that "Atkins stopped working for me". Just how many times have > you heard someone say that? So often it's from the ones who > never even tried OWL. When I tracked posters for every one who > lost well staying on Induction (only counting folks who started > with only 80- to lose because that's part of the deal as well) there > were 7 who stalled staying on Induction. I'm not saying you're wrong, but if it were that reliable, it seems like many people who do Protein Power would stall and be unable to lose weight after a while. PP has you keep your carbs under 30 (Stage I) until your body fat percentage is down to 20% (20-25% for women) and your blood sugar and lipid numbers are good. This could take many months for people who are very obese or have serious blood issues. Do all these people stall -- it seems like the Drs. Eades would have noticed that -- or is the additional 10g/day compared to Atkins Induction enough to prevent the leptin-induced stall you're talking about? -- From nobody Mon Oct 15 11:03:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192190725.232025.19480@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192216137.956971.168880@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <1192286758.929951.41910@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192299521.544453.160750@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <1192366247.572515.34180@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:03:32 -0500 Message-ID: <86abqkpdpn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Hollywood writes: > Circular bit: When I was stalled around 230 last year in Nov/Dec, I > was eating, through the miracles of protein/fat satiety, 15-1700 kcal > per day. When I started losing again, I was at 17-2100 kcal. Truly, > Taubes is correct that it's not the calories, in every instance. He really blows that away, doesn't he? I'm not finished with the book yet, but this was one of my favorite bits on the almighty calorie: For the Natal Indians, working primarily in and around sugar plantations, Campbell considered sugar the obvious suspect for their diabetes. He reported that the per-capita consumption of sugar in India was around twelve pounds yearly, compared with nearly eighty pounds for these working-class Natal Indians. The fat content of the diet in Natal was also very low, which seemed to rule out fat as the culpable nutrient. Excessive calorie consumption couldn't be to blame, according to Campbell, because some of these impoverished Natal Indians were living on as little as sixteen hundred calories a day -- "a figure in many countries which would be regarded almost as a /starvation wage/" -- and yet they "were enormously fat and suffered from undoubted diabetes proven by blood tests." It's not the calories. -- From nobody Mon Oct 15 11:39:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I'm not fat, I'm poisoned. References: <1192302564.647689.8890@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <471146ac$0$7228$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:39:48 -0500 Message-ID: <866418pc17.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 66 Jackie Patti writes: > I haven't read Taubes book just yet, [snip] It'll make you mad. There are fairly recent discoveries about blood particles and hormones and so on that have made what Taubes calls the "carbohydrate hypothesis" more obvious in recent years; but the basic fact that carbohydrates encourage obesity, heart disease, and diabetes (among other things) has been staring researchers in the face for as long as they've been studying those things. As we say in the country, "If it'us a snake, it'd'a bit 'em." Even the recent work that's been done could have happened a lot sooner if the people with the purse strings hadn't spent practically every nickel looking for proof that dietary fat was bad. > I think if we were eating the ideal maintenance diet, we'd all be > ideally healthy... just might take some time to get there. Most > people aren't that patient though. It certainly looks that way. Taubes cites several "primitive" societies where missionary doctors found an almost complete absence of cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, but saw those diseases all climb as soon as the local people started eating Western refined food. The people of Tokelau, who got more than 70% of their calories from coconut and more than 50% from fat (90% of it saturated) until the rest of the world showed up and started importing sugar and grain are a great example. It's mostly the usual story: isolated group of people have excellent health on a paleo-type diet; Western colonists or missionaries come in with their own supplies of food; everything goes to Hell on a gurney. But then the best part: The only conspicuous departure from these trends was in 1979, when the chartered passenger-and-cargo ship /Cenpac Rounder/ ran aground and the islanders went five months without food or fuel delivery. "There was no sugar, flour, tobacco and starch foods," reported the /New Zealand Herald/, "and the atoll hospitals reported a shortage of business during the enforced isolation. It was reported that the Tokelauans had been very healthy during that time and had returned to the pre-European diet of coconut and fish. Many people lost weight and felt very much better including some of the diabetics." So while the history is making me mad, it's also making me very optimistic for the future. We don't have to have all these "diseases of civilization," at least not at the epidemic levels we have them now. The solution is known, and it's been known for a century or more. And regardless of what anyone else does, I know I'm lowering my own chance for chronic disease *drastically* by eating this way. That makes me happy. > Most folks would probably do fine even just cutting out the white > stuff... sugar, flour, rice, potatoes. And for optimum health, > replacing that stuff mostly with fresh nonstarchy vegetables and > low-sugar fruits. That would likely get nearly everyone to their ideal > weight sooner or later. Probably so. The societies where everyone was fit and no one ever got cancer or heart disease weren't necessarily very-low-carb, but what carbs they got weren't refined. One study showed a significant improvement in health if people got under 600 calories a day from carbs, which would probably happen for most people if they just cut out the "white" stuff. -- From nobody Mon Oct 15 11:55:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Kimmiekins really pissed off the Whoosh Fairy References: <1192304969.417035.41630@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <13h2amf9qaol2ce@news.supernews.com> <1192309281.299401.91300@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <13h2ei4qpimoheb@news.supernews.com> <47114d4d$0$7225$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13h2odpktm9e37c@news.supernews.com> <13h3hthc2fkl27a@news.supernews.com> <47125e35$0$7219$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13h4q6ckuucbaa5@news.supernews.com> <471285a3$0$7206$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <77e5h3p8010g2qtckvcu5v0ldr4o6oubso@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:55:36 -0500 Message-ID: <861wbwpbav.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Alice Faber writes: >> >I got Taubes book today so maybe I'll spend some time with that >> >instead of watching the Kimmer fiasco. > I just logged onto my local public library's web site and put my name > on the list for it. If it looks like something I'd want to refer to, > then I'll order it from Amazon. It's almost a reference work; definitely not light reading. Somewhat dry, but quite readable if you're interested in the subject, in my opinion. I'm not quite 200 pages in, and I've already tagged a lot of spots to come back to later. I don't want to sound like too much of a fan-boy, but I'd buy this book for everyone I know if I thought they'd read it. -- From nobody Mon Oct 15 12:30:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: never fails References: <1191986151.590061.321450@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <5n41d1Fg7c4jU1@mid.individual.net> <1192032812.944724.83550@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <470d06ea$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5n4fa7FfnndlU1@mid.individual.net> <13gqam0r6ko4s78@news.supernews.com> <5n4qegFg93uvU1@mid.individual.net> <13gqidvao5j08a4@news.supernews.com> <470e6b75$0$7227$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <867ilsvxpn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <470fefa7$0$7214$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:30:13 -0500 Message-ID: <86wstonv4q.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 Jackie Patti writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> Jackie Patti writes: >>> The Lindt 85% stuff has 8 gram of carb (5 net after fiber >>> subtraction), in a serving of 4 squares. Personally, this is one of >>> those cases where the servings seem too big to me; dark chocolate is >>> awfully rich, so it's rare for me to eat more than 2 squares. This is >>> probably the only real sugar I have eaten in years, just there's so >>> little it hardly matters. >> I had some of that just yesterday, and was pleased to have no cravings >> from it at all. I'd prefer it just a bit sweeter, though, so I'm going >> to try your coconut oil/DaVinci syrup method. I've made some >> chocolate with Baker's unsweetened squares, Splenda, and >> some butter and cream to smooth it out. That wasn't bad, but it melted >> in the hand pretty easily. > The coconut stuff is even meltier. I keep it in the fridge until I > eat it. Good stuff, though. We made some last night, using the DaVinci chocolate syrup, and it was great and couldn't be simpler. The only coconut oil at the local grocery store had no coconut taste that I could detect. (I like coconut a lot, but probably wouldn't want the flavor in all my chocolate.) Looking forward to trying it with some of the other syrups. Thanks for the recipe! -- From nobody Tue Oct 16 10:51:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192218574.383760.242250@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192220502.292663.204630@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1192222717.046459.84470@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192238686.605536.63840@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192401424.892634.56220@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <86ejfwpflp.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <1192467307.503507.190760@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 10:51:48 -0500 Message-ID: <86ejfvdpm3.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Doug Freyburger writes: > I very much want a study that compares following the directions > of Atkins with extended Induction. Validly tracked data would be > of far more value than the anecdotal data I counted. That'd be great. I'd love to see the NIH and others spend on serious low-carb studies just a fraction of what they've spent chasing low-fat and low-cholesterol ideas. >> or is the additional 10g/day compared to Atkins Induction enough to >> prevent the leptin-induced stall you're talking about? > Interesting point as it's more than 10 difference. When I had enough > posters to count it was before fiber deduction and net carbs were > added so the counts were total not net. Since CCLLs tend to cluster > near 50, adding more than 10 to that initial 20 should make a large > difference. Consider that any of the studies that show reduced T3 > on VLCD did so at levels 20 and below. Ok, that makes sense then. As you say, 30 is significantly closer to 50 than 20, and if the danger zone for T3 is under 20, most PP dieters will be higher than that. Keeping carbs constantly under 20 for months without deducting fiber *would* be very difficult, even for someone like me who mostly eats meat and eggs. I've got one of the Atkins books in my reading pile, so I'll get to it and learn this stuff better one of these days. Thanks for the info. -- From nobody Tue Oct 16 11:04:33 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Show me your 20 References: <1192152431.652975.16910@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192218574.383760.242250@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192220502.292663.204630@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1192222717.046459.84470@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192238686.605536.63840@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192401424.892634.56220@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com> <1192479849.687735.258990@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com> <4713d998$0$7213$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:04:33 -0500 Message-ID: <86abqjdp0u.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Jackie Patti writes: > Your cat actually eats meat? Mine will eat most of the mice they > kill, but otherwise... not so much. > > I tried making homemade cat food, chicken legs cooked in broth with > raw chopped liver/kidney/heart added and a bit of brewer's > yeast... but they prefer the dry crap stuff. My fiance is going through that now. Her cat is a big fat spoiled eater that doesn't even like canned tuna, although he'll lick away the juice. Now that she's been learning about the effects of carbs, she wants to get him on more of a meat diet, but he turns his nose up at turkey or chicken. She sent for some ground rabbit, to see if he'll eat that, since she's seen him catch and eat rabbits. I foresee a test of wills. My dog will gladly eat any meat, raw or cooked or rotting, so she gets a lot of scraps and bones, but she still eats a little of the dry junk. -- From nobody Tue Oct 16 11:20:39 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <1192460450.312987.243200@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <13h72at8kjt518d@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:20:39 -0500 Message-ID: <866417doa0.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "Roger Zoul" writes: > If Taubes doesn't believe that excess calories don't make us fatter > over time, then he must point to evidence of significant human food > energy existing within our poop. That's not the only way to get rid of excess energy. Mike Eades recently blogged about a study of women that showed they gave off *twice* as much heat when on a low-carb diet. I've wondered about that before, because I seem to be warmer and sweat more than everyone else around me while I'm low-carbing; but it's not really something you can measure for yourself. We're warm-blooded animals, which means we only retain enough heat to maintain our proper body temperature, so measuring that doesn't tell you much. You'd have to put yourself in a sealed chamber that could capture and measure all the heat you're giving off -- exactly the sort of study the big organizations should be funding. Anyway, anecdotally, I know that I seem to give off a lot more heat when I'm low-carbing and eating plenty. I've had people remark more than once that I'm like a furnace. Those BTUs are coming from somewhere. Which doesn't mean that if you go to some ridiculous extreme like 5000 calories, you'll still be able to secrete it all somehow and not gain weight. At that level, even if your carbs and protein are low, just the glucose produced from the glycerin in 5000 calories worth of fat might be enough to get your insulin engine running. -- From nobody Tue Oct 16 14:54:57 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <1192460450.312987.243200@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5nhih1Fi9bm8U1@mid.individual.net> <1192470557.314922.84280@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5nhtu0Fi3rooU1@mid.individual.net> <4713d125$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13h7kvslmkoap56@news.supernews.com> <4713dc72$0$7212$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13h7pllg6qp6jbf@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:54:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86prze4yy8.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 Jim writes: > The book is a public massive exposition that says "Don't Trust You > Doctor Blindly On Diet".... and probably not to trust them blindly on > more than just diet either. Exactly. It's (in the first 200 pages, anyway) a treatment of what can happen when a few people with a preconceived agenda get the backing of government and the press. Congressional and UN committees and journalists looking for short soundbites make for bad science, where people latch onto the conclusion that fits their beliefs -- in this case, that meat-eating was gluttonous and offensive, akin to the attitude about SUV drivers today -- and do their best to make the science back up that conclusion. It's a little scary to see how easily it works, how dedicated and respected people can ignore entire bodies of research and cherry-pick and massage the existing data to get the conclusions they like. The parallels to other topics where science has supposedly established the undeniable truth are obvious, too, especially when Taubes quotes someone as saying that the nation's health was so dire that Congress and the national health boards couldn't afford to wait until they had solid proof about fat and cholesterol -- and besides, what could it hurt for people to eat less fat? Turns out it *could* hurt, a lot. Eventually, it falls apart, though. One of my favorite bits is actually a quote from Sir Francis Bacon, where he says that "wishful science" doesn't evolve, it starts out with a burst of ideas and then goes into a holding action as the truth chips away at it bit by bit; while science that's on the right track is constantly turning up new supporting evidence and explaining things better. It may take 50 years, but it gets there eventually. -- From nobody Tue Oct 16 15:08:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <1192460450.312987.243200@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5nhih1Fi9bm8U1@mid.individual.net> <1192470557.314922.84280@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5nhtu0Fi3rooU1@mid.individual.net> <4713d125$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13h7kvslmkoap56@news.supernews.com> <5ni5ulFia8kfU1@mid.individual.net> <13h7qhupebvj599@news.supernews.com> <5nicfaFig4hsU1@mid.individual.net> <1192536882.678758.12440@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <5nk5bhFip1nsU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 15:08:11 -0500 Message-ID: <86lka24yc4.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 45 Susan writes: > Hollywood wrote: > >> Quick question: I know cortisol is near and dear to you, Susan. But >> what's the percentages in the general population? If it's not a big >> number, then maybe it just doesn't fit into the 450 pages of content >> that the publisher allowed him. The original draft of the book, >> according >> to Dr. Mike Eades was over 1100 pages (versus 640 published). The >> second draft was over 800 pages. This is a very condensed version of >> those. If hypercortisolemia is not the cause for a really large number >> of >> people (the way that insulin resistance and syndrome X are), maybe it >> doesn't make the cut of a broad oversight book. The thing of the 450 >> pages of content: there's not a lot of fat in there. There's some >> repetition, >> but there's not many wasted words. So, maybe cortisol was a space >> consideration, considering that every 16 pages over 250 probably hurts >> sales a bit. > It appears that occult hypercortisolemia is much more common than > previously believed. In fact, it's often present in type 2 DM, and > these folks are those with the most/worst complications. "Appears." I'm only partway through the book, but so far he's concentrated on science that's been around a while, that's been duplicated (or pointing out when it couldn't be duplicated, as with much of Ancel Keys's research). Maybe he didn't think that a book that's essentially an expose on bad science should include research that's still being figured out. Also, he says on page 101 that insulin "plays the crucial role in the carbohydrate hypothesis." That implies to me that there are other hormones involved, but their role is less crucial than insulin's; and they haven't been virtually ignored for decades the way insulin's role in anything other than diabetes has, so they weren't important to the history. I'm sure the book isn't perfect, but it's a very good history of how and why people have been told what to eat for the last century, which seems to have been his primary goal. -- From nobody Wed Oct 17 08:01:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <1192460450.312987.243200@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5nkn9mFid617U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:01:45 -0500 Message-ID: <86fy09uc7a.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 "Pat" writes: >> 6. Excess calories don't make you fatter. Excess energy use doesn't >> lead to weight loss in the long term. It does lead to hunger. > I have heard people say that exercising makes them hungry, but it > doesn't work that way for me. Makes me thirsty, but not hungry. I'm not sure for myself. Heavy labor, especially lifting and carrying things, seems to tighten up my abdominal muscles to the point where I'm not hungry at all immediately after; but later in the day when they relax, I'm suddenly ravenous. It's hard to say what the overall effect is. >> 9. Carbs stimulate insulin secretion, which leads to fat storage. >> Fewer carbs = leaner us. > This is an oversimplification. It's certainly a simplification, but I wouldn't call it an oversimplification. Yes, there are people who have other health issues like the cortisol stuff that's been discussed in this thread that keeps simple carb reduction from taking off the weight. But for the general population, "fewer carbs = leaner" is true. If all the soda and bread and other high-carb foods disappeared from the grocery stores tomorrow, forcing people to eat more meat and vegetables, all the evidence says we'd be a leaner, healthier people within a few months. -- From nobody Wed Oct 17 08:08:12 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <1192460450.312987.243200@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:08:12 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqaxubwj.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "Cubit" writes: > With the title Good Calories, Bad Calories it is reasonable to guess > that calories are addressed. > IMHO: The "Kind of Calories" has an effect on appetite, the > "appestat," eating behavior, and health. Apart from that (body fat), > from my miles in Fitday data, I believe that I could be eating a diet > entirely of Junior Mints, if the calories were correct. > Unfortunately, I would go insane with respect to eating behavior and, > of course, my type 2 diabetes would return with raging blood > statistics. Ah, and then my teeth would start rotting again, and I'll > bet my cardiovascular system would corrupt into death. Getting the > flu 2 or 3 times a year would probably return too. There is question > in my mind whether cancer is a trans fat or carb issue. Could be both. Taubes cites several societies which had almost no cancer on "primitive" diets and saw it jump greatly when Westerners started importing refined carbs. However, trans-fats weren't in the picture back then, so there's no reason they too couldn't play a role in modern cancer levels. > I'm just saying that one can be thin on carbs. However, what I should > be saying is that it is not enough to eat right. Moderate calorie > control is needed too, even if they are good calories. Why? -- From nobody Wed Oct 17 08:55:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Velocity Undetermined References: <1192600019.153073.269580@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2007 08:55:39 -0500 Message-ID: <867illu9pg.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 66 Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes: > I'm a little disoriented. > > I've dropped about 13 pounds I think. But the needle on my bathroom > scale now has both its annoying little arms wrapped around the same > number. It's been that way for three days. I'm perplexed. "Three days" is meaningless. Period. If you stall for three weeks, then it *might* be time to do something different. Nothing's broken yet; no need to fix it. > I know, all right? I know that this is an excellent loss and I > shouldn't get all whiny before even a month has passed at 20-35 carbs. > It just doesn't feel right. It feels slow, or too hard or something > and I feel like I should have cut through at least 20 pounds by now. You're setting the bar awfully high, expecting 20 pounds in a month. That can happen, especially if you're very obese, but it's not typical. Ten pounds in a month is fast, and you're already ahead of that, so be thrilled. > But it still feels wrong. Slow. I should have more energy. I don't. > My head feels fuzzy, like there's too much space between my eyebrows. > The worst part is that the extra padding on my abdomen is sitting > there without budging like my cat Elvis and that is *not* what > normally happens. Normally that's the first thing to go. Many people say they don't get the same energy boost and whoosh from repeated low-carb attempts as they did the first time. I've noticed this myself, though I don't have an explanation for it. Maybe the difference just doesn't *seem* as big because I've experienced it before. I still like my naps, although they aren't as long or as mandatory now, and I still get tired easily. I started taking fish oil, but it's too soon to tell if it's doing much. > I can't tell if I'm just paranoid because of all the crap I read about > trashing your adrenals with drugs and the hormonal roadkill left > behind by antidepressants, or if I really am in a new, unpleasant type > of homeostasis. I think I mentioned before that I trashed my adrenals years ago, and that's a hard thing to recover from. You may want to look at your supplements with regard to that; rebuilding adrenals need a lot of certain B vitamins and some minerals -- in some cases many multiples of the RDA. The good news is that by going low-carb, you're taking away a major source of stress on the adrenals, but they still take time to heal. > Then I made the mistake of reading this book ( I'm a librarian so I > can scoop books off the New Titles shelf and get them back on by > morning) called Cheat to Lose, which basically sort of says what Doug > says about leptin and I'm wondering if I should cycle. Or hold steady. > Or just calm down for another month. Doug can speak for himself, but I think you need to give it at least a month of stalling before you start looking at "resetting" things. If you're one of those people who gets excited about every number on the scale, weigh yourself every week or two instead of daily, so these little 2- or 3-day ups and downs don't get you down. Mental stress doesn't help your adrenals heal either. -- From nobody Mon Oct 22 08:57:46 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Reliable (referenced?) GI values References: <1192971070.136733.31920@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 08:57:44 -0500 Message-ID: <86hckj45gn.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 Others have done a fine job of correcting your mistaken beliefs about the "risks" of low-carbing, so I'll skip ahead. There is no such thing as a reliable list of GI values, because they vary too much from person to person, and also because we rarely eat single foods in a vacuum. Food combinations matter; adding some fat to a carb will (generally) make the combo lower-glycemic than the carb itself was, for example. If you want to figure out what foods have a low GI *for you*, here's what you do (the short version): Get yourself a blood glucose tester and the stuff that goes with it, keep a journal tracking what you eat at each meal, and record your BG one hour and two hours after each meal. If the one-hour test is over 120, or if the two-hour test isn't back in the normal range of 70-100, then that meal was too "glycemic" for you. Here's the fun part: After all that blood-letting and writing everything down, unless you're part of that small minority of people with excellent insulin sensitivity (in which case you probably wouldn't have any reason to be here), you're going to end up with a list of acceptable foods that looks a heck of a lot like what you'd be eating on Atkins, Protein Power, or any other "risky" low-carb plan. You could save yourself a lot of work by starting with those plans in the first place, instead of hunting around looking for obscure studies that claim to find risks in ketosis by comparing humans to *sheep*, of all things. -- From nobody Mon Oct 22 09:06:52 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: coconut bark WAS: never fails References: <1191986151.590061.321450@v3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <5n41d1Fg7c4jU1@mid.individual.net> <1192032812.944724.83550@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <470d06ea$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5n4fa7FfnndlU1@mid.individual.net> <13gqam0r6ko4s78@news.supernews.com> <5n4qegFg93uvU1@mid.individual.net> <13gqidvao5j08a4@news.supernews.com> <1192055485.502495.125960@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> <470e6d9d$0$7202$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <4GMSi.11565$4V6.6565@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:06:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4v7451f.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 "arkienurse" writes: > Jackie, I made this bark recipe this week. It is awesome. Something > about the taste and texture remind me of Eskimo pie chocolate coating. Thank you! It's been bugging me that I couldn't figure out what it reminds me of, but that's it exactly. I've noticed that the flavor from the syrup in my batches so far doesn't seem as strong after a few days, but my taste buds are dull. Maybe I'll try upping the amounts of syrup and cocoa powder in the next batch. -- From nobody Thu Oct 25 15:21:10 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cholesterol References: <5obm72Fl9a4qU1@mid.individual.net> <4720a990$0$7205$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5obs7jFlttu3U2@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 15:21:08 -0500 Message-ID: <861wbjlzd7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 Susan writes: > Jackie Patti wrote: > >> Generally, low-carb reduces LDL (bad cholesterol) and triglycerides. >> It doesn't do such a good job of raising HDL, exercise is better for >> raising HDL than diet is. Ideal numbers are LDL and triglycerides >> under 60 and HDL over 60, but usually doctors don't shoot for that >> strict. > Jackie, my experience, and quite a few studies demonstrate that low > carb, at least in the first six months, raises LDL or leaves it the > same, while also raising HDL. That's what I got from Taubes and Eades: On low-carb, triglycerides go way down and the HDL/LDL ratio improves (these are the things that now matter), but LDL and total cholesterol may rise a little, especially in the first few months, and especially if you eat a lot of saturated fat. That's why saturated fat got a bad reputation in the first place -- all they were measuring back then was total cholesterol, and saturated fats made it higher. There's also research that shows that the density of your LDL (and VLDL) in particular has a strong correlation with disease, and a low-carb diet tends to make the LDL particles lighter and "fluffier," which is good. No one should let a doctor prescribe anything for cholesterol without reading Taubes's book first, at least the cholesterol section. What's $20 for a book, up against the price of a doctor visit, prescription drugs, and your life? Before you take a doctor's advice, understand the history of where that advice is coming from. Maybe you'll agree with the doctor, maybe you won't; but don't go in there clueless. -- From nobody Fri Oct 26 06:02:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What's OK to eat . . . References: <5ocg1pFm7v2eU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 06:02:34 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7dqgmut.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 60 "Not so Slim Jim" writes: > Low Carb works very well for me but I keep on slipping back to my old > bingeing ways and eating loads of sweet things and find myself putting > the weight back on - obviously. However, I am now feeling > uncomfortable in my clothes. My working lifestyle means lots of hotel > stays which means that it is difficult to find low carb foods. I > wonder whether you more experienced can tell me the carb values of the > following which have started eating for the last 3 days. > > Breakfast is two eggs fried in extra virgin olive oil together with > three thin rashers of bacon with six or seven button > mushrooms. Everything I fry is done in Extra Virgin Oil (if that makes > any difference). > > I generally don't want/need to eat until about 6pm in the evening when > I have been having an average sized lamb steak, 8oz Sirloin Steak > (both fried as above) with the fat cut off mid cooking, with button > mushrooms fried in butter with two crushed garlic segments. On the > side I have a salad garnish of lettuce, one diced tomato and some > diced cucumber. I also gently fry a whole onion, sometimes with half a > red chillie to give it a bit of a kick. Mmmmm, lamb. That menu sounds fine for most people. If you still have carb cravings after a couple weeks of that, you're probably either A) not eating enough, or B) very sensitive to carbs, in which case you may need to eliminate the onion and/or tomato. Those two are both somewhat borderline as carbs go, and I don't think they're on the Atkins Induction list for that reason. Skipping lunch might not be the best idea either. Even if you're not hungry, having a little snack -- or at least having one available -- can help prevent cravings later in the day. If you're a good-sized guy, that breakfast you describe isn't really all that much, especially to last until supper. I usually have 4 eggs (in lard) and 4 slices of bacon, and that barely gets me up to 1/3 of my calories for the day. It's common for low-carb to suppress your appetite, which is great, but going overboard with the not-eating can cause cravings and metabolic slowdown, so be careful with that. Checking your blood sugar is another option. When a craving hits, check your blood glucose level and see if it's outside the normal range (70-100). If it's high (the usual cause of cravings), something in your last meal could be a problem. That'll help you determine whether your carb binges are coming from a specific trigger in your diet or just you not being committed enough to success. And get a book or two. I've gotten all my low-carb books for $1 or less from thrift stores. If you're doing Atkins (as I think you said in a later post), you shouldn't be asking this question because the Induction list already told you what foods you can eat. If you're doing Protein Power, it gives you a chart where you can lookup all these foods for yourself and make sure you're under 10g per meal. Every book will give you some sort of guidelines to follow. You don't really want to have to come ask us about every new meal you encounter, do you? -- From nobody Fri Oct 26 16:51:36 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What's OK to eat . . . References: <5ocg1pFm7v2eU1@mid.individual.net> <86y7dqgmut.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5oeda6Fl6cnrU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:51:35 -0500 Message-ID: <867il9h7dk.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 56 "Not so Slim Jim" writes: > "Aaron Baugher" wrote in message >> And get a book or two. I've gotten all my low-carb books for $1 or >> less from thrift stores. If you're doing Atkins (as I think you said >> in a later post), you shouldn't be asking this question because the >> Induction list already told you what foods you can eat. If you're >> doing Protein Power, it gives you a chart where you can lookup all >> these foods for yourself and make sure you're under 10g per meal. >> Every book will give you some sort of guidelines to follow. You >> don't really want to have to come ask us about every new meal you >> encounter, do you? > > Of course not, I have only asked this one question. I am not going to > plague this group for them to rubber-stamp every meal I eat. The > problem I get with the books, is that several years ago, I read one > book which said that the carb value of something eaten raw was X carbs > but that after cooking it was significantly more. Furthermore, I > didn't mention Atkins, it was the very helpful post by em which > included the acceptable foods. I'd love to know which book that was, because, as far as I know, cooking never affects the carb count of foods in any significant way. If it did, we'd all be eating our foods raw (or cooked, depending on which way cooking changed it). At most, cooking might make a food more or less digestible, slowing or speeding the conversion to glucose, but it's all still going to count the same. > Also the post by Jim which states that an onion could be as much as 10 > carbs and that one tomato is 9 carbs is astounding. I'd never have > thought that. Yeah, it's surprising sometimes what's high and what isn't. Fruits are the most shocking: the sweetest ones like berries are lowest in carbs while sour fruits like oranges are packed with them. If you're adding onion to something for flavor, it probably won't be enough to cause a problem, but if you're eating roasted onions, it certainly could. Shallots are often suggested as a lower-carb replacement. Tomatoes are borderline; I stay away from them most of the time. > Thank you for your unput one and all sorry if I have burdened you.. Nah, no burden at all. We get a lot of new people who heard about low-carbing from a friend or something, and usually have a very skewed idea of what it means, so the best first piece of advice when someone clearly doesn't have a LC book is to get one. (Some people will say "the" book, meaning Atkins, but I think "Protein Power" is excellent.) But any of the popular ones should have charts of foods, in most cases with "net" carbs after fiber has been subtracted. There are also web sites like fitday.com that are handy for looking up the nutritional values of foods. -- From nobody Mon Oct 29 07:58:17 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What's OK to eat . . . References: <5ocg1pFm7v2eU1@mid.individual.net> <86y7dqgmut.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5oeda6Fl6cnrU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 07:58:16 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzoaxel3.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Jim writes: > I can imagine that some water soluble sugars can drain from food when > being cooked, so I can imagine carb loss from cooking. Just because I > can imagine it, of course, doesn't mean it actually happens. I can imagine that too. I've seen TV chefs say that rinsing beans as you cook them takes out some of the "starch" that causes flatulence, for example, but I've never heard whether they really mean starch or how much it actually removes. If it were a significant amount, I figure people with BG testers would have discovered it by now. -- From nobody Mon Oct 29 08:05:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cholesterol References: <5obm72Fl9a4qU1@mid.individual.net> <1193328073.611976.291130@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <5oc2psFm9199U2@mid.individual.net> <472122b9$0$7207$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5oe0ppFm74p6U7@mid.individual.net> <4721d85e$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5oe480FmbccmU1@mid.individual.net> <13i3pik72loapcd@news.supernews.com> <5oeh65Fmgr4dU3@mid.individual.net> <13i45jh3d8duqe4@news.supernews.com> <5oeke5FmbiopU2@mid.individual.net> <5ogdhmFmckn0U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:05:08 -0500 Message-ID: <86myu2xe9n.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 "Ophelia" writes: > FOB wrote: >> Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an >> excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. >> > > I do indeed:)) I will take it with me. > > ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer > now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from > computer?? For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a couple minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either. > I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any > more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our > goverment has a lot to answer for:((( And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a similar system. -- From nobody Mon Oct 29 08:23:54 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Exercise is kicking my butt References: <1193535681.133464.250850@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1XSUi.1240$yV6.245@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <6dGdnS7a-anLbrnanZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@giganews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:23:54 -0500 Message-ID: <86fxzuxded.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 "Sarah" writes: > "Jim" wrote: >> SWarah, >> >> You are the one with the "Agenda". >> >> You are here to "Save" people from low carb. And, you make the >> mistake of common ignorance in not being able to use the english >> terms Lose and LOOSE correctly. You should be ashamed. >> > > It's a shame that you thought it necessary to include this nitpicking > over a typographical error. Quite petty of you, and it negates the > rest of a very well thought out post. Wow, very humble of you, calling your own posts "well thought out." By the way, when you misuse a word repeatedly: >>>> 3-4 grams of water. When you loose the glycogen, you loose the water. >>>> The worst part is that without its store of glycogen, the body looses That's not a typo; that's just crappy English. And don't forget the apostrophe abuse: > I intend to greatly increase my presence here to make the newbie's aware Awesome; really looking forward to that. It'll give all the really smart, knowledgeable people on this group a chance to write some quality stuff in response to your silliness. Bring it on, just try to bring it literately. (Hey, what can I say; everyone else beat me to the substantive points over the weekend, so I'm left with nitpicking and meanness.) -- From nobody Mon Oct 29 08:33:59 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <1192460450.312987.243200@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5nkn9mFid617U1@mid.individual.net> <86fy09uc7a.fsf@brinn.baugher.biz> <5nn90iFj4m3nU1@mid.individual.net> <1192710294.148538.98110@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1192996614.346504.111690@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <13hrmpibfettv41@news.supernews.com> <1193168889.677752.268790@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <13hsqclr4o5tj78@news.supernews.com> <1193210027.239232.153390@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193229797.136330.240010@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193287653.840469.4730@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <1193317949.825572.199270@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <1193334576.686941.316860@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1193415255.201774.210300@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> <1193468718.133480.224200@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 08:33:59 -0500 Message-ID: <868x5mxcxk.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 gvk2six@yahoo.com writes: > Rather amazing that so many billions make it their staple. Yes, even > in advanced countries such as Japan, who by the way, have a longevity > superior to other countries. > Its a wonder they can be so advanced as a nation when they harbor a > near religious reverence for rice (white). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bingo. -- From nobody Tue Oct 30 09:32:45 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: cholesterol References: <5obm72Fl9a4qU1@mid.individual.net> <1193328073.611976.291130@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <5oc2psFm9199U2@mid.individual.net> <472122b9$0$7207$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5oe0ppFm74p6U7@mid.individual.net> <4721d85e$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5oe480FmbccmU1@mid.individual.net> <13i3pik72loapcd@news.supernews.com> <5oeh65Fmgr4dU3@mid.individual.net> <13i45jh3d8duqe4@news.supernews.com> <5oeke5FmbiopU2@mid.individual.net> <5ogdhmFmckn0U1@mid.individual.net> <86myu2xe9n.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:32:44 -0500 Message-ID: <86zly0llkj.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 59 Jim writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> "Ophelia" writes: >> >>>FOB wrote: >>> >>>>Do you have a camera? I find my little digital camera does an >>>>excellent job on documents with the macro (closeup) setting. >>>> >>> >>>I do indeed:)) I will take it with me. >>> >>>ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have just remembered. Everything is on computer >>>now!!! No, pack of notes. I wonder if she can print it straight from >>>computer?? >> For cripes' sake, I'd hope so. What century is this? Not that a >> couple >> minutes at a copy machine would be such a hardship either. >> >>>I will go next week. We can't even make forward appointments any >>>more. You must ring up on the day you want to see someone. Our >>>goverment has a lot to answer for:((( >> And yet we have people here in the USA just itching to implement a >> similar system. > > > Actually, I don't think we really know what we are "itching" for, but > know that the existing system is a disgrace. You must admit that the > existing "system" has a lot of defects. Absolutely. The biggest defect is that it's a "system" at all. For starters, any time you have a third-party paying for something (insurance) prices will skyrocket. That's just the nature of things when the person getting the service isn't paying directly out of pocket. If people had health insurance with a high deductible -- where you pay for the office visits and prescriptions when you get a cold, but you're covered if you get cancer and need chemotherapy -- it wouldn't be so bad; but comprehensive plans that cover every sniffle with premiums withheld by employers have really skewed things. It's *almost* as bad as a true socialized health care "system," but not quite. To relate this to the topic, I'm moving more and more to getting my food from local individuals instead of the nation's (world's, in some cases) food production "system." It's healthier, better for the local community and economy, and gives me more oversight into how the food is raised and processed. It's a shame that it's so difficult to do the same thing with medical care. Chiropractors and other "alternative" health care providers still operate that way, mainly because the "system" shunned them for so long and they had no choice but to go with a sort of "back to the people" approach. But for surgery and prescriptions and the like, it's all huge buildings and top-down bureaucracies. -- From nobody Tue Oct 30 09:48:53 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: So what do you guys think about "Good carbs, bad carbs"? References: <1193417809.364504.161570@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <1MrVi.26134$1_2.17536@newsfe12.phx> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 09:48:53 -0500 Message-ID: <86ve8olktm.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "AKA gray asphalt" writes: > I'm a vegatarian, so I guess there is nothing here for me? It's possible to be vegetarian and low-carb; "Protein Power" has a section on it. I suppose it depends on how strict a vegetarian you are. If you'll eat eggs, dairy, and/or fish, that'll make it a lot easier. If you won't eat any of those, you'll probably be eating a lot of tofu and nuts and taking supplements to replace anything you're missing, but it can still be done. If you're a vegetarian for religious reasons, then that's of course your business and I wouldn't try to talk you out of that. On the other hand, if it's coming from a cruelty-to-animals angle based on what you've learned about factory farms (and trust me, that stuff sickens me too, as a dedicated carnivore), then you might want to look into locally-produced "pasture-raised" meat. It's still possible in this country to get meat from animals that were raised in a pleasant, natural, outdoor environment and slaughtered in as humane and clean a way as possible, but you'll have to do the leg-work yourself; the USDA thinks that's just silly hippie stuff. On the other other hand, if you're doing it because you think it's healthier, well, that's just wrong; but you probably wouldn't be here in the first place if you thought that. -- From nobody Tue Oct 30 10:13:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cereals and LC References: <5omjs7Fn0svlU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:13:20 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6jcljov.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Topref" writes: > Are there any breakfast cereals allowed while Low Carbing? > > I hazzard a guess that there are few if any. There are LC cereals, but opinions vary on whether any of them are tastier than a bowl of sawdust. I think some people do something with flax seeds or flax seed meal, and ground nuts may also be an option. When my fiance first started low-carbing, she said my usual bacon and eggs breakfast upset her stomach if she ate it first thing, so she'd warm herself up with some LC toast or cereal, or skip the meat and eggs altogether. After several weeks on LC, though, she seems to have gotten over that, and eats meat and eggs for breakfast quite happily, although she still says it goes down better with some carbonated water. (I do cook excellent eggs, so that helps.) -- From nobody Tue Oct 30 10:38:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low Carb Newbie References: <13iddi04c4hma43@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 10:38:13 -0500 Message-ID: <86myu0lije.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 59 "Carey" writes: > I am a complete newbie to this whole no or low carb thing. On the > surface it seems very complicated, and there are terms i am reading > here that meke little semse to me at this time. Terms such as > "induction". Induction is the name of the first two weeks of the Atkins plan. During that time, you eat 20 grams or less per day of carbohydrate and select your foods from a fairly limited list of healthy, low-carb foods. Meat and salad greens feature prominently during this time. It's a bit of a cold-turkey approach that attempts to break your dependence on carbs and get your body into a boosted-metabolism fat-burning mode as quickly as possible. After the two-weeks of Induction, you move on to the next stage where the carb limit and the number of allowed foods both increase. Induction is specific to Atkins, so if you follow one of the other low-carb plans, it will have some other method for getting started. > I have recently seen a tv program where Gary Taub spoke about good > carbs vs. bad carbs. > While I have heard of low carb diets it seems there is a lot more to > it than just not eating very many carbs? Or is that what it is? That's the essence of it, but there are a lot of details that'll trip you up if you don't know what you're doing. For example, people are often surprised to hear which foods are high in carbs and which aren't. I've heard everything: "But potatoes are okay, right?" "I made this sugar-free pie for you with wheat flour since diabetics can have that." "I cut back to one soda a day, so that should help, right?" For a lot of people out there, simply cutting out the obvious high-carb foods -- what are sometimes called the "white" foods: sugar, flour, potatoes, rice -- would improve their health and encourage weight loss. But for many of us, especially those of us who already did years of damage with high-carb foods, such halfway measures aren't enough; we need a well-defined plan. > Are there any good free resourses on the web? Tons of them, including the thousands of past posts on this group. However, creating your own low-carb plan from bits and pieces found on the web is a little like building a car from parts. If you're already an expert, it might be a good idea; but if you're new at it, you're going to get something that looks funny and doesn't run right. Used bookstores and thrift stores *always* have copies of "Dr. Atkins's New Diet Revolution", and they sometimes have "Protein Power" or "Protein Power Life Plan" (my favorite). You can also get used copies online for little more than the price of shipping. It really is worth having a defined plan in a single book that you can refer to regularly when you're getting started. -- From nobody Wed Oct 31 08:21:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: daily food References: <5opbsnFklai1U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:21:13 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5p3h12u.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 "Ophelia" writes: > I was very interested to see how protein was judged to be the best > food for breakfast. > > Give that some carbs must be eaten, what and when, are best please? It's not so much that protein is best for breakfast -- fat would be fine too -- it's just that the foods people tend to think of as breakfast foods fall into two categories: high protein and high carb. You've got your eggs, meat, and protein powder shakes on one side; and cereal, toast, and juice on the other side. What people with touchy blood sugar have found is that X grams of carbs at breakfast will spike their blood sugar more than X grams of carbs later in the day. However, with low-carbing the high-carb choices are out of the picture anyway, so *all* your meals will be high-protein and/or high-fat by mainstream standards. It's best to spread whatever carbs you do eat throughout the day. Protein Power recommends that in Stage I (30g limit) you have a 10g maximum per meal, or if you're having snacks between meals, something like 7g per meal and 5g per snack. For most people, 10g of less at breakfast won't be a problem, and you'll only know it's a problem for you if you test your blood sugar. My breakfast of bacon and eggs has somewhere around 5g of carbs (keep in mind that eggs and cured meats both have a small amount), so that's enough for me, and I spread the other 5g out over the other meals and snacks of the day. What you want to avoid is putting all your carbs for the day into any one meal, whether that's 20g on Induction or 50+ later in your progress, because that will stress your insulin response harder right after that meal than spreading it out would. -- From nobody Wed Oct 31 08:31:29 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <13hsqclr4o5tj78@news.supernews.com> <1193210027.239232.153390@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193229797.136330.240010@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193287653.840469.4730@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <47209ee3$0$7210$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193336457.961881.262590@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <47211eec$0$7215$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193369811.394781.97210@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <4721d73e$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193472856.355319.307610@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <4723695b$0$7228$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193547568.819901.146820@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1193584078.181245.108270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1193595953.641518.199550@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193667420.225273.261330@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1193687729.564089.320920@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <1193759626.553069.103200@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:31:29 -0500 Message-ID: <86fxzrh0lq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 Hollywood writes: > On Oct 29, 2:55 pm, gvk2...@yahoo.com wrote: >> Well, I suppose you've been an expert about this dietary stuff for >> decades so I can't argue with you using my flawed thinking skills or >> "travelers" observations. > So, as Jim points out, there's no point talking to you. Your > observations from decades past in rural Asia are as scientific as > concluding that rooster crowing leads to sunrise and happy hours bring > on sunset. That's how we got here in the first place, as Taubes documents: Ancel Keys looking primarily at Asian cultures and assuming it was their low-fat diet that made them healthy, and not the low calories and lack of refined carbs -- while ignoring the cultures that contradicted his claims. We've gone down a 50-year road of obesity and disease based on these same old flimsy observations of a few countries. We should have tossed those theories in the trash a long time ago, like we did with other claims from the grain-pushers, like the health benefits of constant enemas. That's ridiculed now; so should be the rice hypothesis. -- From nobody Wed Oct 31 08:40:48 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What's OK to eat . . . References: <5ocg1pFm7v2eU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 08:40:47 -0500 Message-ID: <868x5jh068.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "Not so Slim Jim" writes: > Low Carb works very well for me but I keep on slipping back to my old > bingeing ways and eating loads of sweet things and find myself putting > the weight back on - obviously. One thing that really helped me stay on track this time was tracking my food for about a week so I could make sure I'm getting at least 65% of my calories from fat. That simply turned off the cravings like a switch. I sat at a birthday party a few weeks ago and watched everyone else eat cake, cheesecake, and ice cream, and really didn't feel the slightest temptation to cheat. That wasn't the case before I upped the fat, so I think I was getting enough excess protein to tweak my blood sugar just a bit, and tests after some high-protein meals did bear that out. If cravings continue to be a problem for you after you've been on-plan for a couple weeks, increasing the fat could be something to consider. I started putting butter on more things (get a cookbook from before 1970, and it'll tell you to put a pat of butter on your steak, yum!) and snacking on nuts. -- From nobody Wed Oct 31 15:39:20 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: daily food References: <5opbsnFklai1U1@mid.individual.net> <86k5p3h12u.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5orgtgFo6ceuU2@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:39:19 -0500 Message-ID: <867il3f288.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 "Ophelia" writes: > You may remember me when I did meat and proteins only. It did work > and I lost weight but I do believe you were all right about it not > being the healthiest. The big plus for that though was that I was > never hungry! Well, I currently don't eat a lot of vegetables or fruit myself; it's mostly meat, eggs, and cheese for me right now, with maybe 3-4 servings of green stuff a week. I do think green leafy vegetables are good for you, but because of things I've got going on right now, it seems like most of the veggies I buy go bad in the fridge before I get to them. Since my primary concern right now is stabilizing my blood sugar and improving insulin sensitivity, I'm not especially concerned about veggies, though I'm sure I'll be eating more of them in the spring. For now, if I'm not having cravings or other symptoms of carbs, I'm happy. That's just me, though. I've also started avoiding food shipped from thousands of miles away, within reason; and since I didn't have a garden this year to preserve anything from, that limits the options this time of year too. I do have a source of Swiss chard that's still going strong, and that's an excellent green that stands up to a lot of cold weather. Local broccoli, cabbage, turnips, and a few other things will still be available until the first hard frost. Oh, another thing I just discovered is home-roasted pumpkin seeds. These things are *excellent* -- so much better than the woody things you can buy in the store that there's no comparison. If you've never had them, do yourself a favor and make some. Just take the seeds out of a pumpkin and rinse them and sort out any pulp so you just have the seeds. Soak them in saltwater (as much salt as the water will hold) for 24-48 hours, then drain them and spread them out on cookie sheets and bake for 40-50 minutes at 300 degrees, shaking them every 10 minutes or so to stir them around a bit and keep them from sticking to the metal. After Halloween, I'm going to buy up a bunch of cheap pumpkins and make a bunch more, and try some different options, like sprinkling them with cayenne or other spices, coating them with butter before roasting, and whatever else sounds good. I figure this is the time of year to do it, when all the leftover pumpkins are for sale. -- From nobody Wed Oct 31 15:48:42 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: (this is prett much like) drowning in booze References: <1193806753.827986.58920@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193813065.616058.227270@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 15:48:42 -0500 Message-ID: <863avrf1sl.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Myra writes: > I don't get trick or treaters where I live now, but in the past I used > to get rolls of nickels and gave one or two to each kid instead of > candy. Cost-wise, it worked out about the same. Yeah, I didn't get any at my apartment here last year, so I probably won't this year either. If I do, they'll have to settle for canned goods. I realize my lack of candy won't make much of a healthy dent in the *pounds* of candy they'll gather tonight. Yes, pounds. I've seen my nieces bring home multiple bags of candy, and they get big piles of it at every parade in the summer too nowadays. Still, there's no point in adding to the harm. -- From nobody Wed Oct 31 17:09:51 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: carbs and exercise References: <1193618455.498211.145060@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> <1193643785.828439.199830@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193645935.234803.33010@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <4725d199$0$16190$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <1193795997.698682.242350@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <1193836763.005159.318550@z9g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 17:09:50 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7djdjgx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 Hollywood writes: > On Oct 30, 8:59 pm, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> Let me tell you something. As I reached that appearance, stunningly >> beautiful women, the kind that look away when you try to catch their >> eye, started making eye contact with me, smiling---and even saying >> ``Hi!''. This is was a completely new experience for me. Also, the >> less unattractive ones started to shy away. I had to ``catch them >> looking''. The ladies clearly, overwhelmingly prefer well-cut, >> athletic guys. If you become one, it's like entering a parallel >> universe where women have been programmed differently. > It's the confidence. Women prefer lean and athletic. "Cut" big > muscularity scares women. But the confidence is the number one > thing. If the muscles are your confidence, Samson, then sure, the > muscles make you attractive to women. Exactly. If women started approaching you and showing interest, it's because your new look made you more confident. That shows in your body language, from the way you walk, to the angle of your head and shoulders, to the look in your eyes. You can completely change the way women view you and approach you without changing your physical appearance one bit. Appearance matters very little, as long as you don't actually smell bad or let your gut hang out under your shirt -- and even those guys can do better than you'd expect if their attitude is perfect. Not that there's anything wrong with improving your physique -- I'd love to get back to the build that made people in college ask what position I played -- but you can get as ripped as you want, and if you're still timid and supplicating, it won't help much. -- From nobody Thu Nov 1 10:08:56 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: (this is prett much like) drowning in booze References: <13ig845qtui3jf0@news.supernews.com> <13igvd9anflpjf1@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:08:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86bqaengu0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 Luna writes: > In article <13igvd9anflpjf1@news.supernews.com>, > "Roger Zoul" wrote: > >> Oh for goodness sake, it's Halloween! >> >> Yeah, Halloween isn't the problem. However, please tell me how >> Halloween doesn't reinforce the issue? Kids get piles of candy to >> pig out on...are you kidding? Your entire message below seem to be as >> if you've dropped in a vacuum and have forgotten where these kids >> live. I'd agree with you 100% if candy were only an occasional >> treat, but it's the rule not the exception, for many of these kids. Yep. The kids I know get so much candy at Halloween, Easter, and every parade in the summertime that if they just had it for a moderate snack once a day, it'd last all year. > So, on a fun holiday, when many of these kids have put in lots of time, > effort, and imagination to dress up in costumes, and have been looking > forward to going trick-or-treating for weeks now, is that really the > right time to sit in judgment on the way parents raise their kids all > year long? Just because some of us have problems controlling ourselves > around certain foods, does that really mean the foods are "evil" or > "poison" and we should decide to be the arbiters of who is allowed to > have those foods? I don't think anyone's saying we should lecture the little goblins or their parents at your door, or grab the bags of candy out of their hands and flush it. There's just no need to add to it, when you can stock other treats or toys, or just turn your lights off. -- From nobody Thu Nov 1 10:23:45 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: daily food References: <5opbsnFklai1U1@mid.individual.net> <86k5p3h12u.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5orgtgFo6ceuU2@mid.individual.net> <867il3f288.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1193879836.731021.238230@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:23:45 -0500 Message-ID: <867il2ng5a.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Tom writes: > You know, I always like veggies but found them a pain to cook > sometimes so they would go bad. I recently bought a Tupperware > microwave veggie/meat steamer cooker. Just a cheap thing from the > mall. I use that thing all the time now! Get a nice halibut fillet, > or some chicken, and put it in the steamer along with a bunch of > broccoli, some cauliflower, a few mushrooms, some asparagus, and then > steam for maybe 6-8 minutes, depending. Tastes so good! Thanks for the idea! I usually steam my vegetables, but I never thought of simplifying the process by putting the fish in there with them. I don't suppose that would work so well with a pork chop; too bad. -- From nobody Thu Nov 1 10:28:17 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: daily food References: <5opbsnFklai1U1@mid.individual.net> <86k5p3h12u.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5orgtgFo6ceuU2@mid.individual.net> <867il3f288.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5otv0nFolv2vU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 10:28:17 -0500 Message-ID: <863avqnfxq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 "Ophelia" writes: > I have got into a routine. For breakfast I have lots of bacon, an egg > and coffee with double cream. I take the cream to work too and have > it in my coffee during the day. For lunch I take meat or cheese. In > the evenings I just can't be bothered to cook for myself, so I have > soup and then some oatcakes and cheese. I have some fruit sometimes, > strawberries or the odd pear. > > I am sure I will get told off about the oatcakes, but I love them and > I don't think I am having too many carbs. Well, just count the carbs. If weight loss stalls or you're fighting cravings all the time, the grain would be the first culprit I'd look at; but if things are going well, don't worry about it. Make sure you know how many carbs you're getting from that pear, too; they're a fairly carby fruit. -- From nobody Thu Nov 1 15:47:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: (this is prett much like) drowning in booze References: <13ig845qtui3jf0@news.supernews.com> <13igvd9anflpjf1@news.supernews.com> <86bqaengu0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <13ik312b453fb04@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:47:47 -0500 Message-ID: <86y7dhn158.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Just for the record, though, I do like the idea of "trick or threat". Is that a typo, or are kids getting meaner than I thought these days? :-) -- From nobody Thu Nov 1 15:56:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: (this is prett much like) drowning in booze References: <13ig845qtui3jf0@news.supernews.com> <1193842635.963267.191840@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <13ih7pc87k3q865@news.supernews.com> <13ijf3o52c8u47f@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 15:56:02 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzo5n0rh.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Jim writes: > Whenever I go into the grocery stores at holidays, I see oceans and > oceans of candy. It is saddening to see, as an adult. Mike Eades recently blogged about how the new farm bill increases supports for sugar farmers in the USA, while opening the door through NAFTA for more cheap sugar from Mexico. Wonderful. Farm subsidies are always counterproductive, but this is especially bad. Surely everyone, from low-carbers to Ornish followers, can agree that refined sugar isn't something we *need*. Maybe we'd disagree on whether it should be replaced with bacon or corn flakes, but don't we all still think sugar should be a treat? It's one thing for government to subsidize the necessities of life, but does it really need to subsidize dessert? -- From nobody Thu Nov 1 16:30:19 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes' Ten Inescapable Conclusions References: <1193229797.136330.240010@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193287653.840469.4730@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <47209ee3$0$7210$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193336457.961881.262590@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <47211eec$0$7215$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193369811.394781.97210@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <4721d73e$0$7224$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193472856.355319.307610@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <4723695b$0$7228$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1193547568.819901.146820@t8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <1193584078.181245.108270@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <1193595953.641518.199550@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1193667420.225273.261330@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1193687729.564089.320920@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <1193759626.553069.103200@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <86fxzrh0lq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1193943480.505869.281990@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:30:19 -0500 Message-ID: <86prytmz6c.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 gvk2six@yahoo.com writes: > As to "grain-pushers" touting the benefits of "constant enemas", one > has to wonder what internet sites you've been visiting. Oh sure, you > can find enema nuts on the internet, but you have to be looking for > them and click. I don't know what diet most of them follow, but I > think their main problem is above the shoulders rather than below the > stomach. I thought it was clear that I was talking about people in the past. Read up on the Kellogg brothers, for example. People used to believe a lot of wacky stuff about what was going on inside the body, and many of them were creepily focused on the colon. A good bit of the low-fat, vegetarian belief system came from that same group. -- From nobody Tue Nov 6 08:26:38 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: High and Low Carb Foods? References: <13ivp4ukdav6m80@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:26:37 -0600 Message-ID: <86abprmov6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "Carey" writes: > Is there a list of high, low and no carb foods on line? Lots of them. The USDA has this handy tool for finding the nutritional contents of most foods, so you can make a short list of the foods you tend to eat. Here's a nice list of carb "bargains" taken from the book "Protein Power": . If you're just wondering what sort of things low-carbers eat in addition to things like meat and eggs, that list will give you an idea. Whatever low-carb book you get (and you really should get at least one, if you're planning to do this) will have a list of the most common foods and their carb contents. There are also lots of small booklets of food nutrient totals available. To put it very simply: Sugar, grains, and starches are basically out of bounds. That means no corn, rice, sugar, flour, oatmeal, pasta, honey, or anything made from those items. You may be able to incorporate some of those items back into your diet later when you know what you're doing, especially after you reach you reach your weight and health goals; but at the start, it's best to just keep it simple and avoid them completely. Eat meat, eggs, cheese, nuts, butter, oil, vegetables (some), and berries. Vegetables are the tricky part, because it's not always easy to guess what vegetables are high-carb, especially if you were raised to think of corn and potatoes as vegetables, like I was. Generally, the greener and leafier a vegetable is, the lower in carbs (and higher in nutrition) it is, but that's not always the case. Cabbage and cauliflower are better than their "greenness" would indicate, while peas are worse. That's where you just have to have a list. On fruits, berries and avocados are the best, followed by melon. Most other fruits are simply too high in sugar for when you're getting started, but can be added later. -- From nobody Wed Nov 7 10:39:57 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: High and Low Carb Foods? References: <13ivp4ukdav6m80@corp.supernews.com> <86abprmov6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1194364818.755064.191570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1S0Yi.53033$RX.5889@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> <1194369100.132099.308480@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <_42Yi.53040$RX.18120@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:39:56 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5ouko0z.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 "FOB" writes: > Like nuts are nut trees, apples are apple trees, grapes are grape > vines, mmmmm hmmmmm. A better rule would be to think seeds as high > carb, the rest of the plant is low carb. Seeds, like eggs, contain a > lot of energy to get the new plant started. That's why green peas are > fairly high carb but snow peas, which are picked before the seeds are > fully developed and eat casing and all are lower carb. Root > vegetables are similar, most of them are tubers which will grow if you > plant them so they also store energy. Some seeds break the rule a > bit, nuts are generally higher in fat and protein than carbs, they > store their energy in a different form. Leafy greens are hard > workers, lean and mean. It'd probably be more accurate to say that seeds are high-*calorie*. Tree seeds tend to have more of the calories as fat, grasses have more of the calories as carbs, and legumes have more protein. (There are surely exceptions.) Off the top of my head, I can't think of any seeds that aren't packed with calories--of the ones we commonly eat, anyway. -- From nobody Wed Nov 7 10:42:16 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: High and Low Carb Foods? References: <13ivp4ukdav6m80@corp.supernews.com> <86abprmov6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1194364818.755064.191570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <1S0Yi.53033$RX.5889@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> <1194369100.132099.308480@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 10:42:15 -0600 Message-ID: <86fxziknx4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Doug Freyburger writes: > Looking at a radish I see it grows at the surface so it should > be medium carb by my approximation. Looking at a diakon it > looks like it grows below the surface so it should be high carb > by my approximation. More exceptions. Looking stuff up in > tables definitely works better than my approximation. Yeah, the underground test doesn't work too well, since root vegetables run the gamut from the very low-carb radish, up through turnips, onions, carrots, beets, sweet potatoes, all the way to the very high-carb potato. -- From nobody Wed Nov 7 11:06:48 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: High and Low Carb Foods? References: <13ivp4ukdav6m80@corp.supernews.com> <86abprmov6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1194364818.755064.191570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:06:47 -0600 Message-ID: <86bqa6kms8.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 76 Doug Freyburger writes: > It is easy to guess at the carb level of veggies based on what > they are and how they grow - Maybe so (with a bunch of exceptions), but how many people know that information? How many know that sweet corn is really a grass, that peanuts are a legume, that horse apples aren't a tasty snack? I *wish* people knew more about where their food comes from; but I suspect that for the purposes of carb counting, most would find it easier to keep a carb chart handy than to learn about vegetable biology and then make educated guesses. > That's the method I use when I am shopping for veggies that > come from other lands. In a store that specializes in > Chinese grown veggie types I won't find them in the common > lists so I look at them and see if they grew above or below > the ground or on the line. It's not a hard judgement to make > based on what they look like. Yeah, if they aren't on the lists, that's all you can do--or simply don't eat it until you find out. I'd hate to assume something was low-carb based on its looks and find out later it was the Bolivian version of the potato. > This approximation even works for veggies that grow both above > and below the ground. Consider that celery stems are so low > in carbs they count as salad but celery root is starchy high carb. > Beet greens are so low carb they count as salad but beets are > carby enough that one type is used to make white sugar. Celery root is something like 12 net carbs per cup. That's higher than the stalk, but not exactly "high carb" either, for something that's usually used as a minor ingredient. > The next easy approximation is about fresh or dried. If a type > of veggie comes both fresh or dried the frsh will be a lot lower > in crabs than the dried. Green beans are low carb but almost > all dried beans are high carb (soy being the lowest among the > dried beans). That has far more to do with the fact that green beans still have the shell, while dried beans do not. Green beans are simply a bean variety with a shell that's enjoyable to eat; most bean varieties have a stringy shell that's barely edible. If you shell out green beans (we do this often when they get ahead of us and start getting leathery on the vine) and dry them, they'll be similar in content to other dried beans. Likewise, edible-podded peas are lower in carbs than shelled peas because you eat the shell, not because the peas inside are any different. Let the edible-podded ones mature and shell them out, and there will be no difference. > For fruits the easy approximations are tart is lower, sweet is > higher followed by grown in temperate climates is lower, grown > in the tropics is higher. > So berries are tart so they are lower carb. And sure enough > most berries are grown in northern climates. Pinapples and > dates are not only sweet but they are grown in the tropics. I'd disagree with the first test, since berries and melon seem *much* sweeter to me than citrus fruits. Anyway, even though there are a lot of exceptions, it's still an interesting thing to study and discuss. Maybe someday vegetables will be hybridized for lower carb totals (turning more of it into fiber, maybe), the way they've been hybridized for the past century to *increase* the sugar content. I know I'm going to be growing more heirloom varieties of things this year, rather than the newer super-sweet varieties that are most common these days. -- From nobody Wed Nov 7 11:21:13 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Thanksgiving ideas? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:21:13 -0600 Message-ID: <867ikukm46.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 "em" writes: > I'm not about to cook a turkey this year, at least not a whole > fricken' bird. I've been thinking about a honey-baked ham, but they > add too much sugar. What's a good simple thing to cook other than > steak and eggs? I have a slow cooker, if that helps. > Also, there's a lot of carby crap that goes along with tg, mashed > potatoes and so forth. What are some of the things you guys make, > especially the simple stuff? Also, what's a good mashed potato > substitute make out of cauliflower? If a whole turkey is too much, get a couple turkey quarters, or just cook a chicken instead. My family usually cooks a couple chickens, since my mom raises them and doesn't raise turkeys. You can also cook a ham without sugar on it. (Ham should be salty, dammit!) Get it from a local butchershop, instead of buying one of the sad, mushy, water-injected, packaged things at the grocery store. A real ham actually tastes good without a bunch of glaze on it. Green beans with mushroom sauce and fried onions or crackers on top are a staple in my family at Thanksgiving. You can make a tasty low-carb version by making your own sauce with mushrooms and cream instead of using the starch-thickened stuff in the can. Put crumbled pork rinds on top for crunch, or fry up some onions of your own. Deviled eggs are always more than welcome to this low-carber at a family get-together. A sliced meat and cheese tray is great; either leave out the crackers or put them out for others and don't touch them. A vegetable tray with ranch or onion dip is quite low-carb. Cook up pretty much any vegetable--broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, chard--and slather it with butter or sprinkle shredded cheese on top. Salad. Cole slaw can be low-carb, if you like it fairly sour (or use Splenda). There are low-carb cole slaw recipes online, or you can experiment with a regular one by leaving out the sugar and seeing how you like it. I discovered that just shredded cabbage, salt, and a little mayo is pretty darn tasty to me. -- From nobody Wed Nov 7 11:26:00 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: The Fat Patrol: A Weighty Problem References: <20071105014041.BF0FD4E4C5@outpost.zedz.net> <5cUXi.3153$zN3.2414@newsfe14.phx> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 11:26:00 -0600 Message-ID: <863aviklw7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "FOB" writes: > It isn't liberals, it's money grubbing corporate officers who will do > anything to reduce costs and raise profits. There are plenty of > liberals, like me, who eat meat and avoid grains. Food policing is > not part of basic liberal belief. Absolutely. Read "Crunchy Cons" by Rod Dreher if you think there aren't conservatives (some would say we're the *real* conservatives, since we're actually trying to conserve something; imagine that) who will gladly band together with liberals on quality-of-life issues like the cheap-food industry. (And plenty of money-grubbing corporate officers are liberal anyway; corporatism and greed cross all political boundaries.) -- From nobody Thu Nov 8 11:03:08 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: High and Low Carb Foods? References: <13ivp4ukdav6m80@corp.supernews.com> <86abprmov6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1194364818.755064.191570@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <86bqa6kms8.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1194464846.702414.312170@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 11:03:07 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcjwk6us.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 Doug Freyburger writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> Doug Freyburger writes: >> >> > It is easy to guess at the carb level of veggies based on what >> > they are and how they grow - >> >> Maybe so (with a bunch of exceptions), but how many people know that >> information? How many know that sweet corn is really a grass, that > I've never understood how folks end up not knowing where their > food comes from so I can't address that. It's hard for me to imagine, since I grew up on a farm with a big garden and livestock. But I guess I can understand it: they're born and raised in cities, and never really leave them except to visit fun outdoor locations like beaches and parks, so they'd have to learn about food production like a foreign language or any other new topic. A generation ago, most people at least had a grandparent or uncle who lived in the country, so they had some contact with it. Nowadays farm tourism is a big business, because for so many people, rural life is as exotic as the zoo. People pay *actual money* to pick their own pumpkins, walk through cornfield mazes, and bottle-feed calves--things we called "chores" when I was growing up. Why people don't get curious about their food and learn about it anyway--that's harder to figure. I mean, I've never been to prison, but I still read about making prison wine one time. You could ask that question about a lot more things than food, though. >> that horse apples aren't a tasty snack? > Not knowing what a horse apple is, I gotta admit I pictured > rocky mountain oysters when I first read the term. ;^) Heh. Around here, horse apples are what the horse leaves behind on the trail. I'm not sure whether I'd prefer to eat one of them or a rocky mountain oyster. Some places, people also use "horse apples" to refer to what we call "hedge balls" or "hedge apples." They're the fruit (I guess a fruit) of the hedge tree, also known as Osage Orange. They look like a light-green brain a bit bigger than a softball. Nothing eats them, and people put them around their house foundation to keep out bugs, so I suspect they're poisonous or really nasty. -- From nobody Thu Nov 8 18:01:35 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Thanksgiving ideas? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:01:34 -0600 Message-ID: <86d4ukjnhd.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 "Cubit" writes: > It is just one day. In my opinion the chef should just do the normal > carby toxic menu for the guests' sake. Why, will it harm them to go without a large number of carbs for a meal or two? In my families, the host makes the meat and maybe a side dish or two, and everyone else brings a covered dish. So for Thanksgiving, that usually means the host makes turkey, ham, and mashed potatoes and gravy, and then everyone else brings the beans, noodles, salads, and enough dessert that we could eat nothing *but* dessert and be stuffed. Oh well. > On your own plate the bad stuff can be moderated by portion size. Who > would notice that you only put a tablespoon of mashed potatoes on your > plate? You don't even need to eat it, it just looks nice for them. You lost me; why put them on your plate at all? By the time I load up plenty of the meat course(s), some salad, a vegetable or two (cooked or raw from a veggie tray), and whatever I brought, my plate is full. > In my experience the best way to prepare for exposure to a tempting > carby meal is to eat ahead of time. If you eat an 8 ounce block of > cream cheese before dinner, you won't be hungry as the bad stuff sits > on your dinner plate. Not being hungry adds amazing self-control. Yeah, I've started eating a regular meal right before going to events where food will be served. Then I can nibble on whatever's lowest in carbs if I want, just to be participating in the eating. If there's absolutely nothing acceptable to eat--and I have run into situations like that, where even the meat dish was loaded with sugar--I just beg off. It *really* bothers some people when you don't eat, but I've finally reached a point where I don't let peer pressure be more important than my health. It only took a few years. -- From nobody Fri Nov 9 14:23:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Thanksgiving ideas? References: <86d4ukjnhd.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:23:23 -0600 Message-ID: <867ikrjhhg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 "Cheri" writes: > em wrote in message ... > >>I use the blood sugar excuse, even though my blood sugar has > normalized due >>to low-carbing. "Nope, looks great, wish I could have it but I can't. > I've >>got diabetes." >> >>Mike > Really? I'd much sooner just say oh, no thank you, I've had plenty of > everything, otherwise people will keep trying to find things for you > to eat next time, such as "sugar free" cookies, candies etc. Besides, > no reason to make others uncomfortable by feeling that they're eating > good stuff in front of you, while you're deprived. :-) "I've had plenty" doesn't really work if you haven't eaten anything yet, though. I tried saying I'm diabetic, but you're right: then people push the foods they've been told are fine for diabetics, like potatoes (complex carbs can't be wrong!) or pie made with sugar-free pudding. So I've backed away from that, and now I say something more vague, like, "I have to watch my blood sugar." They don't really know what that means, as much as they think they know what diabetes means, so it's harder for them to be helpful. If I don't feel like getting into that and drawing a bunch of sympathy, and it's a group I probably won't be around again, I just say, "No thanks, I'm not eating today," and let them savor the mystery. -- From nobody Fri Nov 9 14:30:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Thanksgiving ideas? References: <1194621110.481086.271180@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:30:37 -0600 Message-ID: <863avfjh5e.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 17 Bobo Bonobo® writes: > The consequences of taking a day off of low carbing are putting back > on a load of glycogen, going out of ketosis *temporarilty*, and having > to go through a couple of days of induction (which many find rather > unpleasant). That used to be my plan too, but it didn't work out very well. By the time I attended 3-4 Thanksgiving celebrations and 4-5 Christmas parties, I ended up being out of ketosis for a large chunk of late November to early January. If you can limit yourself to one off-diet day and get right back on plan the next day, more power to you. -- From nobody Mon Nov 12 11:10:24 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Thanksgiving ideas? References: <1194621110.481086.271180@s15g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <1194622076.636990.286200@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1194643019.438383.172500@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com> <1194698884.915034.40540@o38g2000hse.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:10:24 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6ivz8xr.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > So, I take it then the answer is you've never even tried faux mashed > potatoes made from cauliflower. Which is fine. But then you > shouldn't go around proclaiming them to be repulsive, because as I > pointed out, done correctly, they have little resemblance to > cauliflower. I've had picky kids eat them. They couldn't tell what > they were made from and thought they were some kind of mashed potato. I like mashed cauliflower a lot, but I could never mistake it for mashed potatoes. It simply doesn't have the same starchiness, nor does it cause the surge of "contentment" neurotransmitters like potatoes do. Maybe if I were a kid who still had great insulin sensitivity, and my brain were already wired up from the other carbs I'd been eating all day, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. -- From nobody Mon Nov 12 11:51:38 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low-carb on a tight budget References: <%LPZi.4174$pr6.1674@newsfe06.phx> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 11:51:38 -0600 Message-ID: <86mytjz711.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 60 "em" writes: > Eric's comment made me want to bring up the subject of doing low-carb > on a budget: > > "Eric" wrote i >> 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? $6/day is hardly "serious bread," is it? If you buy fast food or eat in restaurants or cafeterias *at all*, you're going to average more than that. If you can't squeeze out $200/month for the right food (I've been there), then that's a separate issue you need to get handled. I'm a cheap bastard, but I don't flinch at spending $200-300 on food for myself every month. Sometimes you do get what you pay for, after all. It's true that you *can* eat high-carb cheaper than low-carb, because grains tend to be very cheap (partly due to government subsidies), but most overweight people who come to low-carb aren't leaving behind a diet of ramen noodles and rice. More likely they're leaving behind pizza, pastries, subs, TV dinners, chips, and plenty of other expensive processed foods. Low-carb foods don't have to cost more than those processed high-carb foods, as long as you're willing to do your own preparation and cooking. If you're smart about it, you can have steak and salad at home cheaper than a Happy Meal or a big bag of Doritos. As someone else mentioned, eggs may have the best nutrition/cost ratio of any food there is. Even if you pay a little more for eggs that didn't come from a factory farm, you can get them for 20 cents or less each. Fry 4-5 in a pat of butter, and you've got breakfast for under $1. I get hamburger and pork sausage from a local butcher in bulk for well under $2/pound, so I can have a couple quarter-pounders with mayo and mustard for lunch for another $1 or less. I watch for sales on canned goods like mushrooms, so I can toss them into dishes like omelettes or meatloaf for maybe 10 cents/serving. Some things are harder to find cheap. Nuts are just plain expensive, but if you can find them in large quantities and raw, they're a lot cheaper than a few ounces roasted in a can--sometimes less than half the price. Roast a whole bunch and freeze them. Cheese can be expensive, but around here it goes on sale regularly, so when it does, I buy up several pounds and freeze them. I only pay $1-1.50/pound for cheese that way. Some salad fixin's don't keep long enough to stock up when they're on sale, so I tend to eat a lot of salads when lettuce is on sale, and then take a break from them when it's not. I get bored with salads if I eat them all the time anyway. It may also help to buy directly from local growers. A lot of people who sell eggs, meat, or garden produce do it because they enjoy it or have a surplus, so they don't necessarily charge much. Even if you end up paying as much as you would at the grocery store, you can get a much better product. There's also the option of having your own garden, if you have a place for it. $25 in seeds can turn into a heck of a lot of food. -- From nobody Tue Nov 13 09:30:05 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low-carb on a tight budget References: <%LPZi.4174$pr6.1674@newsfe06.phx> <47383b21$0$27066$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5prb90FsqdsjU5@mid.individual.net> <4738ac3a$0$27012$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ptbjdFshh6gU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:30:04 -0600 Message-ID: <86abpiyxhf.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 80 "Ophelia" writes: > I don't have a clue what my bg is. Ought I to know, or would know if > there was a problem? I think it's a very useful thing to know. If you're overweight, there's a good chance that your blood sugar isn't well controlled. If your BG doesn't come back to normal within two hours after eating, that means either A) your pancreas isn't producing as much insulin as it should, or B) it's producing insulin like crazy, but you're insulin resistant enough that all that insulin isn't able to convince your cells to pull the glucose out of your blood. The latter may eventually wear your pancreas out to the point of Type II diabetes. A doctor can do a fasting BG test, but for $50-$100 in equipment and strips you can test yourself multiple times: fasting, when waking up, one hour and two hours after meals, after exercise, etc. That'll give you a much better picture of how your body handled glucose than a single test will. You can also test after foods like sugar alcohols, which seem to cause a BG spike in some people and not others, to see how they affect you. When I started testing, just seeing the numbers was the shock to my system that I needed to make me realize what I was doing to my health. I could no longer tell myself it wouldn't hurt to have one more pizza binge, that I could put off the diet tomorrow, because it wasn't just about weight loss anymore, but about quality of life and making sure I won't be getting anything amputated or going blind. When you look at that meter and see 190 two hours after a carby meal, knowing that anything over 140 means organ damage is occurring *right now*, that's hard to brush off. On the other hand, seeing a nice healthy 89 two hours after a great low-carb lasagna (with Swiss chard for noodles) is really gratifying. > Hmm... we don't have that recorded on our food, although I always > choose organic. I wonder if that has anything to do with pasture > raised? I had thought saturated fat was the healthy one, although you > have cut it down, not out. Saturated fat isn't bad for you like we've been taught, but it's not especially good for you either. It really depends on what else you're eating, which is why some studies made saturated fats look bad: people were eating them in combination with too many carbs and not enough omega-3 fatty acids. Your body knows how to convert saturated fat into unsaturated, which is good, because saturated fats aren't very flexible (think butter compared to olive oil), so you don't want a lot of them making up your cell membranes. However, this process requires certain enzymes, and the production process that leads to those enzymes begins with omega-3 fatty acids. If you're eating the typical modern diet that has an omega-6/omega-3 ratio of twenty or more to one, you may not produce enough of those enzymes, and your cell membranes will be stiffer than would be best. This can worsen insulin resistance, among other things, because it makes it harder for the receptors in the membrane to move around and do things. So if you're eating right otherwise, saturated fats aren't a threat the way they are to the grain eaters, because you'll be able to use them well. If you're eating low-carb, you're almost automatically going to have a better omega-6/omega-3 ratio than "normal", because most grains are very high in omega-6. Fish oil and sardines can improve the ratio even more, and as Jackie said, pasture raised animal products are better than those from grain-fed animals. Trans-fats are the only fat that's truly harmful in all cases. Like saturated fat, they're inflexible, but unlike saturated fat, they haven't been around long enough for us to evolve a mechanism for converting them into a flexible form. So the body just plugs them into the cell walls as-is and hopes for the best, especially if you're short on healthy fats. You really don't want to consume *any* trans-fats, ever, if you can possibly avoid it. (Most of this is condensed from Protein Power Life Plan, by the way; so grab a copy of that for a detailed explanation.) -- From nobody Tue Nov 13 09:33:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Kimkins -- Again References: <4738c816$0$27022$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <13jhpr39h8igoe8@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:33:31 -0600 Message-ID: <864pfqyxbo.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 30 "Roger Zoul" writes: > "Jackie Patti" wrote in message > news:4738c816$0$27022$470ef3ce@news.pa.net... >> Cheri wrote: >>> BlueBrooke <.@.> wrote in message ... >>> >>>> As a matter of fact, the doctor said ketosis is life-threatening and >>>> the dietician said that our bodies need carbs. >>>> >>> Arrrrrrgh. >> >> Yeah, you'd think they could address the fact that starvation isn't a good >> thing without that nonsense. >> >> There's a great soap opera update! Kimmer has posted a HUGE confession on >> her site that she's been full of shit all along, lying and faking pictures >> and such: http://www.kimkins.com/content/view/1079/142/ > > Oh, she's doing a Dr. Phil: Own it and move on. I thought that was a Bill Clinton: "Mistakes were made, but we're moving on now; all you people who won't move on before all the evidence is even gathered are just obsessive cranks. Move on already." Or maybe now that's called a Bill Belichick. -- From nobody Tue Nov 13 09:41:25 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eric Blackway: Weight-Loss Program References: <1194685058.894987.134920@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <47362CD7.1CD9@softhome.net> <1194734686.052026.120060@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <13jfjo6fiu1931c@news.supernews.com> <7KqdnaCyt5jOSaranZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@inreach.com> <1194901934.407015.72900@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <4738c6c1$0$27022$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1194907515.301386.68270@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:41:25 -0600 Message-ID: <86zlxixie2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 Eric writes: > I'm glad finally someone asked about exercise. I run for half-an-hour > every day. There is absolutely nothing like running to take fat off, > from what a Navy doc once explained to me, the continued jarring > impacts just beat hell out of your flab and force dissolving fat > tissue to aerate. That's an interesting theory. Remember those things that were popular a few decades ago, where you stood inside this wide belt and leaned back, and then it shook the crap out of you? I think they were before my time, but I've seen pictures. Seems like they were based on the same principle, but I thought it turned out to be bogus. -- From nobody Wed Nov 14 08:09:40 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eric Blackway: Weight-Loss Program References: <1194685058.894987.134920@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <47362CD7.1CD9@softhome.net> <1194734686.052026.120060@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <13jfjo6fiu1931c@news.supernews.com> <7KqdnaCyt5jOSaranZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@inreach.com> <1194901934.407015.72900@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <4738c6c1$0$27022$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <1195009213.341828.54640@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:09:40 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6isyl3v.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 Eric writes: > Today was a hard one. I hung on, but I really didn't feel up to > dealing with the brand-new snide comments I was sure were lurking for > me here in the group. If you've been reading this thread, I'm sure you > know what I mean. I would have been short and publicly rude, and that > generally helps nothing and no one. I have to warn everyone that I'll > probably log on one day, come upon a real piece of shit's shitty > comment, and just let go, so once again, if the stories of bulimia and > mental hospitals have not already convinced you that this is not > suitable reading for your children, THIS IS AN UNRATED THREAD. That's a very nice strawman; hope it takes the blue ribbon at the arts and crafts contest! No one's offended by your tales of woe; if you had looked through the archives of this group before posting, you'd have seen that many people have opened up about their personal trials. I suspect that's somewhat in the nature of a group with 'support' in the name. Here's why you've gotten the responses you've gotten. First, you come in here with a visible chip on your shoulder, warning us up front that for some reason we're not going to be able to handle the rap you'll be putting down. Next time you're at a party, give that a try: instead of walking up to people and saying hi, just walk around repeating in a loud voice, "Warning: If you talk to me, it will get unpleasant!" You'll be very popular. Second, you describe an unusual cheese/laxative diet you've already designed that seems to be a balancing act between constipation and the squirts, claim that has something to do with Atkins, and then say part of your motivation is that standard low-carb is too expensive, even though cheese is certainly not cheap. Then you act hurt when people tell you you're full of crap. Sorry, but we're not your high school guidance counselor; we're not going to pat you on the back and say "good job" when you're full of crap. We're going to correct notions that are dead wrong, offer new ideas, and wish you the best. That's real support. Don't take it personally; we all had to relearn this stuff after being raised in the anti-fat world, and we're all still learning. I've been told I was full of crap more than once here, and I didn't cry too much. Stick around, settle down a little, lower your dukes, and enjoy. -- From nobody Wed Nov 14 08:28:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low-carb on a tight budget References: <%LPZi.4174$pr6.1674@newsfe06.phx> <47383b21$0$27066$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5prb90FsqdsjU5@mid.individual.net> <4738ac3a$0$27012$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ptbjdFshh6gU1@mid.individual.net> <86abpiyxhf.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:28:14 -0600 Message-ID: <86mytgyk8x.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 Jim writes: > Someone here said that the best deal on a blood sugar tester is to get > the Sams Club meter and their test strips. > > I went into my local Sams CLub and the pharmacy guy agreed and said > that the prices were as much as 50% below the competitors. > > There are many "free" offers for meters, but they stick you in the end > for all of the higher cost test strips. Yeah, since you only buy one meter but can use each strip only once, the cost of the strips is the important thing. The cheapest I've seen strips is a little under 50 cents each for the Wal-Mart Relion, while some strips run $1 or more each. I pay 50-60 cents each for the strips for my Accu-Chek Active, but at least I can get them lots of places. Trips to Wal-Mart make me hate the human race. I was a little alarmed to read in Bernstein's book that some BG meters can be 40-100% off! I think mine is good; at least the numbers always make sense. I just checked his forum (it let me register this time, yay!), and about a year ago he was recommending the Accu-Check Aviva, so at least I've got the same brand. -- From nobody Fri Nov 16 08:52:49 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: A nice little afternoon snack References: <1194643379.175215.323650@y27g2000pre.googlegroups.com> <1194911761.281977.99510@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> <13jk37uhsgnm14@news.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:52:49 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5oiw8ce.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 > "Roger Zoul" wrote: >> Don't the sperms from the same male compete, each tying to be the >> "seed"? "Cubit" writes: > In same males it seems to be a horse race. With different males there is > actual combat between sperm, if I remember the PBS special correctly. That's my understanding too, although from other sources than PBS: that something like 90% of sperm aren't designed to fertilize eggs, but are built for combat with foreign sperm. I don't know if it's the case with all animals, or just humans. I just picked up the book "Sperm Wars," which I think gets into this in detail, but it's still in my to-read pile. -- From nobody Tue Nov 20 10:17:06 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Pumpkin "Recipe"?? References: <1575b8cd-3c55-42f3-b84f-2217ab5d9a7b@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <26998-4742F254-1066@storefull-3235.bay.webtv.net> <52c0dbba-6aba-456d-a549-93ed5cf5c8ee@f13g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:17:06 -0600 Message-ID: <868x4slwn1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 44 Doug Freyburger writes: > Try thinking of pumpkin as just another type of squash and you > could imagine other non-sweetened uses for it. I like diced > squash sauteed with assorted herbs, squash baked into a > breadless casserole covered with grated cheese, squash > steamed then mashed with some milk and basil (cauliflower > isn't the only core low carb food made into fauxtatoes) and so > on. All of these should work fine with fresh pumpkin, the mashed > and casserole versions should work fine with canned. My mom does just the opposite. She's found that butternut squash are easier to grow around here, more productive, and easier to process than pumpkins, so she uses them in place of pumpkin in pumpkin pies. And they're good fried or baked as themselves, too. Pumpkin by itself is pretty tasteless, but once you add the right spices, they're pretty interchangeable. > I've been wondering about the seeds. Dried, salted and roasted > is the second most common use I know of (the first being the > trash bin when carving jackolaterns). It occurs to me that pumpkin > seeds are harder than squash seeds, but squash seeds go in > casseroles and whatever as part of the vegitable for summer > squash at least. Pumpkin is midway between summer and winter > squash so I wonder if they can be included in recipes without > getting shelled first. I don't know; they seem too firm to me to include in a casserole--like you say, they're pretty hard--and they're so good roasted anyway. I haven't tried roasting winter squash seeds; maybe I'll try that next year. Last week, I went looking for pumpkins for seed-roasting purposes, and most places had already gotten rid of them all. I guess once Halloween was over, they cleared them out pretty quickly. I finally found pie pumpkins--the little ones maybe 6-8 inches across--and got a dozen of them. They didn't have many more seeds than the two big pumpkins we did at Halloween, and they were a lot more work to process, so next year I'll make sure to get out Nov. 1 and get leftover ones. -- From nobody Tue Nov 27 08:41:18 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How do you burn body fat while retaining muscle mass? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 08:41:17 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5o3g38y.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 61 davidlee writes: > I have been doing 1 hour of stationary biking daily for the past month > in a bid to burn off body fat from my abdominal area. I also do weights > training 4 times a week. I consume roughly 2000-2200 calories daily > which is the recommended/slightly below recommended quantity to > maintain body weight for a 22 yr old male. It has not been very > successful as there is still body fat on my torso. I am not keen to go > on a high protein low carbohydrate diet. Then don't. Do a moderate-protein, low-carb diet, where you get as much protein as your lean body mass needs, based on your activity level. The book "Protein Power," available at most libraries (or Amazon.com has used copies for basically the price of shipping) will walk you through the process of determining that amount with a few simple measurements. > If you are going to suggest one, could you kindly explain the need to > exclude carbohydrates? You don't exclude them; you lower them to the point where they don't cause problems. More below. > I do not understand the need to exclude carb when the calorie totals > of 2 different diets(1 balanced and 1 low carb high protein) are > equal. Because there's a lot more going on inside your body than the simple burning of calories. The short, short version: all carbohydrates (except for fructose, which is in a dangerous category all its own, and fiber) are converted into glucose before being transferred from your intestine to your blood stream. Insulin is released in response to this increase in blood sugar. Insulin also triggers insulin receptors on your cells, including the fat cells, telling them it's feedin' time. While this is going on, your cells *cannot* take fat out of storage and get rid of it. This surge of insulin must stop before fat can be lost, and that's where a low-carb diet comes in. A low-carb diet keeps those insulin surges short or non-existent, so your cells are able to take fat out of storage any time it's needed for energy. The only reason it's even possible to lose weight on a high-carb, low-calorie diet is that by restricting calories enough, there will be a good portion of the day when you have burned up all the calories you took in, even if they were 100% sugar, and your endocrine system can shift out of this high-insulin mode and into a fat-burning mode. So the recommended low-calorie, low-fat, high-carb diet "works" to the extent that it gets you into a low-carb state part-time. It's just a lot less fun; and if you're in the 75% or so of the population whose pancreata can't handle that blood sugar roller coaster for a lifetime, it will eventually damage your health in all sorts of ways. Like I said, that's the short, short version. For the longer version, "Protein Power" covers the basics, and "Protein Power Life Plan" (a newer book) really gets into the details. Gary Taubes's new book "Good Calories, Bad Calories," which I think someone else already recommended, covers a lot of the same science, but also explains the history of how we got so mixed up on this stuff over the last century. -- From nobody Fri Nov 30 10:19:13 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cooking Oils References: <9et3j.21115$4k.17230@newsfe11.phx> <474f1882$0$27069$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 10:19:11 -0600 Message-ID: <867ijzg0zk.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 39 Jackie Patti writes: > So I'll quote my thoughts on fat in general, and a later bit about > protein and fat dietary choicess from that email here for you. The oil > question gets answered in the midst of this somewhere: That's lots of great info. I just want to add: If you don't think pasture-raised meat, dairy, and eggs are being raised in your area, or don't know where to get them, try a search here . I just attended a Local Foods conference yesterday, and learned that there are a lot more people raising quality food around here than I realized, and a larger market for it than I thought too. There's a good chance that some farmers in your area are growing this stuff already. (If not, you might want to start your own, because the demand is rising fast.) >> The ABSOLUTE baddy in fats that you should avoid are trans fats. >> That a product says 0 trans fats is irrelevant. Labels measure trans >> fats in grams, and it's milligrams levels that are dangerous, so 0 g >> of trans fats isn't good enough. This stuff is poison! Any product >> containing "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated" ANYTHING is >> bad, don't eat it at all. I'm a little confused about trans-fat labeling these days. I used to think they were required to say "hydrogenated" or "partially hydrogenated", because otherwise, why would they ever say it? But recently I was buying mayonnaise, and noticed that all the brands simply said "soybean oil." As much as I'd like to think they've all (even the generic brands) shifted to unhydrogenated oils already, that seems too good to be true; and if they weren't using trans-fats, I'd think they'd announce that proudly on the label like many other products do. So now I'm wondering, is it ever possible to know for sure whether something has trans-fats based on the label, or do I need to start making my own mayo? -- From nobody Fri Nov 30 11:29:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Cooking Oils References: <9et3j.21115$4k.17230@newsfe11.phx> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:29:41 -0600 Message-ID: <863aunfxq2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > A lot of people can taste the difference between the oils, but I sure > can't. I can't taste any difference -- to me, oil is oil. I use an > appropriate one, or one that's recommended in a recipe, just in case > someone else who is eating it can tell. > I used to spend a lot of money on different oils, but I don't anymore. > I never noticed the "nutty" or "woodsy" or "fruity" taste they were > supposed to have. Or maybe I just don't know what these words mean as > culinary terms? I'm the same way; I never pick up subtle differences in tastes. Oil just tastes like oil, and doing things like infusing it with herbs does nothing for me. I like nuts, and when I read through seed catalogs, there are supposedly "nutty" varieties of everything from lettuce to squash, but they just taste like lettuce and squash to me. -- From nobody Tue Dec 4 15:12:44 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Coffee Connection References: <727e8e63-36f4-4afb-b855-6f3b24ed9c76@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 15:12:43 -0600 Message-ID: <86ve7e5flg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 diabetesq7lx@gmail.com writes: > I was reading about Coffee and it's effects on diabetes, whats the > story. > > I hope someone can help!!! You were reading about it; maybe you should tell us. Apparently it causes Traveling Apostrophe Syndrome too. -- From nobody Thu Dec 6 15:10:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Low Fat or Low Glycemic? References: <99f7b6ec-4c8e-4f25-b8af-1eed2c12e4a4@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:10:00 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6hzjzrr.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 masters1691@gmail.com writes: > I recommend reading a book by Dr. Ray Strand called Releasing Fat. He > talks about the importance of looking at the glycemic index rather > than merely at the fat content of foods. The word "merely" doesn't really make sense here, because GI and fat content are mostly unrelated. In general, higher fat content in a food will slow the absorption of the carbs it came with, making the overall meal lower in GI. So to the extent that GI and fat content are related, they're opposite, not complementary. -- From nobody Thu Dec 6 15:24:44 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie, just starting, question! References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:24:44 -0600 Message-ID: <86mysnjz37.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 Nina writes: > I've been doing low-carb for a few days... not quite induction, as I'm > trying to sneak my husband onto this, long story, so I haven't been > able to eliminate a few things, but certainly in about the 30 carb/day > range. And while the immediate effects of this have been pretty > positive... more energy, not hungry, etc.... I also feel, well, > "weird" would best describe it. Edgy. Like it's hard to move in a > way. Thirsty. And, mostly, stuffed (which after being generally > hungry on most eating plans, is a good thing, but it still feels odd). > Headachy. Thirst can be an issue; low-carbers tend to need more water for a couple reasons. When the body stores extra sugar as glycogen in places like the muscles, it stores water along with it. In the early days of low-carb, you tend to burn off a lot of this glycogen, releasing the water that was with it, so you don't have that large reserve of water anymore. The body also uses water to flush out the ketones that are produced when you burn fat. To put it simply, when you're low-carbing, the body needs more water for all the things it's trying to do. I rarely get headaches anymore, but when I do, I can usually attribute it to mild dehydration, because it'll come after a day I was out doing stuff and not getting my usual fluids. So those two might be tied together. Make sure to drink plenty of water. (I get about a gallon a day in the form of weak, unsweetened, decaf tea.) Also, making sure you get enough potassium and salt will help ensure you retain enough water that you won't get dehydrated suddenly. I think I know what you mean about feeling "weird." I called it "restless laziness." It was like I could feel this restless energy that I wasn't used to, but wasn't really up to doing anything with it yet. Gradually, my mind and body seemed to get used to the idea, and I started feeling normal again--just somewhat more energetic and ambitious. -- From nobody Thu Dec 6 15:41:14 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: fasting faq? References: <47585bfc$0$2755$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:41:13 -0600 Message-ID: <86ir3bjybq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 56 Jackie Patti writes: > em wrote: >> I read a couple articles on Davis's site re. fasting and it made me >> curious. I did a search for fasting on the Internet and everything I >> found had to do with religion or colon cleansing. "Fruit juice fast"? >> Gimme a break. >> I'm just curious if there's any decent info out there online so that I >> can learn a little more about the subject. Based on Davis's blog, I am >> toying with the idea. > Mike Eades has a few blog entries about intermittent fasting. Those are very informative. To sum up, you fast for 24 hours, then eat for 24 hours. But instead of starting each time period at midnight, you start it right after supper one day. So if you finish supper on Monday at 7pm, you don't eat again until after 7pm Tuesday. Then you start fasting again 7pm on Wednesday. So you're really just skipping two meals every other day. I did it a couple days. It wasn't horrible, considering I expected it to be torturous. I don't normally miss many meals. :-) > I find the most intriguing bit of the fasting idea about... well, > taking a break from it all. Yeah, that's one thing I found attractive too. Sometimes it seems like I'm constantly planning, cooking, eating, or cleaning up after meals, and I don't do a lot of fancy cooking. The idea of being able to just forget about all that for most of a day is pretty appealing. Aside from a break from all that, I know it would be good for me to mix things up and get away from eating being such an automatic thing. The worst thing about the hunger wasn't the physical sensation; it was the constant mental distraction. I must have started to get out of my chair 1000 times that first day, thinking "Hmm, what should I eat?" > I might do this a few times a month when I want a break. Not more > often though, cause I am being evaluated for thyroid problems and > don't need to be trashing my metabolism. I'm going to try to do it more often, but I don't know if I'll ever get up to every other day. Maybe two days a week. For one thing, every other day means it would switch days every other week, and weekends would be harder. I think it'd be easier for me to do it 2 or 3 days a week, always on the same weekdays. > But I found it a pleasant break. I did too. That seems like an odd thing to say about some serious hunger pangs, but it really was. -- From nobody Fri Dec 7 10:04:02 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie, just starting, question! References: <47576c16$0$2795$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <475858ac$0$2799$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <47587d37$0$2785$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <7tvgl3pvr9el6prn3r65kufdgj3u3fh8g2@4ax.com> <4758936f$0$2777$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:04:01 -0600 Message-ID: <8663zajxu6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 81 Nina writes: >>> Oh, but you're not telling me anything I don't know, unfortunately >>> (or fortunately, I guess). The trouble is trying to get him to take >>> these things seriously without making him so depressed about the >>> whole thing that he thinks there's no point in doing anything. I'm convinced there's often a vicious cycle between carb consumption and depression. High blood sugar increases the production of "contentment" brain chemicals--there's a reason a person who just got dumped eats a box of chocolates, and not a pile of pork chops. So, a person hits a tough patch in life, seeks refuge in comfort foods, gains weight, gets more depressed about that, needs more comfort foods to offset that, etc, etc. I think that's one reason low-carb diets work so much better than high-carb diets (and also the reason you can't do it halfway and get half the benefits): cutting out the carbs breaks that cycle. It's not easy, especially in the first few days when your body is going through withdrawals, it gets so much easier. > Yeah. And it's *hard* to take care of someone who isn't wholly > committed to taking care of himself. I think that if he could just > lose enough weight to have less pain and more mobility, he'd be more > able to cope with the psychological demands of dealing with diabetes > and everything else. As it is, it's just kind of one more thing that > he can't quite deal with... so for the moment, I'm dealing with it, > basically. Which is ok. It's definitely easier to do it with someone who's on the same page. Hopefully, if you can deal with the details long enough for him to see improvements, he'll get excited about it and get on board more actively. >>> Fruit is the real issue at the moment as far as I'm concerned... he >>> likes to eat apples and grapefruit and other citrus fruits, and I >>> don't want to stop him from doing that... better than ice cream, I >>> think... but lots of carbs nonetheless. Yeah, that could be better. Like Jackie said, if he likes berries or melon, maybe you can wean him over to them at least part of the time. Personally, I think the low-carb fruits are a lot tastier than the high-carb ones, but tastes vary. Has he ever tested his blood sugar? When you eat something and see your BG shoot up an hour or two later, or still be high a few hours later, that can be an eye-opener that's hard to avoid. > I bought a box of Dreamfields, so we'll see... I suspect that, like a > lot of things, it's probably better to try to pretty much avoid the > pasta than to find a great substitute. There are also tofu shirataki noodles, available in some stores' specialty or ethnic sections. They come packed in a bag of liquid, and are extremely low-carb, but they're also kinda rubbery. I like them okay, but the texture is a little different. Spaghetti squash is the same way: low in carbs and tastes good, but you'll never mistake it for a starch pasta. >>> But I do wonder how much protein is reasonable... I mean, I love >>> just about anything that counts as protein, but going from eating >>> very little to what seems to me quite a lot is... I don't know, like >>> everything else, I guess it's good but weird. Anyway, we've been >>> eating vats of vegetables for some time, vegetables plus butter and >>> cheese are just better! You might want to grab a copy of "Protein Power Life Plan," or the earlier "Protein Power." They'll show you how much protein you need, and what serving sizes of protein-rich foods like meat and eggs will give you that. Extra protein isn't a problem, unless you drastically overdo it, enough that the excess protein being converted to glucose drives your blood sugar up. You'll probably know if you're eating that much. > I have to say that I find this absence of carb cravings absolutely > bizarre. I'm quite sure that this is the only time in my life that I > haven't had them. That's got to be a good thing. Nice, huh? -- From nobody Fri Dec 7 10:34:01 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie, just starting, question! References: <47576c16$0$2795$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <475858ac$0$2799$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <47587d37$0$2785$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <7tvgl3pvr9el6prn3r65kufdgj3u3fh8g2@4ax.com> <4758936f$0$2777$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 10:34:01 -0600 Message-ID: <86wsrqihvq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Jackie Patti writes: > It's half done. As is my diabetes page. Unfortunately, I find it > easier to write to people who respond than just to sit down and write. > ;) Funny how that works, isn't it? I hate to think how many words I've written here and other places as responses, but when I sit in front of a blank page or web site, my mind just locks up. Writing an actual book seems like an impossible task. Just a lack of discipline on my part, I suppose. > You also might want to google either alt.food.diabetic or > alt.support.diabetes; people often post about various low-carb pasta > products and which ones do and don't spike their bg and still taste > decent. I seem to recall reading that someone found an *edible* soy > pasta recently. We got some from Netrition, but I don't know the brand offhand. It tasted fine, but then we noticed it came from China. Good grief, millions of bushels of soybeans are grown and processed right here in my neighborhood. Some of them probably got shipped to China, pressed into pasta and packaged, and shipped back. Apparently fuel prices still aren't high enough. -- From nobody Mon Dec 10 10:25:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Newbie, just starting, question! References: <47576c16$0$2795$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <475858ac$0$2799$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <9g8jl3dfi7ihfj2g38d54qeka8mg1qhv0j@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:25:36 -0600 Message-ID: <86sl2apldr.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Nina writes: > It is really hard, though, to drag someone reluctantly into any sort > of eating plan, even if they feel good on it, etc. We've actually > been going around on this all morning... I mean, what exactly is the > difference between, say, a lean hamburger (no bun) and a slice of > cheese, and a Subway sandwich with steak and cheese and lots of > vegetables? He claims that the first thing is "too rich" and the > second thing is just fine. Sigh. I kind of know where he's coming from. At first, making an alfredo sauce and pouring it over chicken or fish without any pasta just seems too rich or decadent or something. Even once I got over that, there was still a feeling that something was missing. I wonder how much of what's missing isn't flavor or texture, but simply the brain chemicals that the pasta used to trigger. My fiance read Eades, Taubes, etc. and started testing her own BG, and is completely convinced she needs to eat low-carb; but she still feels overwhelmed with meat sometimes, and she says eggs upset her stomach in the morning unless she has something carbonated or some bread to go with them. (I, on the other hand, will gladly eat meat and eggs until the excess protein pushes me out of ketosis.) She doesn't like several of the lowest-carb vegetables, either. So we've had to be more creative to come up with things she likes, including more sweeteners than I ever bothered with. That's ok, though; it's working for her. Everyone has to find the way of eating that will work for him or her for the long run. -- From nobody Mon Dec 10 10:44:02 2007 Newsgroups: misc.consumers,alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb,alt.support.diet.weightwatchers Subject: Re: The 20 worst foods in America References: <20071201170605.189CC4E4B1@outpost.zedz.net> <47543b58$0$2741$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <4754c256$0$2790$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <4754d9cd$0$2746$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:44:00 -0600 Message-ID: <86odcypkj3.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) writes: > In response to past posts on mine countering the low-carb fad, I have > been told "read the book", and "there are such things as books", > sometimes citing title and author, to extent (in one case) of arguing > that an apple is fattening while a quantity of sausage with same > calorie count is not. This is true, in general. Yes, since both foods give the body the same amount of energy to do something with, they're *potentially* equally fattening. But the higher amount of carbohydrate in the apple will cause a great production of insulin and other factors that increase the chance of the body storing that energy as fat. Of course, we rarely eat foods in a vacuum, so a lot depends on what I eat the apple or sausage with. If I have the sausage with pancakes, and the apple as part of a low-carb salad with lettuce, nuts, and mayo; then more of the sausage may be stored as fat than the apple. But it's not because the sausage is "fattening"; it's because the pancakes are. Being calorie-dense doesn't automatically make something fattening; I have to eat enough of it to have extra energy to store (which is less likely to happen on low-carb in the first place), and I have to trigger the chemical reactions to cause it to be stored. -- From nobody Mon Dec 10 10:58:41 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: fasting faq? References: <47585bfc$0$2755$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <86ir3bjybq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:58:41 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5nmpjum.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 55 "em" writes: > I'm not doing this for weight loss. I'm thinking it might be a good > opportunity to get to understand my appetite and learn to control it a > little more. For, I dunno, more than twenty years now, allowing "that > feeling in my stomach" to tell me when to eat has been the path to > hell. Same here. When I start to get hungry, it's very hard for me to focus on work or anything else until I eat. It's far better on a low-carb diet than on a USDA diet, but it's still a problem. (On a high-carb diet, it's almost like I black-out at the keyboard and find myself standing in the kitchen; it takes over that automatically.) I want to get away from that level of dependence, regardless of whether it leads directly to any weight loss. > I feel sharp as a tack, energetic and extremely focused. I'm wondering > if my ADD is related to a food intolerance. Or maybe my mind is just > kicking into some primal state because it thinks food is scarce and its > trying to keep me on my toes :-) It's interesting how many people report feeling that way when they fast. I suppose it makes sense in one way: if my body isn't using energy to digest and convert food, maybe there's more energy for other things. I don't know; just a thought. It does make sense, from an evolutionary standpoint, that most of our ancestors wouldn't have had three square meals a day, so we should be built for fasting and irregular meal times. > I didn't set a time as to when I plan to eat again. I just figured > what the hell and started to fast. I have a date tonight and that > usually involves going to a restaraunt, so we'll see. I wouldn't mind > hanging on until Sunday. I wouldn't want to go any further than that > because I don't want to mess with my metabolism. Yeah, I seem to recall that things get tricky after 24 hours, but I don't remember the details. > Somebody in this group, I forget who, wrote about learning to look at > food as a way to nourish their body as opposed to a way to satisfy their > hunger. That statement impressed the hell out of me. I'd like to learn > to live that way. Might have been Roger; I think he's talked about seeing food as fuel and not a lifestyle. That makes sense, but I can also see it the other way, where learning about your food--where it comes from, what it's made of, how to prepare it so it's as healthy and tasty as possible--could make the diet more interesting and easier to stick with. I suspect this is one aspect that varies greatly from one person to the next. But in either case, I think it's possible to put food in a better perspective. -- From nobody Tue Dec 11 17:20:34 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fasting one day a month may protect arteries [Mormons] References: <7cl7j.4829$Dt4.4592@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <81321c20-4c06-4f50-b644-1e21f7283538@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:20:34 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcioom2l.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "Cubit" writes: > EDTA. Interesting. After some Wiki reading, I think it may be a > plausible approach to dealing with kidney stones. Do you still have that URL or URLs? I've got someone who's worried about kidney stones I'd like to pass it along to. Thanks, -- From nobody Wed Dec 12 10:11:20 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fasting one day a month may protect arteries [Mormons] References: <7cl7j.4829$Dt4.4592@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net> <81321c20-4c06-4f50-b644-1e21f7283538@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <86hcioom2l.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:11:20 -0600 Message-ID: <867ijjsxjr.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 "Cubit" writes: > "Aaron Baugher" wrote in message > news:86hcioom2l.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz... >> "Cubit" writes: >> >>> EDTA. Interesting. After some Wiki reading, I think it may be a >>> plausible approach to dealing with kidney stones. >> >> Do you still have that URL or URLs? I've got someone who's worried >> about kidney stones I'd like to pass it along to. > Well, > > I had started in Wikipedia and branched off from a link there. I > can't seem to retrace my steps. > However, Googling I found: > > Q. Does EDTA play a role in treating kidney stones? Ah, my mistake; I thought you were talking about *fasting* as an approach to dealing with kidney stones. Guess that's why I didn't find much in my Wikipedia search. I'll check out this EDTA thing, though; thanks. -- From nobody Wed Dec 12 10:32:45 2007 Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology,alt.support.diabetes,alt.support.diabetes.uk,alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Electrolyte derangements with low-carb dieting. References: <6a5d3efb-d974-48d3-b25a-4324912df688@w56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <9548a91a-9bf7-460c-b2a4-7f9c8f8fe9d2@y43g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> <649a3c7a-7a74-41b9-842a-bbc9935df6f1@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <4d76cf00-3e00-4206-bc5d-6cc440f0c2ea@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <065590be-10ff-4a10-86ff-3d107d762d72@d27g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <5s8p1pF14rlvmU2@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:32:42 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7bzrhzp.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 "em" writes: > There may be people who eat more fat when they're on low-carb, but > that's not by design of the diet. > > I've seen references to at least a few studies on l-c stating that > people actually end up eating less fat (in terms of grams). If you > look through the alt.support.diet.low-carb group, you'll see some of > these posts and should be able to find your way back to the studies if > you're interested. It's probably true that many people eat less fat on a low-carb diet, simply because they were eating high-fat *and* high-carb before. So many foods are a combination of the two: potatoes and gravy, most desserts, bread and butter, anything conventionally breaded and fried. If you replace potato chips and ice cream with broccoli and pork rinds, you'll be getting less carb *and* less fat. However, compared to the USDA's recommendation of a maximum 30% of calories from fat, or Ornish's 15% (or whatever), low-carb is almost certainly going to be relatively high-fat. Mathematically, it *has* to be either higher-fat, higher-protein, or lower-calorie, after all. My protein requirement for the day gives me 480 calories, and my carb maximum gives me up to 120 more, for a total of 600 from non-fat sources. Now, a guy my size would normally eat 2400 calories a day to maintain, but let's say the well-known appetite suppression aspect of low-carbing kicks in or I do some fasting/starving, and I drop down to a very low 1800 calories a day. That *still* has me getting 67% of my calories from fat, which would have mainstream experts measuring me for a coffin. If I stay up near my "normal" consumption of 2400 calories--without increasing protein or carbs--I'll be getting 75% from fat. That's high-fat. That's not a criticism, since I think it's the right way to eat, but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... > On another note, I eat a lot more fruits and veggies within the > constraints of a low-carb diet than I do otherwise. I'm pretty much > forced to do so in order to get my carbs. I *never* used to eat a salad > and fruit every day. Now I have no choice. That's a good point; when you stick with the very-low-carb sources like broccoli and berries, you do have to eat a lot to get up near your carb limit/requirement. You could reach the same number a lot faster with some starchier vegetables or something like low-carb bread, but there wouldn't be nearly as much nutrition in that smaller volume. -- From nobody Thu Dec 13 10:27:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Carb blocking supplement as an Aid? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:27:10 -0600 Message-ID: <868x3yr25d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 "DB" writes: > Do these Carb blockers work, If anyone had evidence that they work, we'd all be lean and mean by now, instead of just mean. My understanding is that they (may) work in a test tube, but they don't work inside the body because they kick in too early or too late--not in the right part of the digestive tract to have the desired effect. > I travel extensively and not always able to avoid some carbs? Travel can be tough; the main solution is to plan ahead and BYOF (Bring Your Own Food). For on the move, pack jerky, pork rinds, nuts, nut butters (to spread on the pork rinds), dried berries, canned meat. If you can keep things in a cooler, that can expand to include boiled eggs, cheese sticks, veggie chunks and dip, fresh berries and melon, and more. If you're staying somewhere with a fridge, stock it on arrival with your usual low-carb eats. The main thing (for me, anyway) is to go into a trip with the mind-set that I'm going to be providing my own meals like normal, and not grazing on the move. If I'm meeting other people for a meal somewhere I'm not familiar with, so I don't know what low-carb options they have, I eat plenty beforehand. Worst comes to worst, I can just have a drink and maybe a salad. -- From nobody Fri Dec 14 09:43:11 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How do you lose this weight? Respiration/sweating or what? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:43:10 -0600 Message-ID: <86ir31p9ip.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 I LOVE CHEESEWHEELS writes: > Using this WOE/WOL, do you lose weight via going to the restroom, > breathing, sweating all three??? I don't think you really "lose weight" through those processes in the sense you're thinking, although you may excrete the by-products of weight loss (ketones) in those ways. Fat that's lost is burned (or converted into something else that's burned) for energy. Some of the increased energy may be used to power conversion processes like gluconeogenesis; some may spur an increase in physical activity; and some may just be released as heat. One study found that a group of women gave off twice as much heat when they ate low-carb than when they didn't. My fiance says I'm like a furnace. > I'm asking in the case of someone who is more than 120 pounds > overweight. Since the person would lose a lot of weight at first, > where does the weight come from? Where and in what manner do you lose > weight at first? "Where" varies from person to person. I think it's common for it to come off in the reverse order it went on--if you started with a pot belly, that'll be the last thing to go--but even that's not certain. -- From nobody Sat Dec 22 08:46:15 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What do you make of this? References: <66bbc474-c20f-4ff7-999f-348779f1b198@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <25tnm3lvtum7hj4f77rldshp97dv79dsb3@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:46:14 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7bm6b49.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 51 Plan.YandZ@yahoo.com writes: > You know, I've had this happen before: I'm eating really good and > then, for some reason it just seems like it would be a great day for > regular cereal or pancakes or some damn thing...and then the next day > I've come down with a cold. I always thought that refined carbs poked > holes in your immune system and I was just supersensitive to that. If > there's any bug flying around, give me a couple of candy bars and I > can make sure I catch it. This will all be speculation, but that wouldn't surprise me. Anything that stresses the body can make it susceptible to infection, and carbs trigger the release of the same hormones as being chased by a tiger, so I think carbs qualify. Bacteria love sugar, so I suppose I could be carrying around all the latest bugs for weeks, and not notice because they don't have enough fuel to overcome my defenses. If I have a carb pig-out, that'll lower my defenses and also give them more fuel to work with, and suddenly I'll have a cold, even though I technically "caught" it weeks ago. High-carb eaters might have a certain tolerance, the way an alcoholic builds up a tolerance to alcohol than a teetotaller doesn't have; or they might get sick for the same reason but not be able to make the connection like we can. Also, a carb binge can seriously dehydrate a person, which is another stressor, and which makes me feel hungover and achy like I polished off a fifth of vodka the night before. I don't know if dehydration alone could cause a fever, but we drink extra liquids to combat a fever, so maybe there's a connection there. Again, that's all complete speculation, of course; I'm not even basing it on a crappy observational study, unless I count myself--then I guess it's an observational study of one. "38-year-old male computer programmers report 38% fewer illnesses on low-carb!" I haven't had a carb cheat in a long time, but last night I went to a dinner where the reservations got messed up, so I wound up at a pizza place with friends. I was a good boy and didn't eat the crust, but I was still bloated and feeling all the symptoms of a carb pig-out afterwards. That was annoying. I wonder if there was a lot of sugar in the sauce, or maybe the diet soda fountain got stocked with regular. I wish I'd had my BG meter with me, so I could have determined whether what I was feeling was due to a blood sugar spike or not. Whatever it was, it doesn't seem to be lingering with cravings or anything today. -- From nobody Sat Dec 22 08:52:58 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: San Francisco Soda Tax References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2007 08:52:58 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzma6at1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 "em" writes: > This is just the beginning. Mark my words! So, we'll be taxing people for eating sweets, while spending tax money to subsidize sugar farmers. I think that's called the Circle of Life. -- From nobody Wed Dec 26 08:10:37 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Health Low Carb? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 08:10:36 -0600 Message-ID: <863atpo8bn.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 "Eric" writes: > Over the past 10 years or so I've been bouncing back and forth between > low carb and "healthy" eating. Low carb being meat, poultry, fish, > low carb veggies and "healthy" being fruits, whole grain breads, less > meats, poultry, fish, veggies, etc. That second list can be low-carb too, so there's no problem. > My problem is when I go low carb, I just feel that I am not eating > healthy by excluding fruits and higher carb veggies. After a while, > eating so much meat starts to turn me off mentally in that I think I > am eating "unhealthy". All we hear is how fruits and veggies help > prevent cancer and how meat promotes it. We hear lots of things; some of them might even be true. To the extent that red meat consumption correlates with cancer, I suspect it has something to do with the fact that most meat nowadays comes from grain-fed factory-raised animals, so it has a poor omega-3/6 ratio. Get your meat from pasture-raised animals, the way all humans did until very recently, and it'll be much more healthy. Cancer is one of the "diseases of civilization" that societies don't get in significant numbers until they start eating refined grains, sugar, and other carbs. So as the doctor says when the patient says, "It hurts when I do this": Don't do that. And don't let your livestock do it either, if you can help it. > Again at about 100 lbs overweight, how do I keep on the low carb and > keep eating healthy? I do not do well with any carbs and it is tough > to keep weight off with any carbs at all. Get and read one or more of the books, so you know what you're doing. Not to be harsh, but earlier you said you're eating low-carb veggies, which *do* have carbs, so you kinda sound like you're a little confused. You might like Dr. Diana Schwarzbein's program. It's not as well-known as Atkins or Eades, but it's worth checking out and might fit you well. She doesn't like people to go "too low" on carbs, and she includes some high-carb foods as long as they're whole (potatoes, but not flour; brown rice, not white) and you don't overeat them. She's also got a vegetarian section (she practices in California, so she'd have to), so you might find ideas there for when you're tired of meat. Most of the other low-carb books have ideas for vegetarians, too. -- From nobody Thu Dec 27 11:26:31 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Going cold turkey. References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 11:26:30 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6h8aw1l.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 59 Lisbeth Andersson writes: > I've recently started to get rid of most of my bad eating habits, and > in the process I've checked out this group, among others. This low > carb stuff kind of makes sense, I'm diabetic and I also need to lose > "some" weight. However this introduction stuff Atkins is talking > about, why is it a good idea to shock your body that way? I'm more of > a "let's ease into it gently" kind of person (after all, it took me > almost a year to get the excercise part right). > > I'm sure "read the book" is good advice, however before I go to that > extreme could somebody please provide the short answer. Doug covered most of it, but the thing to understand is that carbohydrates are a mood-altering substance, like alcohol, nicotine, or cocaine. They may be more subtle than those drugs (although that's arguable), but the point is that when we eat carbs, especially fast-acting ones like sugar, they trigger the release of brain chemicals like serotonin that make us happy. When our blood sugar comes down, those chemicals lessen, and we feel withdrawal symptoms like agitation or depression. In people with good blood sugar control, this isn't a big deal, because the amount of sugar getting to their brain is tightly regulated. In those of use whose blood sugar isn't well controlled, including diabetics and those with insulin resistance, the highs and lows can be very intense. When your blood sugar drops from 200 to 60 in an hour or two, trying to use bare willpower to keep yourself from scarfing down the nearest carbs is like trying to stop a truck with fishing line--it may be possible, but you'll need a lot more of it than most people have ever had. When my blood sugar was spiking and crashing, I came up with ridiculous rationalizations for cheating on my plan, but they made perfect sense to my brain at the time. So, for the same reason that no one tells an alcoholic to "ease into" quitting by cutting back to half as many drinks a day, easing into carb reduction doesn't work very well either. It's not really about trying to "shock your body"; it's more about shocking it only once--the day you start the plan--instead of shocking it day after day as you gradually bring your carbs down to the level that'll normalize your blood sugars. If you're taking insulin or diabetic drugs, you'll definitely want to get Dr. Bernstein's book, because lowering your carb intake will lower the amount of insulin you need, and you'll want to get that right. Dr. Diana Schwarzbein is another one who tailors her low-carb plan (although she doesn't like the term) to diabetics. Last thing: it's not really cold turkey, at least in the sense that other addicts have to go for. If you eat the way the USDA says you should, you're eating around 300g of carbs a day (that's for a 2000 calorie diet). The various low-carb plans start you out anywhere between 20 and 50, and increase that over time up to 100 or so, depending on your situation. So it's a major reduction, but it's not really cold turkey, and you can still eat a wide variety of foods. -- From nobody Fri Dec 28 15:13:23 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 100 grams of carbs. Is that considered "low carb"? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:13:23 -0600 Message-ID: <86hci2jzf0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 Cheese Wheels writes: > I cannot, through trying, do the low numbers of carbs I see mentioned > in the book or on the websites. The first question would have to be: why not? What happens when you try it? What do you mean by "trying"? Are you giving in to cravings? Adding things up wrong? Too many "hidden" carbs sneaking into your diet that you weren't aware of? There may be solutions to whatever problem you're having. > I can however handle something around 100 grams of carbs. > Would that cause me to lose weight or would I be wasting my time? It's quite possible that it would; that depends on your genes, your health, your past eating, and a lot of other factors. Atkins and Eades both start out low and then increase to a maintenance level. For some people that will be 100g or more, for others it will be less. Dr. Diana Schwarzbein's program starts non-diabetics out at 90-150 grams/day depending on activity level, and diabetics at 50/day or so. (Those numbers include fiber.) I personally think that's high, but she's had a lot of success, so her plan might fit you very well. Her book is very easy to read and follow. She insists on "real" foods, though, so if your difficulty is that you "can't" give up pasta, well, tough noogies. > Also, what does an average person, not dieting, consume in a day in > grams of carbs. I'd like to get an idea of how my 100G would compare > to our nation's average lifestyle. The USDA recommends around 300g/day, or 60% of calories. So yes, 100g is low-carb by any definition I've ever encountered. It's just not as low as many of the plans recommend when starting out. -- From nobody Mon Dec 31 06:40:03 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 100 grams of carbs. Is that considered "low carb"? References: <4563f005-f816-41e8-b569-5c160a8c847b@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com> <5tnpo5F1e63n2U2@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 06:40:02 -0600 Message-ID: <867iivjavx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 Susan writes: > Doug Freyburger wrote: >> Cheese Wheels wrote: >> >>>"FOB" wrote: >>> >>> >>>>If you can't get below 100 you are not really trying. >>> >>>REALLY? >> Yes. > No. > > Not in my experience. > > Where one started and individual endocrine status has a lot to do with > tolerance for carb reduction. > > Going very low was disastrous for me, medically, years ago. When Cheese Wheels said he tried but couldn't get below 100, I took that to mean something other than getting below 100 and then having medical problems. That's why I asked what he actually meant by it, which I don't think we've heard yet. He did say something about spending too many hours shopping for low carb items, which makes me think it's more about bad planning or a misunderstanding than medical issues. Once you know what you're doing, low-carb shopping should be faster, since you mostly shop from the outer rim of the store, and don't have to go down so many isles. -- From nobody Mon Dec 31 07:14:50 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Help! Not losing weight References: <0p2dn3dit95boapf207e9eb8tdbgo2l2e9@4ax.com> <5tnjvgF1e8m76U1@mid.individual.net> <77e70edf-bd63-446e-9e15-4dd563ae80fc@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <5tnpurF1e63n2U3@mid.individual.net> <1n5en3hug3pvn348lnu26635iq5301022g@4ax.com> <0knfn3h2uvddiud51t2q4e15m3qhdmpoq7@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:14:49 -0600 Message-ID: <863atjj99y.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 75 Viking writes: > So calories count on Atkins? *sigh* Might as well go to a low-fat diet > instead... Low-fat diets are unhealthy; there are more reasons than weight loss to eat plenty of healthy fats. Here's a striking passage from "Good Calories, Bad Calories." Read it and make up your own mind whether calories count on a high-fat, low-carb diet. The [high-fat, low-carbohydrate] diets induced significant weight loss without hunger even when the patients ate only a few hundred calories a day, as Russell Wilder's did at the Mayo Clinic in the early 1930s, or 650-800 calories per day, as was the case with the patients treated by George Blackburn and Bruce Bistrian of MIT's department of nutrition and food science and the Harvard Medical School in the 1970s. [....] Significant weight loss without hunger was also reported when the diet was prescribed at 1,000 calories, as the University of Wurzburg clinicians Heinrich Kasper and Udo Rabast did in a series of trials through the 1970s; at 1,200 calories, as the University of Iowa nutritionist Willard Krehl reported in 1967; at 1,320 calories, as Edgar Gordon of the University of Wisconsin reported in JAMA in 1963; at 1,400 or 1,800 calories, as Young and Ohlson did; at 2,200 calories, as the Swedish clinician Bertil Sjovall reported in 1957; and even when the diet provided more than 2,700 calories a day, as reported also in 1957 by Weldon Walker, who would later become chief of cardiology at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. The same has invariably been the case even when patients are simply "encouraged to eat as much as [is] necessary to avoid feeling hungry," but to avoid carbohydrates in doing so, as John LaRosa, now president of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center, reported in 1980. Every investigator who compared these carbohydrate-restricted diets with more balanced low-calorie diets also reported that the carbohydrate-restricted diet performed at least as well, and usually better, even when the caloric content of the carbohydrate-restricted diet was significantly greater--say, 1,850 calories versus 950 calories, as Per Hanssen reported in 1936; or 2,200 calories versus 1,200 calories, as Bertil Sjovall reported in 1957; or even an "eat as much as you like" diet compared with a 1,000 calorie diet, as Trevor Silverstone of St. Bartholomew's Hospital in London reported in 1963 in a study of obese diabetics. Here's another good one: In June 1949, Pennington published an account of the DuPont experience in the journal Industrial Medicine. He had prescribed Donaldson's regimen to twenty executives, and the lost between nine and fifty-four pounds, averaging nearly two pounds a week. "Notable was a lack of hunger between meals," Pennington wrote, "increased physical energy and sense of well being." All of this seemed paradoxical: the DuPont executives lost weight on a diet that did not restrict calories. The subjects ate a minimum of twenty-four hundred calories every day, according to Pennington: eighteen ounces of lean meat and six ounces of fat divided over three meals. They averaged over three thousand calories. Carbohydrates were restricted in their diet--no more than eighty calories at each meal. "In a few cases," Pennington reported, "even this much carbohydrate prevented weight loss, though an ad-libitum [unrestricted] intake of protein and fat, more exclusively, was successful." There's loads more, but you get the point. Over and over and over, people have been put on low-carb diets, some low-calorie, some high-calorie, some who-knows-calorie, and they consistently lost weight. -- From nobody Mon Dec 31 07:39:47 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Help! Not losing weight References: <0p2dn3dit95boapf207e9eb8tdbgo2l2e9@4ax.com> <5tnjvgF1e8m76U1@mid.individual.net> <985en3d5s11iqlpvs332pr1klscpno18ie@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:39:46 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7bbhtjx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 87 Avatar writes: > Well, here's a sample--don't necessarily have all this on one day: Thanks for posting a list; we get a lot of people who say "It's not working" but won't go to the trouble of doing this. Here's what I would do; take it as you like: > Atkins bar (3g) Get rid of this. There's nothing healthy in those bars, and some people report a higher spike in blood sugar than the net carb claims on the bars should cause, meaning that the labels lie or the sugar alcohols aren't really free. > Low-carb crustless quiche > Low carb, no tomato paste/sauce chili Are these prepared meals, or something you're making? If they're prepared meals (like out of a box), I'd be wary of hidden carbs, sugar alcohols, etc. If you're making them, they should be okay, as long as you're counting the carbs. How do you make chili without tomato sauce, anyway? Just curious. > 6-9 microwaved sausages (breakfaxt links or Italian) These almost certainly have carbs. If the label says 0g per link, they could have up to .5 each, meaning you could be getting up to 4.5 total. Not a huge amount, but it adds up when you eat a lot of things like that. > Slimfast Low-carb meal replacement (2g) I don't know about this, but it could have the same issues as the Atkins bars. > I eat the above throughout the day in small amounts (work at home, > it's next to the computer) > For dinner: > Chicken breasts with pesto or > Pork chops Good stuff. > Cucumber salad If the cucumber salad has mayo, make sure you use real mayo, not salad dressing, and get it without sugar (and trans fats) if you can. Again, 0g/serving doesn't really mean zero, and the small serving size on things like condiments can make those .5 carbs add up fast when you use a lot in something like a salad. > McD's Double Quarter Pounder > Arby's/Wendy's salad with low-carb dressing I wouldn't trust the dressing or whatever secret sauce comes on the burger. > Beef sticks (0g) snacks Like the sausage, or any cured meat, these are almost certainly not really 0g either. So, by the time you add the hidden carbs in your sausages, beef sticks, dressings, and possibly sugar alcohols, the 20-25g you think you're eating could easily be double that or more. It's just hard to tell when you eat a lot of those items. I'd deal with this first before hunting for other reasons. Make sure you count every carb, and when products say 0g, count them as at least .5g to be safe. Stay away from sugar alcohols, unless you get a blood glucose meter so you can determine whether your body reacts to them at all. Get more real foods into your diet, things like eggs, meat, and green vegetables, that simply don't have hidden carbs. > My major concern is--is too much fat preventing Atkins from working? In a word, no. Possible, maybe, but unlikely. Fat has a well-known tendency to reduce appetite, so if you find yourself stuffing down unnecessary amounts of something like beef sticks, it's probably because of the sugar used to preserve them, or an eating disorder. Replace them with a *real* fat/protein source like boiled eggs, and see if you still have the urge to eat so much. -- From nobody Mon Dec 31 07:45:20 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Help! Not losing weight References: <0p2dn3dit95boapf207e9eb8tdbgo2l2e9@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:45:20 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzlzhtan.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Avatar writes: > I've been on the low-carb diet (20-25 g a day max--near > Atkins' induction level) for two months, and have been in ketosis all > that time. Lost some weight the first month, but have not lost any > since. When you say "the low-carb diet," which one do you mean? It's not Atkins, since you didn't do Induction and didn't increase each week after that. If you haven't yet, I'd suggest getting one or more of the low-carb books; they'll answer all the questions you've asked. "Protein Power Life Plan" is my personal favorite, but any of the popular plans will get you on the right track. There's nothing wrong with rolling your own plan once you know what you're doing, but it's a lot easier to get started as a novice if you have a well-defined one to follow. -- From nobody Mon Dec 31 07:48:21 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eating Healthy With A Meat Grinder References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:48:21 -0600 Message-ID: <86prwnht5m.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 apollo66942@yahoo.com.tw writes: > One way to cut down on fat Why on earth would you want to do that? I already have a meat grinder (two, actually!), but thanks for the ad anyway. -- From nobody Mon Dec 31 07:51:07 2007 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Food Pyramid for Weight Loss References: <32dcebdd-ef14-422e-9c87-ad445f961752@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:51:07 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk7bht10.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "xvaqvxjwvnbx@yahoo.com" writes: > One effective way to track your weight - whether you want to gain or > lose weight - is through the Food Pyramid. If you're trying to gain weight, diabetes, and heart disease, sure. > The Food Pyramid is a classic food and dieting guide, taught to us as > early as when we were kids. Classic? Am I really that old, that I remember being taught the ancient Four Food Groups? > Sadly, the Food Pyramid has been set aside in lieu of other > (unhealthy) diet options. Nowadays, people are coming back and looking > at the Food Pyramid for weight loss answers. Man, it sounds like the Food Pyramid was first handed down on stone tablets or something. -- From nobody Wed Jan 2 11:30:57 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 100 grams of carbs. Is that considered "low carb"? References: <4563f005-f816-41e8-b569-5c160a8c847b@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com> <5tnpo5F1e63n2U2@mid.individual.net> <867iivjavx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2008 11:30:56 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5mst9rj.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 109 Cheese Wheels writes: > It is not a medical issue. It's purely an issue of planning and > preparing. I am unable, at least right now, to plan a shopping trip > not to mention not preparing for enough days. A trip to the market > yields me 2 days, maybe 3, of food to eat with an enormous bill to > boot. > I am in no way criticizing this WOE/WOL. I was simply asking for some > guidance on the proper way to try and plan a shopping trip to the > grocery store without spending hours doing so and spending tons of > money. Thanks for the explanation. Yeah, it can be tough at first, sorting out what the labels really mean, finding recipes you like and the foods to fit them, and so on. I don't think there's anything wrong with buying 2-3 days of groceries at a time, as long as you don't live too far from the store. I live three blocks from the store, and I have to walk my dog every day anyway, so sometimes I'll stop in and pick up a few things for that day, figuring I'll stop by again tomorrow for something else. I wouldn't suggest that for someone who has a long drive, but if you can shop every 2-3 days, maybe you can make that work for you, since you won't need to plan very many meals at once. Keep in mind at the beginning that the number one concern is carb restriction. In the low-carb books and this newsgroup, we talk about a lot of other factors, like food variety, vegetables, good fats, vitamins, and so on. Those things are all great and worth looking into when you can, but if they confuse things to the point where a person still gets too many carbs, that's missing the forest for the trees. If you need to simplify drastically to the point where you eat nothing but eggs for a couple weeks until the cravings have passed and you've got a better handle on things, then by all means do that. As for having an enormous grocery bill, I suppose it depends what you ate before. If you cooked a lot of meals from scratch and used cheap staples like potatoes and noodles, then you probably won't be able to low-carb as cheaply. If you ate a lot of fast food and prepared foods, then you can probably low-carb for the same money, as long as you're willing to cook. Eggs are a very cheap source of protein and nutrition, and ground pork, pork steaks, hamburger, and chicken whole or in parts can usually be had for under $2/pound. It helps that you don't have to pay extra for extra-lean meat anymore. I recommend that people eat locally-grown, pasture-raised meat, eggs, and dairy as much as possible, but again, don't let the perfect become the enemy of the good. If you can't afford that right now, stick with the butcher counter at the grocery store. If a friend about my size asked me to go grocery shopping with him and set him up with food for his first three days of dirt-simple low-carbing, here's what I'd grab (making this up off the top of my head): 2 dozen eggs 1 pound bacon or sausage 2 pounds hamburger 2 cans tuna one package cream cheese mayo (no sugar) mustard one bunch green onion one whole chicken one pound of his favorite low-carb vegetable or salad greens olive oil or butter As soon as he gets that home, I'd have him boil one dozen eggs, and divide the vegetable into three portions ready to cook. The boiled eggs will be his between-meal snacks. It should be possible to get all that for under $30, and I end up with some leftovers below. Also, the only label you really have to look at there is the mayo, although I'd probably check the cream cheese and tuna labels for added sugar out of habit--you never know. Breakfast would be 4 eggs and a third of the bacon or sausage, so that's taken care of for all three days. I don't like to spend a lot of time thinking about breakfast; I drop it in the skillet, flip it over once, and eat it. For lunch on days #1 and #3, mix up a can of tuna, some chopped green onion, mayo, and salt and pepper to taste. Add a chopped-up boiled egg if that doesn't look like enough. For lunch on day #2, make a burger with 4-8 ounces of hamburger and slather it with plenty of mayo and mustard. On day #1, put the chicken in a slow cooker in the morning, and it'll be ready to eat for supper, along with one portion of the vegetable (with butter if cooked; with olive oil if salad). On day #2, make a stuffed meatloaf by mixing an egg and some chopped green onion into the rest of the hamburger, pressing half of it into the bottom of a pie plate, spreading a few ounces of cream cheese with mustard on top of that, and pressing the rest of the meat on top to seal the cheese inside, then baking it. (Leftovers for day #4-5 lunches here?) Serve with the second portion of vegetable. For day #3's supper, along with the last portion of vegetable, work on the chicken leftovers, either just heating them up, or pick the chicken off the bone and stir it in a skillet with some cream cheese and onion. Now, there's definitely not much variety there, but it's not just eggs or burgers every meal either, and it's only three days and it gets the job done. On the third day, when you're planning for days 4-6, change the vegetable, or cook a 3-pound pork roast that's on sale instead of another chicken. Add variety as you can, within the same simple framework. Hope that helps, -- From nobody Thu Jan 3 11:19:01 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Help! Not losing weight References: <0p2dn3dit95boapf207e9eb8tdbgo2l2e9@4ax.com> <86tzlzhtan.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 11:19:01 -0600 Message-ID: <86ir2arfne.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 32 Avatar writes: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:45:20 -0600, Aaron Baugher > wrote: > >>Avatar writes: >> >>> I've been on the low-carb diet (20-25 g a day max--near >>> Atkins' induction level) for two months, and have been in ketosis all >>> that time. Lost some weight the first month, but have not lost any >>> since. >> >>When you say "the low-carb diet," which one do you mean? It's not >>Atkins, since you didn't do Induction and didn't increase each week >>after that. If you haven't yet, I'd suggest getting one or more of the >>low-carb books; they'll answer all the questions you've asked. "Protein >>Power Life Plan" is my personal favorite, but any of the popular plans >>will get you on the right track. > > It is Atkins--I'm on induction, have been for 2 months, and haven't > lost anything but water weight. Have read Atkins and Bernstein.... If you're doing Atkins, why are you still on Induction after two months? After two weeks, you're supposed to start increasing your carbs by 5g/day each week. Also, Induction is 20g max, not 20-25g max. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with what you're doing, but it isn't Atkins. -- From nobody Thu Jan 3 15:11:10 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Food Pyramid for Weight Loss References: <32dcebdd-ef14-422e-9c87-ad445f961752@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <86lk7bht10.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:11:10 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejcyr4wh.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 72 Doug Freyburger writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> "xvaqvxjwv...@yahoo.com" writes: >> >> > One effective way to track your weight - whether you want to gain or >> > lose weight - is through the Food Pyramid. >> >> If you're trying to gain weight, diabetes, and heart disease, sure. > > It is indeed the plan used by Japanese sumo wrestlers. And it is also > how pigs are fattened for slaughter. Yep; I fattened a lot of them when I was younger, and the rations worked how we'd expect. Butcher hogs being fattened got all the corn they wanted and a certain amount of protein/fat/mineral supplement for health. Breeding stock, that needs to stay healthy and at a stable weight for much longer, gets a lot more of the supplement and a restricted amount of corn. Not that it's a low-carb diet by any means--no farmer could afford to feed them that--but when you don't want them gaining weight, you cut the carbs and increase protein. I've been wondering, in the context of pasture-raised meat having healthier fats than grain-fed, what can be done in that regard with hogs. Their biology is a lot like ours; they can't process the cellulose in grass like beef and sheep do. I hope to be raising some in a couple years, so I'll have to see what I can do along those lines. >> > The Food Pyramid is a classic food and dieting guide, taught to us >> > as early as when we were kids. >> >> Classic?  Am I really that old, that I remember being taught the >> ancient Four Food Groups? > > It came out in 1993. Given that I graduated high school in 1976 I > hardly think the pig-fattening-pyramid is a classic. As to the "four > food groups" is was taught at least as far back as when I was in > elementary school in the 1960s but that hardly means it is valid. > Doctors bled patients for centuries and that wasn't valid either. One > of the four food groups is livestock fodder. Yeah, the Four Food Groups is better than the Food Pyramid the way getting hit with a brick is better than getting hit with a bus: neither one is any good for you. I just thought it was funny that they'd call a 14-year-old diet recommendation "classic." > There is an entertaining aspect to both the sumo-wrestler-pyramid > and the four groups - Both list fruits and veggies together as one > group yet people complain that going fruit-free for 3 entire weeks > at the start of Atkins is some sort of health risk. Like I had fruit > every 3 weeks before I started eating healthy? Pffft. And that > doesn't even count the fact that cucumbers are encouraged from > day 1 as salad veggies and they are fruit ... Taubes makes a good point that a lot of the "you must get a *variety* of fruits *and* vegetables" belief seems to come from the early part of the century, when many diseases like pellagra and scurvy were traced to vitamin and mineral deficiency. When those vitamins were isolated in various fruits and vegetables, people latched onto the idea that eating a variety of those foods would help cover the bases. Of course, as Taubes points out, Inuit and others on a meat-only diet don't get scurvy, which is thought to be caused by lack of vitamin C because taking vitamin C cures it. Conventional wisdom tries to get around that by claiming meat has "something" which acts like vitamin C, but it could also be that scurvy is caused by excess grain in the first place, so it can be cured with vitamin C *or* just removing the grain. -- From nobody Thu Jan 3 15:37:56 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Interesting Experiment References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:37:56 -0600 Message-ID: <86abnmr3nv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 "Tom G." writes: > This guy ate as much as he wanted of protein and fat for 30 days and > didn't gain a pound (he was actually up 1 lb about midway). He > averaged over 3800 calories a day, and could not stuff himself with > any more. By his best guess, he should have gained almost 14 lbs. Taubes reports on a bunch of studies that tried to force volunteers to gain weight. I don't have the book right here, but the most striking one was done with prison inmates, after college students failed to gain any weight on it. As I recall, the researcher fed the prisoners thousands of extra calories on a high-fat diet per day, eventually getting some of them up to 10,000 calories a day without much weight gain. I pretty much did this over the last couple months. I didn't track it, so I don't know how many calories I got, but it was plenty. (Not 10,000; I can't imagine eating that much!) I decided I wasn't going to cheat no matter what, so if I got a craving at all, I'd fill up on low-carb stuff, no matter how much it took. I have a major weakness for nuts--I don't seem to ever get full enough to stop eating them--so I'd eat as much as a half-pound many days as snacks, in addition to 3-4 full meals, often containing as much as a pound of meat per meal. Breakfast was 4-5 eggs and 6-8 pieces of bacon. Just the meat, eggs, and nuts that I'd eat in a typical day would exceed 4000 calories, but it kept me from ever cheating, which was my only goal for this time period. After a couple months of this (along with zero exercise), even though I've been convinced by Taubes, Eades, et al that a calorie isn't a calorie, I was still a little worried. What if glucogenesis of excess protein pushed my insulin up to the fat-storage level? What about what Bernstein says about how stuffing the small intestine causes insulin release? How about what Schwarzbein says: that many other factors, like stress, can raise insulin? Maybe I'd better weigh myself! So I did. After a couple sedentary months of eating approximately 4000 calories a day, probably at least 70% from fat, I.....lost one pound, from 254 to 253. Granted, I'd like to be losing more, but all things considered, that's awesome. Now I just have to figure out why I don't seem to get sated on fat and protein as well as I should. I think it's mostly mental. One problem might be that I eat very fast, so I'll be trying to slow down so my stomach has a chance to break down some of those fats and proteins and send my brain the message that it's okay to stop eating. -- From nobody Thu Jan 3 16:04:58 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Going cold turkey. References: <86r6h8aw1l.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2008 16:04:57 -0600 Message-ID: <8663yar2eu.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 67 Lisbeth Andersson writes: > Chemistry is enough to make anybody depressed. So why do I find it > a lot easier to overeat if it is some sugar/fat or salt/fat > combination? It depends, what does "overeat" mean? Taubes makes a great point that the logic behind that word is completely circular. We'd never say someone who eats 3000 calories a day and stays slim is overeating, but we'll level that charge against someone who eats 2500 and gains. So if you overeat, you'll be fat, and if you're fat, you must be overeating. Ergo, I don't think it *is* easy to overeat on salty/fatty foods in the absence of carbs, if overeating is defined as eating enough to cause one to gain weight. >> In people with good blood sugar control, this isn't a big deal, >> because the amount of sugar getting to their brain is tightly >> regulated. In those of use whose blood sugar isn't well >> controlled, including diabetics and those with insulin >> resistance, the highs and lows can be very intense. When your >> blood sugar drops from 200 to 60 in an hour or two, > Dividing by 18 to find out what you are talking about :-) How do > you get that drop, are you using some kind of fast acting insulin? Nope, that's all from my pancreas. It eventually produces enough insulin to get the glucose down to normal, and it keeps it there without any trouble when I'm fasting or eating low-carb, but it can't produce it fast enough to handle a glut of carbs like it should. So my BG shoots up for a while, then eventually my pancreas catches up and pulls it back down to normal. How long it takes varies depending on what I ate, but the point is that whenever it does come back to normal after being that high, the brain is going to feel the withdrawals. > Can I borrow some of those rationalizations? :-) Sure, I've got a million of them. >> So, for the same reason that no one tells an alcoholic to "ease >> into" quitting by cutting back to half as many drinks a day, >> easing into carb reduction doesn't work very well either. It's >> not really about trying to "shock your body"; it's more about >> shocking it only once--the day you start the plan--instead of >> shocking it day after day as you gradually bring your carbs down >> to the level that'll normalize your blood sugars. > > OTOH nobody tells an alcoholic that s/he could drink one bottle of > low alcohol beer each day, but a very small amount of carbs is > nessessary. Some people think it is easier to stay away from some > things altogether than using a small amount of it. It's not so much that you need some carbs, but it's not very practical to eat nothing but meat, butter, and oil. I do think sugar can be like an alcoholic's "one drink" for many of us, though, even if we keep it within our carb limits. There's just something about sugar that can really set off cravings. > So far the authors to look for is Bernstein, Schwarzbein and > Atkins. I'd throw in Eades and Taubes while you're at it. -- From nobody Mon Jan 7 13:33:04 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Help! Not losing weight References: <0p2dn3dit95boapf207e9eb8tdbgo2l2e9@4ax.com> <5tnjvgF1e8m76U1@mid.individual.net> <77e70edf-bd63-446e-9e15-4dd563ae80fc@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <5tnpurF1e63n2U3@mid.individual.net> <477e9b11$0$2962$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:33:04 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk7177nz.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Jackie Patti writes: > Susan wrote: > >>>> Avatar wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've been on the low-carb diet (20-25 g a day max--near >>>>> Atkins' induction level) for two months, and have been in ketosis all >>>>> that time. Lost some weight the first month, but have not lost any >>>>> since. >> Did the OP say s/he was using the Atkins plan? I may've missed it. > > Said Atkins induction right there. Not exactly; the OP said he'd been "near Atkins' induction level." I took that to mean he wasn't doing Atkins, but something close to it. -- From nobody Mon Jan 7 13:44:03 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: need to lose weight and fast.. References: <2f2ee12d-3988-4a42-8645-e52717420fb9@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <49662c33-57c2-4678-bde9-8e11cc29f0de@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <964813c9-584f-4b9d-8fcb-9b13e00e7a6b@l1g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <38ed84b6-edd2-4df3-96b6-476ccdca970d@l6g2000prm.googlegroups.com> <141ede76-dee7-4243-be37-ff88d54fe3ab@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:44:03 -0600 Message-ID: <86hchp775o.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 weightlossvariety@gmail.com writes: > I don't recall saying anything about what the Atkins book says..The > doctors made a comment on The South Beach Diet. Then the rest is self > explanitory so I don't even need to go there...Plus taking advice from > a doctor of whom I haven't been to, now that is scary. This TV program > was informational and did comparsions on various diets. I can only > assume the doctors had to of read the Atkinns Diet book to be able to > do the show. You're kidding, right? -- From nobody Mon Jan 7 14:03:59 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Food Pyramid for Weight Loss References: <32dcebdd-ef14-422e-9c87-ad445f961752@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <86lk7bht10.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <86ejcyr4wh.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <477e927c$0$2980$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <68783e3c-8e93-4e46-9e93-22f559d19905@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:03:58 -0600 Message-ID: <86d4sd768h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 70 Doug Freyburger writes: > Jackie Patti wrote: >> Aaron Baugher wrote: >> > I've been wondering, in the context of pasture-raised meat having >> > healthier fats than grain-fed, what can be done in that regard with >> > hogs.  Their biology is a lot like ours; they can't process the >> > cellulose in grass like beef and sheep do.  I hope to be raising >> > some in a couple years, so I'll have to see what I can do along >> > those lines. > Omega-3 chicken eggs cost more. The chickens are fed flax > seeds mixed into their grain. I've never heard of anyone feeding > pigs flax seed to improve the ratio of fatty acids in their fat but > my guess is it should work. It's a wild guess not an educated > guess in this case. >> Pigs are healthier raised on pasture also.  The problem is that you >> have to ring their noses to keep them tearing up the pasture >> entirely.  And you can't raise them *well* on *just* pasture as >> they're not ruminants. Yeah, if they aren't ringed, they need a ton of room to roam or they'll destroy every living thing in a hurry. Even with a lot of space, they'll root in a pasture for grubs, worms, or fun. Putting rings in their noses isn't much fun, but it's a lot more humane than keeping them in concrete pens. I did some reading this weekend, and it seems that when people feed pigs a lot of oil or meat products like fish scraps, their fat tends to be "soft" and doesn't make good bacon or lard. I take that to mean it's higher in unsaturated fat (and maybe omega-3s?) than grain-fed pork. Farmers typically move them to a grain-only ration for the last couple weeks before slaughter, to "harden" the fat. So there might be a choice between healthy-enough saturated fat that preserves well, or healthier fat that's less convenient. Something to research more, and to experiment with when I raise some. I also found out that older pigs (over 100 pounds or so) actually will eat a lot of grass and other forage, and get quite a bit of good out of it. Not enough to live on pasture alone, like you say, but enough to reduce their grain consumption something like 30%, as I recall. > Pigs instinctively dig up roots so a grass pasture can be destroyed > by pigs. But put them in a "tree pasture" (that's called "woods", > right? > ;^) and they will dig up weeds, nuts, sapplings, wild carrots and > such. > Maybe even the occasional truffle. And the occasional tree. They'll eventually kill out the trees, from rooting around them and chewing on the bark. That's handy, if you want to clear some scrub timber; but otherwise, they can't be left in one area for too long. >> Extras from fruit and nut trees would be good too.  Ideally, you'd >> let them clean up the orchard and woodlot when you were done >> harvesting for yourself. > It seems to be their native habitat. An oak forrest to supply then > acorns should have them healthy but with very strong tasting meat. Yeah, they love acorns and other nuts. Those supposedly make their fat "soft" too, which makes sense. -- From nobody Mon Jan 7 14:21:39 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question about Taubes' conclusions References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:21:39 -0600 Message-ID: <868x3175f0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "Cubit" writes: > I haven't finished the book yet, but I will be a hard sell on calories > not counting. He cites a long list of studies that seem to show just that--when people raised or lowered calories to all different levels between 400 (I think that was the lowest) and 10,000 on a restricted-carbohydrate diet, there was very little difference in weight loss/gain between the diets. It used to make me mad that for all the money being spent on anti-fat and low-calorie research, none was being done on low-carb. Until I read Taubes, I didn't realize that *lots* of low-carb and/or high-fat research has been done over the years; it's just been ignored. Which is perhaps even more maddening. > I suspect that how the body handles calories in low carb may be > different for people who have never been obese as compared to those > who became obese before changing to low carb. -just a guess I used to say that "calories are irrelevant." It was mainly a conversation starter; I never completely believed it. Now I'm convinced that they're irrelevant *if* you stick to a low-carb diet. If the research of Eades, Taubes, and others hadn't convinced me of that, my own science experiment certainly has. On the other hand, on a high-carb, insulin-raising diet, the body will be trying to store all the energy it can, so naturally extra calories will be a problem then. So now, to be accurate, I say, "Calories *can* be irrelevant." -- From nobody Mon Jan 7 14:36:06 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question about Taubes' conclusions References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:36:06 -0600 Message-ID: <864pdp74qx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 61 Peabody writes: > I'm not very knowledgeable about lo-carb. I had read Eades before, > but Taubes' book is the first thing I've read that was convincing to > me, at least tentatively. So this is a question for the experienced > hands here who have read everything. Eades wasn't convincing? I'm curious why. Taubes covers much of the same science, but with a lot more repetition and footnotes. The Drs. Eades do offer a lot of subjective evidence from having treated thousands of patients, so I guess that could be less convincing than a dry, outsider's review like Taubes's. > It seems to me that Taubes comes to two major conclusions. The > first is that it is carbohydrate consumption, and not fat > consumption, that causes most of the CHD in modern times. The > second is that it is carbohydrate consumption, not fat consumption > or total caloric intake, that is the key to weight gain and weight > loss - i.e., a calorie is not necessarily a calorie. > > Do these ideas stand or fall together? Or, could one (CHD) be > right, and the other be wrong? I mean, if it were conclusively > shown that a calorie really is a calorie, and that low-carb is no > better than low-fat for weight loss so long as the total calories > are the same, and that we really do get fat beccause we eat too > much and don't exercise, would that mean that the CHD stuff is also > wrong? I don't see why. If Taubes's book teaches anything, it should be that correlation does not prove causation. That's how we got into this mess in the first place. > It seems to me in reading Taubes that the two ideas share the > involvement of insulin, but I didn't see that they had to both be > right or wrong together. It just seems that even if Taubes' > carefully laid out explanation for what makes us fat turned out to > be completely wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean that high blood > sugar, and/or insulin spikes, aren't the main cause > of atherosclerosis. Right. Theory 1, as you listed them above, is that carbs -> insulin -> weight gain. Theory 2 is carbs -> insulin -> CHD. The only way you'd shoot down both theories at once would be by proving that carbs don't cause increased insulin, and I think that part of the chain has been well established. If you found that increased insulin *didn't* cause weight gain, that wouldn't mean it couldn't be causing other problems like CHD. > In all the other low-carb literature, are these two ideas almost > always accepted as mutually dependent, or is there a significant > segment that buys one but not the other? No significant segment that I know of. The science is really quite clear on both, so once you've cut loose from the mainstream way of thinking enough to agree with one theory, the other one seems pretty obvious. -- From nobody Mon Jan 7 14:46:25 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Interesting Experiment References: <86abnmr3nv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:46:24 -0600 Message-ID: <86zlvh5ppb.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 35 Doug Freyburger writes: > I think there are a lot of feelings that all get labelled "sated". > For me eating high fat or high protein keep hunger from coming back > for a long time, but that's not the same as feeling full once hunger > has started. Good point. > My trick to attempt to eat slowly repeats Nina's - Every couple of > bites I make a point to set down my fork and try to say something to > my meal companions. I grew up with eating during meals and plenty of > conversation after but that's not conducive to eating slowly. Yeah, we rarely spoke at meals when I was growing up. I think that used to be fairly common of farm families, to eat like it's part of the day's work, recharging so you could get back out there and get more done. My dad learned to eat even faster as a Marine, and I probably copied him somewhat. (He ended up with an ulcer that the doctor blamed on not chewing.) I'm trying to eat more slowly, but wow, it's so hard to remember to do. I may have to spray-paint "SLOW DOWN" on my plates or something, because it's such an automatic thing, to spoon in the next bite before the other one is even gone. I'll keep at it, though. Last night at supper, I put my fork down between bites until each bite was in my stomach. Thing is, even if I can lose weight while eating 3000-4000 calories, it seems so wasteful! High quality, low-carb food isn't cheap, after all. I could save a lot of money if I didn't eat so much. -- From nobody Mon Jan 7 15:01:57 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: How did the ASDLC lose control? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2008 15:01:57 -0600 Message-ID: <86ve655oze.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 "Carol Ann" writes: > What happened to this once awesome resource?? It got better and worse. If by "lose control" you mean the spam, I use a scoring newsreader (similar to a killfile, but more powerful), so I don't notice it enough to know if it's gotten worse. All unmoderated newsgroups have always had spam, and I assume this one is no exception. If you kill all messages cross-posted to fat-acceptance newsgroups, that gets rid of a lot of the off-topic arguing. Killing anything that's cross-posted to more than 2-3 groups helps too. A few years ago, this group had so much traffic that I couldn't keep up with it. There were a lot of threads that were on-topic, but light on content, like weight check-ins, where everyone would report his or her weight, or someone posting a picture and a hundred people responding with congratulations. I'm not criticizing that at all, because support takes many valid forms; but sometimes there was just too much of it to sort through. Now there are fewer on-topic posts, but I think they tend to have more useful information, so in that sense it got better--for me, anyway. I remember some topics that used to get a lot of talk that don't anymore. Sipping oil; how to remove stretch marks after you lose a lot of weight; how to eat more when your appetite falls drastically; eating more to break a stall. Seems like those things came up a lot a few years ago. The focus now seems to be a lot more on the current research, and treating this as a healthy way to eat for the long term and less like a short-term weight-loss diet, which is probably a good thing. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 08:09:38 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question about Taubes' conclusions References: <99f23534-1c2e-45ef-858c-edca884891b1@x69g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:09:37 -0600 Message-ID: <86myrg5rz2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 62 Doug Freyburger writes: > "In modern times" matters. There are societies who eat low fat > who have good health. If so, have any of them done it while eating a significant amount of refined carbs? Taubes cites some primitive societies that stayed healthy while eating *whole* grains and fruits, but they all developed the "diseases of civilization" as soon as refined carbs were brought in. Whole grains are higher in fat than refined grains, so I don't know how low-fat those societies really were; certainly the ones eating a lot of coconut aren't low-fat by any means. My impression is that there are two factors: too many carbs and too little healthy fat. Americans right now are getting both barrels. Too many carbs damage the body in various ways, and without a ready supply of healthy fats, the damage can't be healed. Without healthy fats, the body won't use/recycle antioxidants correctly, the cell walls won't let nutrients and waste pass as readily as needed, the skin won't produce as much vitamin D, and on and on. > For his conclusion to be valid here's how he had to reach it: > Check the results of low fat dieting and low carb dieting and > find differences in how they causes changes in CHD. I don't > think he can find enough for his conclusion to be completely > convincing. But consider one of the two stories Dr Atkins > gave for why he started into the low carb field - He was a > cardiologist who prescribed low fat to his patients. Patient > after patient saw good results for under 6 months then got > worse numbers over 6 months later. So he switched to > prescribing patients low carb and patient after patient saw > worse numbers for under 6 months then better numbers for > over 6 months. Long term wins, game entered. Dr. Schwarzbein has a parallel story. As an endocrinologist, she saw a lot of diabetics, and prescribed the standard low-fat, no-red-meat diet to them. They did poorly, and she was frustrated. She started noticing that the patients who admitted to cheating on the diet did better than the others, and the ones who admitted to giving in to their cravings completely and pigging out on red meat did the best! Eventually she stopped to think about it and question her assumptions, and realized what was going on. She started putting people on low-carb diets (not especially low; 45-150g/day including fiber, depending on the severity of their diabetes), and saw big improvement. Then patients who lost extra weight told her their non-diabetic friends and family were so impressed that they tried it themselves and also lost weight, at which point she started recommending it for weight loss and general health instead of just for diabetic control. So we've got it both ways, inductively and deductively. We've got the scientists who looked at the biology and said, "Here's how carbohydrates, blood sugar, insulin, cholesterol, and a bunch of other factors relate to each other, so restricting carbs should improve health and cause weight loss." Then we have the clinicians who looked at the other end of the process--what people were eating--and deduced that carb restriction works, then figured out how it works and how best to do it through trial and error. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 08:29:51 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question about Taubes' conclusions References: <868x3175f0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 08:29:50 -0600 Message-ID: <86ir245r1d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 Peabody writes: > The following was posted in the cardiology newsgroup > recently, but got lost in a Chung war. It's a recent > Australian study comparing the two types of diets, and > concluding that weight loss was the same for both. Of > course, calories consumed was controlled, so there was no > opportunity for "appetite" effects to arise. Right. Naturally, if you lower calories to the point where your body has no choice but to drop its energy level and metabolism, and/or burn stored resources to make up the shortfall. So if you lower calories enough, the amount of resources burned may overshadow any metabolic effect. The bigger question is, though: even if both groups lost the same weight, did they lose it equally well? Did they lose the same amount of fat, the same amount of muscle? They admit that the high-fat group saw an improvement in HDL and triglyceride numbers, so clearly *something* different was happening inside the two groups. And even if the two diets were identical in results except for those blood factors, wouldn't that alone be enough to recommend lowering carbs and raising fats? > But this doesn't seem to support Taubes conclusions about > weight loss. I don't think Taubes or anyone else has ever claimed that calorie-restriction doesn't cause weight loss. Of course it does, if done long enough and extreme enough; one look at people in a famine area tells us that. But that doesn't prove A) that it's a healthy way to do it (do starving people ever look healthy?) or B) that it's a practical method for people who live in the land of plenty and can afford to fill their bellies as often as they want. If you want to restrict carbs and calories, then by all means do so. Many people do, either intentionally or as the result of a reduced appetite. The low-carb part will help with the low-calorie part, since a controlled blood sugar level will keep your brain from screaming at you as loudly between meals. For many people, I suspect that low-carb is the only way they *could* ever restrict calories in a maintainable way. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 09:02:39 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question about Taubes' conclusions References: <864pdp74qx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:02:38 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejcs5pip.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 82 Peabody writes: > Aaron Baugher says... > > > Eades wasn't convincing? I'm curious why. Taubes > > covers much of the same science, but with a lot more > > repetition and footnotes. > On reflection, I think what Taubes brought to the party was > presenting the history of how we came to believe that fat > was the root of all evil - how politics and money played in > the process. If the picture he paints is true, you are then > able to start from the point of view that current dogma > never was demonstrated to be correct in the first place. > Without that, you're putting the results in your own clinial > practice up against the authority of the establishment, and > that's not as convincing if you aren't one of Eades' > patients. Yeah, it's tough to break away from mainstream beliefs. I still catch myself sometimes thinking, "Well, *everybody* knows..." about some topic, and then I have to remind myself that "everybody knows" butter and salt are killers and grain is super-double-plus good for you. It's really a paradigm shift, which I know makes it easy to come off sounding like an evangelist or someone passing out a homemade newsletter about black helicopters, so I don't get into it with most people unless they ask me questions. The history is fascinating, though. In so many cases, there was one person with a lot of prestige or political clout, whose theories were accepted with little question, despite the fact that the person often had a clear bias. On the other hand, Taubes cites clinicians who treated thousands of people successfully with low-carb, high-fat diets, but they were too busy treating people to publish research or hang around Congress. If you could go back in time and replace Ancel Keys (who was far more obnoxious than the somewhat bombastic Atkins) and a few other key people with the Eadeses, Bernstein, Schwarzbein, and the like, things would have been very different. I'm reading Taubes slowly, maybe a chapter a week, unlike the way I normally rip through a book. For one thing, the information is so dense that it's hard to absorb a lot at once. Also, each chapter is so full of evidence that inspires me to stick to my plan, that I figure I might as well stretch it out and let it help me stay on track. > And the other thing, for me personally, is that my real > concern is cardiovascular stuff, and Taubes starts with > that, and devotes essentially the whole first half of the > book to it. If Eades also did that, it didn't register as > well with me for some reason. They discussed it, but no, not in nearly as much detail. I'm not sure if it was in PP or PPLP or both, since I've read both. > But Eades was convincing enough to cause me to cut my carb > consumption in half. But I'm still looking for some > improvement in blood pressure. None so far. Honestly, I wouldn't really expect to, until the carbs are under 100/day at most, with refined carbs and sugar eliminated. The carbs/insulin/problems chain isn't a smooth incline on a graph, where a 50% reduction in carbs will necessarily cause a 50% improvement in CVD. It's more like a very gradual slope until you reach the point where blood sugar stabilizes, and then the line shoots up. Someone once told me, "Well, I cut back to one regular soda a day, so that's gotta help, right?" I'd never want to rain on the parade of someone who's trying, but no, it probably won't, at least not proportionally to what the person feels like she's giving up. Also, if you're very insulin resistant, it will take a while to recover. First you stop the supply of blood sugar so your pancreas doesn't have to produce so much insulin, but it takes a while to get rid of excess stored glycogen, too. Your cells don't immediately stop being insulin resistant, so you'll still be producing more insulin than normal until your cells can develop more receptors. That's where healthy fats come into play, by the way, in helping your cell walls rebuild to be less resistant. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 09:12:15 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Breakfast References: <5ubl7oF1gl3lcU1@mid.individual.net> <47815ac9$0$26001$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <5ue4jhF1hmgv6U1@mid.individual.net> <478250df$0$16303$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ufgf1F1gbtt3U2@mid.individual.net> <051d111c-b279-4a2d-bd50-a2146aabb06c@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:12:15 -0600 Message-ID: <86abng5p2o.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 Doug Freyburger writes: > There are some veggies I'm not big on (I like cooked squash not raw, I > like raw beets not cooked), but there are only two that I hate. They > are bell peppers and parsnips. I'm with you on the green peppers, although I don't mind them as much if they're allowed to ripen to red or yellow. The green ones aren't ripe, people; stop picking them! A bit from one of my favorite book series, the Garrett books by Glen Cook: I did a job for a professor at the university one time. He was always spouting who-cares facts. Like one time when he said there are two hundred forty-eight different kinds of fruits, vegetables, greens, and tubers that people eat. Hogs will only eat two hundred forty-six of those. They won't touch green peppers and they won't touch cattail hearts. Which goes to show you that hogs have more sense than people. > As long as you're eating plenty of other types, the few you hate just > write them off. Recalibrate every decade or so to confirm (I am due > to try parsnips as it's now been 15+ years) but you are only writing > off a small number of choices so it isn't much loss. Very different > from the I-hate-all-veggies folks. Yeah, I've developed a taste for broccoli and cauliflower that I never cared much for as a kid, so it's worth re-trying things. Also, sometimes the way something was prepared the first time you had it could make a big difference. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 09:28:30 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Breakfast References: <5ubl7oF1gl3lcU1@mid.individual.net> <47815ac9$0$26001$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <5ue4jhF1hmgv6U1@mid.individual.net> <478250df$0$16303$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ufgf1F1gbtt3U2@mid.individual.net> <051d111c-b279-4a2d-bd50-a2146aabb06c@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <6u75o3tacu9bmthepgv2sgshakoq4foe8n@4ax.com> <5ufmgnF1hkb9gU1@mid.individual.net> <4nb5o39k32kfa0ls52rjaam0qsklrj6rjj@4ax.com> <5ufqaiF1h72bmU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:28:30 -0600 Message-ID: <8663y45obl.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 Susan writes: > I don't care if my meat and poultry is organic, I just care if it's > grass fed, honestly. If it's fed organic grain, it's an unhealthy > product, and cruel to the cattle, too. Yep. "Organic" is a government label that means the product meets certain regulations, at least when the inspector was looking. Many small local producers are organic in fact, but don't go to the expense and hassle of getting the label, or they want to keep their options open just in case someday their herd or crop gets a disease that requires a non-organic solution. My folks have a 50-cow dairy herd, and they've considered going organic, but before they can call the milk organic, they'd have to certify that all the feed, including pasture, comes from fields that have been certified organic for at least three years. That's a lot of trouble and expense to go to now, for a possible payoff in three years--assuming people are still paying extra for organic then. And it still wouldn't say anything about whether their practices are humane or clean. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 09:34:34 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Breakfast References: <5ubl7oF1gl3lcU1@mid.individual.net> <47815ac9$0$26001$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <5ue4jhF1hmgv6U1@mid.individual.net> <478250df$0$16303$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ufgf1F1gbtt3U2@mid.individual.net> <051d111c-b279-4a2d-bd50-a2146aabb06c@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <6u75o3tacu9bmthepgv2sgshakoq4foe8n@4ax.com> <5ufmgnF1hkb9gU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 09:34:33 -0600 Message-ID: <861w8s5o1i.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 Susan writes: > As for affordability, I gave that up for variety and grass fed meat > and dairy, wild caught fish and shellfish, except, probably, for most > of the shrimp I buy. My fiance and I are hoping to start raising shrimp (freshwater prawns, actually), probably in 2009. A lot of people have started doing it on a small, low-input basis, where you don't crowd the critters so intensively that you have to spend a lot of money on aeration and waste disposal. So they're farmed, but in a cleaner, more natural way and without the fear of heavy metals. They report having no trouble selling them all to people in their local areas, though, so it's still hard to get healthy shrimp on the normal market. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 10:03:06 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Breakfast References: <5ubl7oF1gl3lcU1@mid.individual.net> <47815ac9$0$26001$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <5ue4jhF1hmgv6U1@mid.individual.net> <478250df$0$16303$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ufgf1F1gbtt3U2@mid.individual.net> <051d111c-b279-4a2d-bd50-a2146aabb06c@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <6u75o3tacu9bmthepgv2sgshakoq4foe8n@4ax.com> <5ufmgnF1hkb9gU1@mid.individual.net> <4nb5o39k32kfa0ls52rjaam0qsklrj6rjj@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:03:05 -0600 Message-ID: <86wsqk485i.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 Nina writes: > My project for this summer is to try to locate some local, better > quality meat and poultry sources. It's about a 45 minute drive to > anywhere that you can consistently get organic meats/poultry, and it's > not something that I can do a lot of the time. I've said this before, but instead of looking for a store that's big enough to have an organic section, find the source. I found out in the last year that there are a lot more local producers in my area selling quality products off the farm than I realized. It seems like they do so well that they don't really have to advertise, so unless you hear about them through word-of-mouth, it's hard to find them. Ask your local extension service, people at the farmer's market, a local food co-op, or even 4-H or FFA leaders. There's a good chance someone will know where you can get a half of an outdoor-raised hog or a quarter of a pasture-raised beef. Usually they'll deliver it to the butcher, and then you tell the butcher how you want it done. Our local butcher even delivers it right to your freezer if you want. If you can't handle that much meat at once (freezers cost money too), they may know someone else who would split a section further with you. I just got a quarter of a steer, which came to 170 pounds, butchered and packaged and frozen for $70. The meat itself was a gift, but figure it started out as 340 pounds of steer, so at the current price of $90/cwt, that's $306. I could give the farmer $440, which would be 44% over market price, and still only be paying $3/pound for the whole deal. Considering how many steaks and roasts are in there, I don't think I can get ordinary beef at the grocery store for that, and I know where this came from--saw the animal while it was alive. -- From nobody Tue Jan 8 10:10:42 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: WHOOSH!, amazing results! References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2008 10:10:42 -0600 Message-ID: <86sl1847st.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Cheese Wheels writes: > I lost nothing for [4] days then suddenly this morning I showed a 10 > pound loss. That is amazingly crazy good for me. Awesome! I suspect that if you lost 10 pounds in one day, your scale isn't very accurate. :-) Who cares, though, as long as it's going down in general. You'll feel it in your clothes and your friends will notice it in your face. Being asked "have you lost weight lately" feels even better than seeing the scale move. > Been watching carbs and calories and not concerning myself with fat > grams. There you go. -- From nobody Wed Jan 9 07:00:22 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Breakfast References: <5ubl7oF1gl3lcU1@mid.individual.net> <47815ac9$0$26001$88260bb3@free.teranews.com> <5ue4jhF1hmgv6U1@mid.individual.net> <478250df$0$16303$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5ufgf1F1gbtt3U2@mid.individual.net> <051d111c-b279-4a2d-bd50-a2146aabb06c@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <6u75o3tacu9bmthepgv2sgshakoq4foe8n@4ax.com> <5ufmgnF1hkb9gU1@mid.individual.net> <4nb5o39k32kfa0ls52rjaam0qsklrj6rjj@4ax.com> <5uh0t3F1hdqqiU2@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:00:22 -0600 Message-ID: <86odbv40ih.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "UsenetID" writes: > I was shopping yesterday and did look at them, although I've never > bought them - how do you choose the good ones? Does it go by color, > or size (are the bigger ones tougher?), or what? There were some more > white, some more purple, all kinds of sizes...so I thought I'd ask > here first... For most root vegetables, firmness is the best indicator. When they start getting soft or hollow, they're probably not very good anymore. -- From nobody Wed Jan 9 07:02:28 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Breakfast References: <5ufgf1F1gbtt3U2@mid.individual.net> <051d111c-b279-4a2d-bd50-a2146aabb06c@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> <6u75o3tacu9bmthepgv2sgshakoq4foe8n@4ax.com> <5ufmgnF1hkb9gU1@mid.individual.net> <4nb5o39k32kfa0ls52rjaam0qsklrj6rjj@4ax.com> <5uh0t3F1hdqqiU2@mid.individual.net> <2q37o3d22l3c0nnsc4g9d3tk3bsrs1364g@4ax.com> <5uhjo0F1ic30iU1@mid.individual.net> <30b7o3ta1qqvrnr785sln1ib2llsa6fa5m@4ax.com> <5uhtaqF1h83ueU3@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:02:28 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5mj40ez.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Nina writes: > Well, I have to admit that I'm not sure. I know you can get turnips, > and there seems to be some debate as to exactly the difference between > a turnip and a rutabaga/swede, but the big store that I go to about > once a month has about every variety of just about everything that you > can think of, so probably. I don't think I ever looked! Most stores around here (Midwest US) have a small bin of rutabagas. They do look a lot like a turnip, but they're usually bigger and more purple all over, while turnips are usually just purple on top. -- From nobody Wed Jan 9 07:19:20 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question about Taubes' conclusions References: <868x3175f0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <86ir245r1d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1LUgj.16390$3b7.10917@newsfe23.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:19:19 -0600 Message-ID: <86fxx73zmw.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 Peabody writes: > Aaron Baugher says... > > I don't think Taubes or anyone else has ever claimed > > that calorie-restriction doesn't cause weight loss. > Oh I don't think that's quite right. I've lent out my copy > of the book, so I can't look it up now, but my memory is > that he did indeed say that you lose more weight on > low-carb than low-fat at the same number of calories, and > cited a number of examples of some people losing weight on > low-carb, but others not losing weight at the same number of > low-fat calories. But I could be wrong of course. You're talking about two different claims. Yes, a low-carb diet burns off weight faster than a low-fat diet at the same calories. That doesn't mean that calorie restriction by itself can't work if you take it far enough. Obviously, if you take calories to zero, you *will* lose weight before you die of starvation. Again, the question isn't whether cutting calories works, but whether it's healthy and/or practical. There may be some point on the graph between zero and your maintenance level where you'll lose weight on low-carb and not on low-fat, but if you lowered calories even further on low-fat, you'd eventually hit a point where your body couldn't drop metabolism any further and would have to start shedding pounds. They might be pounds of lean mass instead of fat, but that's a separate issue. -- From nobody Thu Jan 10 06:01:58 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Food Pyramid for Weight Loss References: <32dcebdd-ef14-422e-9c87-ad445f961752@i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <86lk7bht10.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <86ejcyr4wh.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <477e927c$0$2980$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <68783e3c-8e93-4e46-9e93-22f559d19905@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <86d4sd768h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4784d640$0$26883$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:01:58 -0600 Message-ID: <86tzll3n49.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 40 Jackie Patti writes: > This is an idea I have had for clearing land. > > After removing the worthwhile lumber, raise a batch of unringed pigs > on it for a year to clear out the stumps. I suspect they'd raise just > fine with just garden and kitchen scraps to supplement, maybe some > grain if that turned out to not be quite enough. If they weren't > enthusiastic enough about the stumps, you might drill them and fill > the holes with molasses to make them more tempting. Or toss grain in the holes. They should live well on kitchen scraps, as long as there's a variety. Like humans, they need a certain amount of protein and fat to grow and be healthy, so you wouldn't want to feed them on nothing but lettuce leaves or something like that. Joel Salatin talks about sowing an area with grain and waiting until the grain has sprouted and started to grow, then moving the pigs in. They'll root up and eat the shoots and sprouted seeds (which I assume would have burned some of their carbs in producing the shoot), loosening the soil in the process so it's ready to sow for the next batch. > Might take a bit longer to get them to market weight, but it seems to > me you get the pigs to clear the land for you and have a pork crop to > sell on top of it. Should be pretty fertile by then too for either > using as pasture or row crops or whatever. Yep, let the pigs do the work. I knew a farmer who raised hogs for probably 50 years, eventually putting up expensive confinement buildings with automated feeders, manure pits, and the whole factory-hog system. After he retired, he said the most money they ever made was when they just turned pigs loose in the timber, threw them some corn once in a while, and rounded them up when they got big enough. Sure, they took longer to grow, but he never had to borrow money from a bank to grow them. -- From nobody Thu Jan 10 06:04:28 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: 1/3rd of Americans Obese? References: <4784cc31$0$26894$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:04:28 -0600 Message-ID: <86prw93n03.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 Jackie Patti writes: > I prefer buying raw cheeses in small amounts, a pound at a time > usually. But when I've gotten good deals, I freeze cheese. You have > to let it thaw at room temperature for a good day and a half so the > oils redistribute properly if you don't want it to be crumbly; I leave > it out for a good 24 hours after it's thawed. Ah ha! That's good to know. I freeze cheese whenever it's on sale, since sales on cheese are often 50% or more, but I just accept that it's going to be crumbly. For putting it on a salad, crumbliness isn't all bad, but it's annoying if I'm slicing it. -- From nobody Thu Jan 10 06:08:19 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: I donated my "fat" clothes today! References: <0eba7202-8841-4987-b598-fb84850cccee@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 06:08:19 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk6x3mto.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 19 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:36 GMT, "Cubit" wrote: >>My bag of huge pants went to Goodwill some years ago. They didn't >>seem eager to get them. > > Why? Do only skinny people shop at Goodwill? The thrift store near me always seems to have a lot of really huge and really small jeans. The sizes that fit the most people don't last long at all. I don't really know why; maybe fat and skinny people's size tends to vary more, so they're more likely to get rid of clothes while they're still good enough to resell? -- From nobody Mon Jan 14 05:49:50 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Gained 3 LBS, help References: <8Lqij.3724$jJ5.2230@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> <9cgko3t1ljsamb91hftrld5e4df9vtujc8@bbb.org> <478a7096$0$18426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 05:49:49 -0600 Message-ID: <86myr8mxsy.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 Cheese Wheels writes: > "Jeri" wrote: >>If everything had a nutrition label I'm guessing you've eaten quite a >>bit of salt which might be causing water retention. > I had no idea salt was going to play such a role. I will now watch the > salt. You're missing the point. Water retention doesn't hurt anything, unless you have dangerously high blood pressure, so there's no need to watch the salt. Say you cut your salt intake and lose five pounds of water: so what? Are you trying to win a weight-loss contest, or get rid of excess body fat? Get rid of the scale, or average your numbers over a monthly basis. In other words, every time you weigh yourself, write the number on your calendar. At the end of the month, average that month's numbers, and that's your January average weight. At the end of February, you'll get your average February weight. If that number is going up, then you *might* need to change something about the way you're eating. -- From nobody Tue Jan 15 06:24:52 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Gained 3 LBS, help References: <8Lqij.3724$jJ5.2230@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net> <9cgko3t1ljsamb91hftrld5e4df9vtujc8@bbb.org> <478a7096$0$18426$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <86myr8mxsy.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:24:51 -0600 Message-ID: <86abn7ff8s.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Cheese Wheels writes: > Is it ok to be eating more meats though? In general, if you're hungry, sure. As far as I've been able to learn, you could eat nothing *but* meat and stay quite healthy, although you might need to supplement potassium. Replacing high-carb or manufactured foods with meat is never a bad idea. One caveat if you're diabetic or very insulin resistant: since most meats you can buy nowadays are fairly lean, if you eat nothing but meat, you could get enough extra protein to convert into sugar and drive your BG/insulin up. It's possible for that to lead to cravings for more sugary foods. If you're already getting the amount of protein your lean body mass needs and you're still hungry, it's best to add fat more so than protein. You can do that by eating fattier meats--and as a bonus, they're cheaper--or by adding real foods like butter, cream cheese, olive oil, or mayo (if you can find mayo with no sugar or trans fat) to whatever you're already eating. -- From nobody Wed Jan 16 15:14:37 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Eating slowly may not help you shed pounds - MSNBC Article References: <55397abf-78fb-40f1-9d7e-994de9cbd564@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <72474949-6fd5-48a2-9d8b-608e6737d4e1@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:14:37 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejchbhhe.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Hollywood writes: > Again, it's about nutrient density, not volume. Hence the terms > junk calories, junk food, empty calories, etc. If it were about > low caloric density, high volume foods, we'd all be eating > rice cakes with salsa till the end of the world. That may be > life to some, but I prefer steak. Yeah, that's one of those things that makes sense at first glance: If you think of your stomach as a bag, and hunger as a signal that the bag is empty, and satiety as a signal that the bag is full, then keeping the bag full of low-calorie fluff should keep you feeling full and satisfied while you lose weight on fewer calories. Only problem is, all those assumptions are false. -- From nobody Mon Jan 21 09:11:22 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <5veh6aF1l5kugU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:11:21 -0600 Message-ID: <86myqz6wo6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Perhaps I have reading comprehension problems and need to return to > the 5th grade or something. > > What is the take home message from this: > >> FOR the past century, the advice to the overweight and obese has >> remained remarkably consistent: consume fewer calories than you >> expend and you will lose weight. This prescription seems eminently >> reasonable. The only problem is that it doesn't seem to work. Neither >> eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in any but >> the rarest cases. > > > Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in > any but the rarest cases? In his book, he cites numerous studies where obese people were put on "balanced," semi-starvation diets in the 1800-calorie neighborhood, or even extreme low-calorie diets of under 1000 calories, and failed to lose any significant weight. There is evidence that, for people whose hormones are in fat-storage mode--what we know as high insulin, low glucagon mode--their bodies conserve energy during caloric deficits by slowing down various metabolic processes, giving off less heat, and becoming more lethargic. Yes, everyone has to have *some* calorie level at which he'll lose weight, but that's not the conventional wisdom. The conventional wisdom is that it takes 3500 calories to make a pound of fat, therefore if you're currently maintaining your weight, and you cut calories by 500/day, you'll lose one pound a week, period, for certain, end of story. Likewise, if you increase 500/day, you'll gain a pound a week. And this is all completely regardless of what you eat or anything to do with your hormones, because A Calorie Is A Calorie, after all. That's what Taubes is objecting to, and what he spends hundreds of pages citing numerous studies to counter. -- From nobody Mon Jan 21 09:21:40 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <2ipkj.89976$Um6.89680@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:21:40 -0600 Message-ID: <86ir1n6w6z.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 "Cubit" writes: > I'm a bit embarrassed and also frustrated with myself that I am still > working on Taubes' book. Same here. I'm most of the way through, but I just read a few pages at a time, or a chapter at most. That's okay, because each time I do, it inspires me to keep eating this way. At first, I was making notes whenever I ran across a really good quote or a point I wanted to remember for later, but I soon realized those would make a small book on their own. I'll definitely have to reread it a few times to get what I missed. > There are people I know, that I wish I could induce to read it, but > there is no point in even trying. There needs to be a DVD. You're right. The Eadeses put out a VHS and cassette tape series once, but the video was very basic and focused on the diet. (I don't have a cassette tape player anymore, so I never listened to those.) Their Life PLan book actually covers a lot of the same topics that Taubes does, in something closer to layman's language without all the history, so it could be a good read for someone for whom Taubes would be too dense. I know some people who never read a book, though, and they certainly aren't going to read a science book, so a DVD could be great for them. -- From nobody Tue Jan 22 13:43:38 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Tell me not to worry about this :-) References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 13:43:37 -0600 Message-ID: <867ii17ija.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 88 Nina writes: > Here's the real question... why on earth are we not losing weight? > > And I already know what the answer is: Don't worry about it as long as > you're doing what you're supposed to be doing, and check again in a > couple of weeks. Yep, two weeks is really too soon to be measuring success, but you hear about the "whoosh" so much, it'd be disappointing not to get one, right? > But here's the more detailed story, such as it is. > After a bumpy start to changing ways of eating (partly because of the > holidays, partly because of it taking a while to convince my husband > that we were on the right track, partly because of being really sick > with some virus from hell for two straight weeks), we've been on a > pretty strict 20-30 net carbs/day for a couple of weeks. Some > variation, a few days closer to 40, but nothing above that. Well, Atkins says to start just below 20, and PP starts at below 30. Even Schwarzbein starts some people with diabetes or major insulin resistance as low as 45 (including fiber). Forty may simply be too high for you, especially when you're just getting started and may still be very insulin resistant, and since sometimes inaccuracies in labeling and/or counting can mean that 40 is really 50 or 60. For example: > Not much of anything that could count as hidden carbs, other than > Splenda in tea. So you've been "pretty" strict for a couple weeks with "not much" in the way of uncounted carbs. Please believe me when I say that I'm not trying to be mean here and am only trying to help, but that sounds kind of vague. I've been there; I know how vagueness can sabotage the plan. I've told myself I was just getting a few extra carbs when the true numbers were far higher. Why not count the Splenda and anything else that might be hiding in that "not much," get the real total down to a max of 30 every day (since you mentioned later that you're mostly doing PP), and see how that goes? Food intolerances are another possibility; things like wheat can cause some people to bloat up and really hang onto weight. I'd cut out all grains, MSG-type substances, and possibly dairy for a while and see how that goes. I'd cut out the Splenda too, but that's easy for me to say, since I prefer my tea unsweetened. :-) > Around 1800-2000 calories/day, which is a calorie level at which > both of us should be able to lose weight by any measure (I'm not > really counting calories, but I use a nutrition tracking program, so I > know what they are). Lots of protein (following Protein Power more > than Atkins, though I've read both). Plenty of water. Since you're using a tracking program, I'd guess it'd be easy to post your menu from a couple of typical days. No, it won't bore us; that's often very illuminating. > And the general upshot of all of this is that neither of us is losing > any weight. At all, in a couple of weeks. On one level, I sort of > don't care, because the fact of the matter is that I feel better, I > look better, my depression has subsided, I'm not tired all the time, > and so on... I'm in this for life. And I can see a lot of what I'd > call the adjustment things getting better... I'm not nauseated all the > time, as I was in the beginning, not so headachy, so on. That's great; a noticeable improvement in something like depression in just two weeks is excellent! > But my husband is much more severely obese than I am, and he really > need to take off a little weight fairly quickly, because he's hit that > point where it's hard for him to move around much at all. So while > neither of us is looking for (or expecting) a quick fix, the lack of > scale movement is a little worrisome, particularly for him. > So it would be nice to know that this is "normal", if there is such a > thing, or if anyone has any suggestions about what the problem could > be (if there actually IS a problem). I don't know that I'd call it normal, but it isn't drastically abnormal either. Most people do lose a few pounds of water weight in the first week or so, so if you haven't, that suggests to me that your carbs aren't quite low enough or some food intolerance is keeping you bloated. I'll chime in with the others who said, post that menu, and we'll see what we can figure out from there. -- From nobody Wed Jan 23 08:54:54 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Tell me not to worry about this :-) References: <867ii17ija.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:54:54 -0600 Message-ID: <86abmw618h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 68 Nina writes: > That's right. I want my whoosh! Or something anyway. I'm actually > totally sick of hearing how whoever lost 15 lbs. in one week or > whatever. Yeah, it's water weight, but it's not like it wouldn't be a > nice little psychological boost... Absolutely; I don't blame you a bit. The "whoosh" is typically more like 3-7 pounds, though. > Anyway, we don't eat any grains at the moment, and we're both MSG > intolerant so we don't eat anything that we know has it in it, and > we're very light on dairy, although I agree that it's a possible > culprit. > But what we eat every day is roughly the same: > Breakfast: 2 eggs, 2 slices bacon, 1 chicken sausage (2 carbs, 120 > cal for the sausage) > Lunch: 6-8 oz of whatever protein I have in the refrigerator, > grilled, and either a small green salad or some vegetables left over > from the night before. > Dinner: About 8 oz of whatever protein, and then some vegetables... > broccoli or cauliflower or green beans generally. Sometimes we have a > few (1/3 cup) fried onions if it's steak. > Extras: I use butter on vegetables, olive oil in various cooking, > cream in tea, and Splenda in tea. Sometimes we split a > ChocoPerfection bar in the evening (about 1 net carb and 100 cal. for > half the bar). Occasionally we snack on a few pork rinds. If we're > really hungry before bed, we have a piece of leftover chicken or a > little cheese, something like that. Yeah, that list looks pretty good. I don't know anything about that chocolate bar, so it would be my first suspect, just assuming it has some sort of artificial sweetener in it. Onions are fairly carby, but you're counting them. Bacon and sausage have some trace carbs, but they shouldn't add up to much. > All of that averages out to about 1800-2000 calories and 18-28 net > carbs, depending mostly on how many vegetables. We eat almost nothing > that comes in a package, so it's hard to find a lot of hidden carbs, > unless I'm totally missing something. It sure doesn't look like you're eating too much. You said your husband is over 500 pounds; isn't he awfully hungry on that few calories? Since he's only been at it two weeks, it's way too soon for him to start *forcing* his caloric intake up *or* down, but if he's hungry, there'd be nothing wrong with him eating more protein and fat. > Well, I've been eating what I'd call "loosely" low carb for nearly 2 > months now (that is, I cut out pretty much all white stuff and all > grains, upped the protein and reduced the vegetables and fruit), and > so a lot of that improvement has been sort of longer term. But I'm > astonished how much better I feel in terms of both depression and > fatigue. I am never, ever going to eat differently from this, and I > know everyone says that, but when you see that kind of improvement in > lifelong serious medical issues, it's hard not to be a complete > fanatical convert, I think. Yeah, I think what happens is, after a while people get used to feeling better and forget all the symptoms they had before, and then the commitment wavers. Sounds like you're on the right track, though. -- From nobody Wed Jan 23 09:10:51 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Started a variation of South Beach last Monday References: <6d6a3d53-2cf4-4562-9478-0b044afe325b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:10:51 -0600 Message-ID: <8663xk60hw.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 manatee68 writes: > Going well so far. I've lost 11 pounds!! I am not doing it by the > book, instead I just eliminated all pasta, sugar, and white potatoes. That's the bulk of the work, right there. > Started at 242lbs (5'9") Now at 231. Looking into Sharatake noodles to > ease the pasta cravings. I've only found the kind made with tofu around here. They taste fine--basically tasteless like regular pasta--but they're a bit rubbery. Not bad, but they always make me think of rubber fishing worms. Make sure you drain off the liquid they come in, and cook them in fresh water, to get rid of the strong fishy taste in the liquid. For dishes like lasagna, flat-leafed vegetables like Swiss chard, spinach, or even cabbage can work well in place of flat noodles. Are the cravings physical, like you really feel a *need* for pasta, or do you just miss pasta dishes and wonder how to cook without it? It's hard to tell the difference between those two sometimes, but if you're really *craving* it down in your gut, it could mean your carbs are still a little high at times and causing your blood sugar to spike. Bringing your carbs down to a typical starting level of 20-30g could help ease that. -- From nobody Thu Jan 24 07:09:18 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Started a variation of South Beach last Monday References: <6d6a3d53-2cf4-4562-9478-0b044afe325b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <8663xk60hw.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:09:18 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6g74bgh.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "UsenetID" writes: > That's all I can find around here also...I rinse them a half-dozen > times, thoroughly, then fry them in fat, seasoning heavily, since > they're so good at picking up other flavors...then I use them in > whatever dish I'm making that night. Thanks, I'll have to try that. I've only used them a few times, basically as spaghetti, boiled according to the package dirctions and topped with meat sauce. I wouldn't have guessed they'd be good at picking up other flavors. My mom has a great one-pot spaghetti dish, where you cook the pasta right in with the sauce, so I'll have to try that with the shirataki noodles. -- From nobody Thu Jan 24 07:14:20 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Started a variation of South Beach last Monday References: <6d6a3d53-2cf4-4562-9478-0b044afe325b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <8663xk60hw.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <2924f0bf-4afc-4be3-9cea-e2086330a621@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <%tMlj.1160$mj5.1062@newsfe02.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:14:20 -0600 Message-ID: <86myqv4b83.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 "UsenetID" writes: > "manatee68" wrote in message > news:2924f0bf-4afc-4be3-9cea-e2086330a621@y5g2000hsf.googlegroups.com... > On Jan 23, 1:12 pm, "UsenetID" wrote: > Thats interesting. So does frying them get rid of the rubbery > texture? > > They're still more rubbery than regular pasta but it's not like > chewing rubber bands or anything :). I've not tried them prepared as > Aaron does it, so I can't compare...but I like them better than > regular pasta, and my husband who used to eat pasta nearly every day > of his life, likes it just fine also. Well, "rubbery" might be a bit of an overstatement, but I can't come up with a better word. The texture is a little like undercooked pasta, but that's not quite it either, because your teeth sort of shear through it instead of crunching it. They're more appetizing than I'm making them sound. :-) I'd say they're worth trying to see what you think. -- From nobody Thu Jan 24 07:19:52 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Started a variation of South Beach last Monday References: <6d6a3d53-2cf4-4562-9478-0b044afe325b@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <8663xk60hw.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:19:52 -0600 Message-ID: <86ir1j4ayv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 Doug Freyburger writes: > manatee68 wrote: >> >> I am pretty sure the pasta cravings are mental because it was my >> favorite food ... > > Don't be so positive it's mental. Low carbing tends to turn off > any physical cause of cravings and before starting you don't > know how much of the desire is habit and how much has a > physical driver. It just might end up a lot less of a problem > than you expect. > > I expected to miss pasta a lot. Then I put myself through > Atkins Induction. I didn't miss pasta. I was very surprised at > that. Even on a plan of your own design don't be surprised if > your desire for pasta drops down and down. The first time I tried to low-carb, the cravings hit so hard that I found myself eating handfuls of raw macaroni. Now, there's no way that actually tasted good, and I'd never eat macaroni unless it was smothered in cheese or in a tuna salad or something, but I sure craved it then. I've never thought that regular pasta tasted like anything, so if I crave pasta itself, and not the meat and sauce it comes with, I know that's my body messing with my brain. -- From nobody Thu Jan 24 10:03:14 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Black Soybeans and Soy Allergies? From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:03:14 -0600 Message-ID: <8663xj43el.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 This may be a dumb question, but does anyone know if black soybeans are a problem for people with soy allergies? I just tried some and they worked great in chili, but my fiance has some pretty strong reactions to things like soy milk and soy pasta. These didn't look all that much like soybeans to me, so I'm wondering if maybe they aren't really soybeans, the way cowpeas aren't really peas; that kind of thing. It'd be great if we could both eat these, since they're practically all fiber. -- From nobody Fri Jan 25 05:12:23 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Black Soybeans and Soy Allergies? References: <8663xj43el.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5vrtccF1nmp0mU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:12:23 -0600 Message-ID: <861w8640rs.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 Susan writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: >> This may be a dumb question, but does anyone know if black soybeans >> are a problem for people with soy allergies? I just tried some and >> they worked great in chili, but my fiance has some pretty strong >> reactions to things like soy milk and soy pasta. These didn't look >> all that much like soybeans to me, so I'm wondering if maybe they >> aren't really soybeans, the way cowpeas aren't really peas; that kind >> of thing. It'd be great if we could both eat these, since they're >> practically all fiber. >> > > They're actually not practically all fiber; they're very high in > protein. True, I should have said the carbs in them are nearly all fiber; 7 out of 8, I believe. > If someone has an allergy, it's to proteins. Hmm, doesn't sound too promising then. Thanks, -- From nobody Fri Jan 25 05:26:26 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: hi, still here References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 05:26:26 -0600 Message-ID: <86wspy2ljx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "catskills@monmouth.com" writes: > Hi, its been awhile, and I am still low carbing. I have had no > problems. Excellent! > I always seem to run into the one who makes me crazy, for example ran > into a raw veggie foods nut, who looked in my cart and did nothing but > blast me. Here is what was said, ohh my, your eating so much fat and > meat. Low carb will kill you. How could you eat all that fat? I did > not say anything, but I am thin, can't gain weight, never felt better, Do you want to feel great and look great, or please society? That's really what it comes down to. Embrace the revolution; push that cart full of pork rinds up to the checkout counter with pride! :-) > and the only problem is that I always wonder what is my cholesterol > level? Am I killing myself? I can't eat fruit, cereal, and veggie > only. Why do they make me so nervous about my health. Well, you can have your cholesterol level checked, if feeling great isn't enough evidence for you. If you do, just make sure you know what the numbers really mean so the doctor won't be able to scare you with bad information. HDL is good, triglycerides are bad, and LDL is meaningless, unless you find out how much of your LDL is light and fluffy (the good kind) and how much is denser. See Taubes and/or Eades for more info on that. -- From nobody Mon Jan 28 12:14:48 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <5veh6aF1l5kugU1@mid.individual.net> <86myqz6wo6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4798c32b$0$1190$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <479948dd$0$1251$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vugi1F1o74n3U1@mid.individual.net> <479a1995$0$3628$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vv1d0F1ol7msU1@mid.individual.net> <601hlaF1oqp7nU1@mid.individual.net> <2wNmj.735$R84.149@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <601scuF1o8in1U4@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:14:48 -0600 Message-ID: <86prvl7r6v.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 37 Susan writes: > Cubit wrote: >> IMHO reports of people on low calories that gain weight or retain >> weight are *usually* cases of under-reported calories. > Maybe so, but NOT in the cases I'm discussing. Not in my own > scrupulously documented caloric life. At one time, I maintained > overweight on 800 scrupulously documented calories per day. This went > up to 1200 went I switched to low carb, but that's my limit due to > pituitary/adrenal issues. I only got slim during the year I was so > severely adrenally suppressed on metformin that I couldn't eat. I just read a section in Taubes that summarizes the problem with the calorie/weight hypothesis very well, but I don't have it here to quote it. I'll do that soon, because it's brilliant. In summary: we don't get fat because we overeat; we overeat because we're getting fat. In other words, hormones decide how much energy is being stored in fat cells and how much is being taken out and transferred to cells that burn it. The number of calories we eat has very little effect on that process, except at the extreme ends of the scale. That's a hard thing to get one's mind around--it took me a while, anyway. We're so conditioned to think that calories drive fat metabolism, when the evidence shows it's the other way around, with our fat metabolism controlling our appetite and energy level. Even people who have *done it*, lowered their calories or increased exercise and maintained weight, can convince themselves they did something wrong, because *of course* a calorie deficit *must* bring about weight loss. Well, no, it mustn't necessarily. -- From nobody Mon Jan 28 12:20:49 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: hi, still here References: <13pi23egll1cp8d@corp.supernews.com> <479c0bd2$0$1340$834e42db@reader.greatnowhere.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:20:49 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk697qwu.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 "James M. Loralee" writes: > "Henry Von Sweitzenheimer" wrote in message > news:13pi23egll1cp8d@corp.supernews.com... >> catskills@monmouth.com wrote: >>> Hi, its been awhile, and I am still low carbing. I have had no >>> problems. >>> >>> I always seem to run into the one who makes me crazy, for example ran >>> into a raw veggie foods nut, who looked in my cart and did nothing but >>> blast me. Here is what was said, ohh my, your eating so much fat and >>> meat. Low carb will kill you. How could you eat all that fat? I did >>> not say anything, but I am thin, can't gain weight, never felt better, >>> and the only problem is that I always wonder what is my cholesterol >>> level? Am I killing myself? I can't eat fruit, cereal, and veggie >>> only. Why do they make me so nervous about my health. >>> >>> OHH well ,thanks Marilyn >> I think vegetarians are gullible and crazy. I've never known a >> vegetarian that grew old. They all died at an early age. > > Of what? Being beaten to death with a frozen rump roast when they told the wrong person how to eat? -- From nobody Tue Jan 29 08:03:42 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <5veh6aF1l5kugU1@mid.individual.net> <86myqz6wo6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4798c32b$0$1190$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <479948dd$0$1251$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vugi1F1o74n3U1@mid.individual.net> <479a1995$0$3628$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vv1d0F1ol7msU1@mid.individual.net> <601hlaF1oqp7nU1@mid.individual.net> <2wNmj.735$R84.149@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <601scuF1o8in1U4@mid.individual.net> <86prvl7r6v.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:03:41 -0600 Message-ID: <867ihs7mpu.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 56 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > On Jan 28, 1:14 pm, Aaron Baugher wrote: >> In other words, hormones decide how much energy is being stored in >> fat cells and how much is being taken out and transferred to cells >> that burn it.  The number of calories we eat has very little effect >> on that process, except at the extreme ends of the scale. > > What exactly is the working definition of extreme here? Is Taubes > saying that most obese adults will not lose weight at 1500 or 1800 > calories a day? I don't doubt that there are SOME people who won't > lose weight at that level. But I believe there is plenty of evidence > that they are the exception, not the typical case. Unless I just haven't gotten to it yet, I don't think he tries to graph the population and show what percentages lose/gain weight at different calorie levels. I don't know if enough research has been done to come up with those figures. But as long as there's *one* person who can maintain or gain weight on a caloric deficit, that proves that calories aren't an absolute controlling factor. Most people think if they reduce their calorie intake by 500 a day (or do 500 calories worth of additional exercise, which is a *lot*), they'll lose a pound a week, and that's simply not true for a large percentage of the population. I don't know how large that percentage is, but I don't think that matters much anyway, because the actions that *will* help those people lose weight will help the others too. > The problem with calorie restriction to a reasonable level is not that > it doesn't result in weight loss for most people. It does. The > problem is people cannot stick to it, with a big reason being they > feel hungry. And that I would agree is attributable to some of the > factors that Taubes discusses. I would say that a level of calories that makes you hungry may not be "reasonable" at all, assuming the hunger isn't really carb cravings. Hunger that signifies a need for more energy inputs can happen at the same time that fatty acids are being tucked away in the adipose tissue, if that's what your hormones have decided is necessary. If insulin is high and its counterparts like adrenaline and glucagon are low or normal, it's quite possible for the body to be storing fat in fat cells while at the same time the muscle cells and organs are crying out for more energy. Yes, you can get fat while starving your lean body mass; it's been proven over and over in animal testing, and it happens with humans who have insulin resistance or other hormonal disorders. We've all heard people say they went on diets and gained weight, and frequently those people are told they must have been cheating or counting wrong. That may be true in some cases, but it's an unfair assumption to make. -- From nobody Wed Jan 30 08:53:44 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <5veh6aF1l5kugU1@mid.individual.net> <86myqz6wo6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4798c32b$0$1190$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <479948dd$0$1251$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vugi1F1o74n3U1@mid.individual.net> <479a1995$0$3628$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vv1d0F1ol7msU1@mid.individual.net> <601hlaF1oqp7nU1@mid.individual.net> <2wNmj.735$R84.149@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net> <601scuF1o8in1U4@mid.individual.net> <86prvl7r6v.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <867ihs7mpu.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <29f15ba6-4745-496b-b9d4-4028c1f87e86@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 08:53:43 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk675pqg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "trader4@optonline.net" writes: > As a side note, you've read Taubes. What do you think he meant in his > summary that started this thread: > > "Neither eating less nor moving more reverses the course of obesity in > any but the rarest cases. " > > Does he mean that getting most obese people on an 1800 calorie diet > with more excercise will not lead to weight loss? Or does he mean > that if fails because they will not stick to it? If it's the former, > I say he's dead wrong. If it's the latter, I agree. I won't put words in his mouth, but in my opinion, it's both. Some will fail because their metabolic processes will slow down to maintain their fat on the lower calorie level. Some will lose lean mass because their hormonal situation makes it harder to get fat out of the fat cells than to break down muscle and other tissue for energy, so they will lose weight, but in a bad way, and if they put it back on, their fat percentage will be higher. Some will become too hungry (read: starving) not to cheat. Some will become too lethargic to keep up the exercise. All those reasons and probably a few more. There seems to be a semantic kerfluffle about whether he should have said "rarest" or not. That's a subjective term, so interpret it to mean what you want. He backs up the claim with plenty of actual *numbers* from studies that tested the effect of calorie restriction; presumably, those show what he means by "any but the rarest." -- From nobody Wed Jan 30 09:00:36 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <5veh6aF1l5kugU1@mid.individual.net> <86myqz6wo6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4798c32b$0$1190$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <479948dd$0$1251$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vugi1F1o74n3U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:00:36 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejbz5pez.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 Susan writes: > It depends upon how the rest of the endocrine system is > functioning. For those of us with pituitary/adrenal issues, blood > sugar control isn't as simple as carbs low/insulin needs low, because > elevated cortisol raises bg, which requires more insulin, high insulin > lowers cortisol synthesis and delivery, so the pituitary stimulates > even more cortisol release... Is there a good primer on this anywhere online? I've done some searching and come across Cushing's Syndrome, but that doesn't seem to fit me. I hammered my adrenals pretty hard when I was younger, with a combination of drinking, lots of caffeine and stress, and a bad case of mono. I'm not sure they ever recovered; the adrenal reflex points are very sore, and even on low-carb I still feel lethargic a lot (although much better than on high-carb). I know keeping BG down will help them recover, but I also know it's a long process, and would like to see if there's more I should be doing, and how to find out for sure if they're hurting in the first place. Thanks, -- From nobody Wed Jan 30 09:08:03 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: resist temptation at Super Bowl parties References: <8d16d864-1262-4151-a56e-ced185b701d2@n22g2000prh.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 09:08:03 -0600 Message-ID: <86abmn5p2k.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Mark Filice writes: > Cheri says... >>Yep, I'll have some *good* LC snacks for the Super Bowl thank you very >>much. > How about pork rinds? I haven't seen them mentioned here in a while. > > They are low-carb, and I use them instead of chips. I'll dip them into > some guacamole--and it works for me. Yeah, pork rinds are great for dipping in anything. They're also a good cracker replacement when spread with nut butters. There's a big variation in pork rinds, though. One brand that's common around here always has several very hard ones in the bag that I give to my dog to chew on. The Baken-ets brand are much better, but harder to find. The best ones I've ever had were made by an older couple who travel around the state in the summertime making them fresh at town picnics. Theirs are incredibly light and fluffy, with no lardy aftertaste at all. Someday I want to track down some uncooked pork skin and see if I can replicate those. -- From nobody Thu Jan 31 08:45:51 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <5veh6aF1l5kugU1@mid.individual.net> <86myqz6wo6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4798c32b$0$1190$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <479948dd$0$1251$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vugi1F1o74n3U1@mid.individual.net> <86ejbz5pez.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <60bkqmF1qea98U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:45:50 -0600 Message-ID: <863ase5a01.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 17 "Ophelia" writes: >>the adrenal reflex points are very sore, > > What are these please? In reflexology terms, they're in the arches. A web search should turn up pictures showing exactly where. There are also points on either side of the navel, about two inches up and two inches out from center. The adrenals themselves are closer to the back then the front (mounted right above the kidneys), but it's hard to reach them there to see if they're sore. -- From nobody Thu Jan 31 08:52:07 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Nobody mentioned this about losing weight! References: <5b961a47-7d22-44cb-a5f8-8436845a739b@v29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:52:07 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7a63v54.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 ssjameson writes: > Okay, so I've been low-carbing it for about a year. I've taken about > ten inches off my waist. > I've been fat most of my adult life, before starting this low-carb > lifestyle, and with all the weight coming off my gut and > thighs...well, to be blunt, my johnson looks much larger. I read somewhere that every twenty pounds of extra weight costs a guy an inch of length. That seems exaggerated, but it definitely makes a difference; fat builds up there just like anywhere else--maybe worse. If that's not an incentive to lose weight, I don't know what is. Don't think of it as losing 60 pounds, but as gaining 3 inches! :-) -- From nobody Fri Feb 1 09:27:16 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes Article in "New Scientist" References: <5veh6aF1l5kugU1@mid.individual.net> <86myqz6wo6.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4798c32b$0$1190$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <479948dd$0$1251$470ef3ce@news.pa.net> <5vugi1F1o74n3U1@mid.individual.net> <86ejbz5pez.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <60bkqmF1qea98U1@mid.individual.net> <863ase5a01.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <60e8lrF1qoigkU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:27:15 -0600 Message-ID: <863asc4rzg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Susan writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > >> In reflexology terms, they're in the arches. A web search should >> turn up pictures showing exactly where. There are also points on >> either side of the navel, about two inches up and two inches out from >> center. The adrenals themselves are closer to the back then the >> front (mounted right above the kidneys), but it's hard to reach them >> there to see if they're sore. > As someone who's on occasion suffered from severe adrenal > insufficiency, I can assure you that it's not at all difficult to tell > if they're sore without touching them. They cause a deep, persistent > low back ache. True. I think I've just had it long enough to take that ache for granted. -- From nobody Fri Feb 1 09:41:33 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet not working--and thyroid checks out normal--any ideas? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 09:41:32 -0600 Message-ID: <86y7a43cr7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 50 Avatar writes: > Well, I've plateau'd on the Atkins diet. Am sticking to less than > 20g carbs a day (am very careful about that, no sugar alcohols, no > glycerine, etc), 40g fiber. > I posted here before and people suggested that my thyroid function > might be low, and it seemed a good bet, because my temperature is > usually one degree or so below normal (97.6F). But I just had my > thyroid checked (TSH and T4 tests), and apparently the thyroid is > normal. > Any ideas on why I'm not losing weight? I've been on induction for > nearly three months now, and seem to be losing 3-4 pounds every six > weeks. Not too good. If you're losing half a pound per week, that's not a plateau; that's slow weight loss. Some people would say that's the best kind, and studies do seem to show that people who lose weight slowly are more likely to keep it off. It also doesn't sound like you're doing Atkins, since Atkins Induction only lasts two weeks. I know he says it's okay to stay on Induction longer if you want to, but if it doesn't seem to be working for you, doesn't it make sense to stick to the basic plan as he describes it, without trying out variations? > Also, I'm diabetic, and my blood sugar isn't dropping (it's about > 266, way above the target 140). Yikes. The target is 70-100, by the way. Are you taking insulin? It sounds like you should be, if extreme low-carb isn't bringing your BG under control by itself. > My next step seems to be portion control. I eat a lot of meat, since > that's about all that Atkins allows on induction (no cheese since > there's 1g carbs per inch cube), and that can mean a lot of fat (as in > hamburger used in low-carb (no tomatoes/beans/etc--just beef broth and > spices) chili). So perhaps the time has come to severly limit > calories? I'd say the next step is to get your blood sugar under control. That's more critical than immediate weight loss, and it's going to be hard to lose weight anyway with that much glucose playing havoc with your system. Here's a great resource for getting started on that: -- From nobody Mon Feb 4 09:35:45 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet not working--and thyroid checks out normal--any ideas? References: <86y7a43cr7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <2d0623cc-941f-442d-82ed-ae8e29ac64a0@j20g2000hsi.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:35:44 -0600 Message-ID: <86ve54ray7.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 Nina writes: > I don't think that the OP is a troll, and I do think that there are a > LOT of people who think that they're doing Atkins but never read the > book... or only read the parts that they want to. And for a lot of > people, "eat your veggies" is not what they associate with Atkins. Well, Dr. Ornish and a bunch of other people who show up on daytime TV say it's nothing but bacon and brie. They wouldn't *lie* to us, would they? Some meals I had this weekend: Pork roast with green beans and a side salad. Alfredo sauce over shirataki noodles and diced chicken, with fried summer squash on the side. Meatballs with Italian seasonings, and green beans coated with butter. Grilled T-bone steak and avocado soup. How can anyone look at all that natural, quality food and think that's unhealthy? (It puts the lie to the idea that low-carbers lose weight because the food is boring, too. Damn, that steak was *great*.) It's simply bizarre that someone could sit there eating a bowl of Cheerios in skim milk and a piece of white toast with Oleo on it, drinking processed fruit juice and coffee with sugar, and tsk-tsk *my* diet. But there we are. > I swear I have told my husband this at least 50 times, and he claims > to have read the book years ago, and he STILL seems to think that > Atkins is all about eating nothing but meat. (And apparently doesn't > notice that there are veggies on his plate. Let's not even talk about > the high protein vs. high fat argument.) > > There is more misunderstanding and misinformation out there about the > Atkins diet, even by some people who claim to be following it, than > anything I've ever seen in my life. About the whole fat/cholesterol/carb/diet issue, I'd agree. There are some economic and political topics that run a close second, but diet is so integral to every person's everyday life that it wins in my mind. The Big Lie of the Food Pyramid is making people sick and dead every day. I know that sounds melodramatic, but it's still true. -- From nobody Mon Feb 4 09:51:46 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet not working--and thyroid checks out normal--any ideas? References: <60joehF1qn28tU1@mid.individual.net> <9f7a2b9e-3d87-40bb-9482-31331102aecc@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:51:46 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6fsra7h.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "ouestaffvjp@gmail.com" writes: > I base my diet on what is recommended by the American Diabetic > Associations recommendations. Big mistake. As other have pointed out, the ADA is finally coming around to the obvious truth that if your body is unable to keep blood sugar under control, it *might* not be a great idea to shovel more sugar into it. I know that's a complicated concept, so it's only taken them decades to figure it out, but they're getting there slowly but surely. Sarcasm aside, they can't suddenly admit they've been giving people deadly advice, so they have to make a gradual transition. And as some guy named Ted Spradley once said, "Nobody wants to look stupid, even in the past." > My blood glucose, by the way is 70-110 (Normal range) with the diet > recommend to me by my nutritionist and doctor. I do monitor certain > foods that tend to spike me-like white bread. (I can not eat a bagel, > for instance without going close to 190, so I avoid them). That's great, assuming you're not taking insulin. If you've lowered carbs enough that your body can control BG without going as low as some people have to, there's nothing wrong with that. But it doesn't mean anyone else *needs* that level of carbs--or that you do. On the other hand, if you're eating 90g of carbs a day, and injecting insulin to balance it, why would you want to do that? Why not reduce both? Any extra insulin is so hard on your body in so many ways. -- From nobody Mon Feb 4 09:59:29 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity Legislation References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 09:59:29 -0600 Message-ID: <86myqgr9um.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 05:37:00 -0600, "PB" wrote: > >>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html >> >>FEBRUARY 1--Mississippi legislators this week introduced a bill that >>would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese >>patrons. Bill No. 282, a copy of which you'll find below, is the >>brainchild of three members of the state's House of Representatives, >>Republicans W. T. Mayhall, Jr. and John Read, and Democrat Bobby >>Shows. The bill, which is likely dead on arrival, proposes that the >>state's Department of Health establish weight criteria after >>consultation with Mississippi's Council on Obesity. It does not detail >>what penalties an eatery would face if its grub was served to someone >>with an excessive body mass index. > > Seriously -- do these people have nothing better to do? No, they don't. Once upon a time, being a legislator, even a federal one, was a part-time job. Now it means trying to be our nannies in every way they can think of. They just banned smoking in all bars and restaurants here in Illinois. Never mind that millions of non-smokers (like me) could have supported plenty of non-smoking bars if we'd cared to. Never mind that I can't remember the last time smoke bothered me (and cigarette smoke does bother me a lot) in a restaurant, even at times when I sat in the smoking section because the non-smoking section was full. Our daddies in the Legislature just had to save us from ourselves. With that precedent, it's no surprise they'll be coming after unpopular eating habits next. -- From nobody Mon Feb 4 10:18:35 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do I need special Vitamins on this diet/woe/wol ??? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:18:34 -0600 Message-ID: <86ir14r8yt.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 45 Cheese Wheels writes: > Should I be taking certain supplements or vitamins on this diet? > If so, which ones and in what dosage? Many people take potassium, because it's unusually scarce in low-carb foods and potassium deficiency can cause cramps, irregular heartbeat, and other fun stuff. A great source is Lite Salt. Just season your food with it, and you'll probably be all set. Potassium supplements, for some reason, contain a maximum of 99mg (3% RDA), so it's harder to get very much from pills, but try them if you simply don't like salt flavor. Some blood pressure and heart medications cause potassium retention, by the way, so if you're on anything like that, find out first. If you think fiber matters, you might want to keep an eye on that. Low-carbers may actually get more fiber than high-carbers; it just depends. It's not hard to get more fiber from berries and vegetables than from white bread. Many LC foods, both natural and processed, are LC precisely *because* they're high in fiber, so large amounts of fiber are possible without supplements. Other than that, there's no reason for a low-carb diet to need any more supplementation than a "normal" diet. In fact, some of the most nutrient-dense foods are low-carb: nuts, eggs, dark green vegetables, spices, meat. If you didn't think you needed supplements before LC, you shouldn't think you need them now. However, I supplement some things (besides Lite Salt) for specific reasons. Because my adrenals have been hurting for a long time, I'm taking a B-complex and additional pantothenic acid. For my brain, and because the Drs. Eades spend an entire chapter praising it, I'm taking enough magnesium to provide at least a 1-1 ratio with the calcium I get from food. Because it's winter and it's hard to get much sun, I'm taking vitamin D. For general health and repair of damaged tissue, I'm taking fish oil, plus E every day to help process the omega-3s. That's my personal list; others' will be different. None of those are *because* I'm low-carbing, but they work along with it. I'd be taking more things if I didn't have such a hard time swallowing pills. -- From nobody Mon Feb 4 10:36:56 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet not working--and thyroid checks out normal--any ideas? References: <9420e822-699c-4a6c-88e5-a2185bd069fc@f47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> <474267a3-931c-41db-b4a1-27484cee83cf@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 10:36:55 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejbsr848.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 vjp writes: > My mistake. I will take myself off your mailing list. A friendly tip: this is a newsgroup, not a mailing list, no matter how much Google might confuse the issue. > As well as other diet support mailing lists (I have seen people in > them bashing religion and political points of view-how that relates to > diet I am not sure) I assumed that as the average American eats over > 200 calories a day in carbs, that low-carb is below 100 a meal. Well, I for one *do* consider anything under 100g/day to be low-carb. There are many low-carb plans, with carb limits anywhere from 20g (Atkins Induction phase) to over 100g for non-diabetics (Schwarzbein). That's not what people are objecting, to, though. You said it was *harmful* to get too few carbs; you objected to eating fat; and you made the baseless claim that "Atkins has shown to have adverse side effects for the heart and colon." When challenged, you appealed to the authority of the ADA, which is funded to a large extent by grain processors. That's what drew the fire, not what you said about your own diet. > Since you took such my original comments as bashing, I apologize. It > was not intended as such. I obviously am not the type of person that > you all like-or wish to support. I will no longer check postings in > this club, so please do not respond-as I will not be reading. Good > luck to all of you, and I hope you can be of help to some people. I hope you'll stick around and share your opinions and learn with the rest of us. Look at it this way: If you walk into a room full of Republicans and state loudly that Reaganomics were a disaster for the country and we really need higher taxes, and by the way we need more gun control, and you know all this is true because the New York Times says so....will you be surprised if you get your case jumped? That's basically what you did here. Hang out with us for a while and find out what we're about before calling us all idiots. -- From nobody Mon Feb 4 18:25:38 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Obesity Legislation References: <86myqgr9um.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <5d2327b0-ff52-4921-8a6d-24258dbc1400@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:36 -0600 Message-ID: <86myqgmepr.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 46 Hollywood writes: > I don't mind Big Mother cutting smoking out of bars and restaurants. I > enjoy restaurants a lot more in Los Angeles and New York than I do in > Kansas City, St. Louis and Northern Virginia. I enjoy food a lot more > in those places. And beer is nicer without smoke. > It would have been nice for the market to find a solution. But, it > didn't. Which truly puzzles me, because the market usually does a decent job of providing things people want. I mean, capitalism isn't perfect, but that's one thing it does very well--people want bigger cars, Bigger Macs, and bigger breasts, so the market provides, whether it's a good idea or not. At least half the people I know who go to bars don't smoke, and they complain about it burning their eyes and fouling their clothes and hair. Yet in a town with dozens of bars, not *one* has ever tried catering to us. (Or if they did, it failed.) There are gay bars, biker bars, and college bars, but no non-smoking bars, even though there are a lot more non-smokers than gays, bikers, or college students. It's very strange. I can only conclude that most non-smokers really don't care enough to choose a bar on that basis; because if they did, someone would have taken advantage of that huge market. > Since government will pick up the tab for a lot of these smokers and > their victims (bartenders and waitresses have really crap health > coverage, really crap retirement, and high incidence of second hand > smoke diseases like emphysema and lung cancer), why shouldn't > government step in, other than the knee jerk reaction of government > can't do anything right. Well, the government can't do much right, which is why it should be limited to the things only government can do, as established in the Constitution. But you're right, now that my money and yours is used to cover health costs, we get a say in how people live. I wish it weren't that way, but it is. And if they enact "vice" taxes on high-fat foods or tell fast-food restaurants they can't sell huge burgers anymore (why not?), I won't be surprised. -- From nobody Tue Feb 5 07:10:31 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Fat People Cheaper to [Medically] Treat, Study Says References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2008 07:10:31 -0600 Message-ID: <86ejbrmtvc.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Jim writes: > SHORT SUMMARY > > The article claims that obese peole and smokers are cheaper to > medically treat. Because they die younger. It is the lifetime cost > which is cheapest, not the yearly cost while they are alive. A > Netherlands Public Health study. Based on lifetime health costs from > age 20 onward. > ===================================================================== > Fat People Cheaper to Treat, Study Says > > By MARIA CHENG | AP Medical Writer > Chicago Tribune February 5, 2008 Thanks for posting this. I've heard this suggested as a theory before, but I didn't know if anyone had ever done the math. -- From nobody Wed Feb 6 10:18:32 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do I need special Vitamins on this diet/woe/wol ??? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:18:32 -0600 Message-ID: <86d4rakqhz.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 "Tom G." writes: > Maybe most of the vitamins that are needed according to RDA, are > needed only on a high carb diet. That's pretty much my conclusion. There are changes in the mineral content from what our ancestors got, though, even if we try to eat the same paleo diet they did. For the most part, our water just doesn't have the same mineral content that theirs did. Our grain-fed livestock and anhydrous ammonia-fed vegetables don't have the same nutritional breakdown theirs did. Even if all your meat is grass-fed and all your vegetables are organically grown in compost in your backyard, the breeds and varieties have changed. So I have no problem with the notion that I need some supplements, but probably not the same ones and in the same amounts that we're told. -- From nobody Wed Feb 6 16:24:31 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet not working--and thyroid checks out normal--any ideas? References: <474267a3-931c-41db-b4a1-27484cee83cf@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <608e0db1-f556-42a8-998d-74dfa6b06fb3@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <21dbd15b-2fbf-4486-9d79-82b3241c47cf@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <67efd8c2-adb2-49b1-86b8-0e2d346e1ce0@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2008 16:24:31 -0600 Message-ID: <864pclk9k0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 21 Nina writes: > Hm. I'm sitting here wondering how far a barrel of bear grease would > go. It's not one of those things that is easy to look up! Well, I've never had bear grease, but I go through 2-3 gallons of homemade pork lard per year, mostly from cooking eggs and sausage in it. I rarely spend the day rowing upstream, too. If I went on a long expedition like that with a bunch of people....yeah, it's not too hard to imagine using up a barrel of lard. Another thing about people in pioneer times like Lewis & Clark is that they didn't have the luxury of trimming the fat off their meat like we do. So while the muscle of venison is fairly lean on its own, they wouldn't have just trimmed out the meatiest steak portions and eaten that alone. -- From nobody Thu Feb 7 08:37:22 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Taubes -not eating and moving stuff References: <905e3$47aa3c4f$d844daae$9598@FUSE.NET> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 08:37:21 -0600 Message-ID: <86prv8j0im.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 "Principal Skinner" writes: > At this point I think I am going to just stick with the Eades books, > and maybe one day will pick up the Taubes book. But, maybe you all can > convince me to give it a shot. I don't need to be convinced of the > benefits of LC - I am already there and have been living it (again) > for the past five months. I would be reading it more for refuting my > non-LC friends, family, etc claims that what I am doing is > "unhealthy". Perhaps there is a more efficient way to gather that > knowledge (ammo) than by reading the Taubes book? The Eades books, especially "Protein Power Life Plan," are very good, and certainly a faster read. They do a good job of explaining how the basic biology works. However, some of the things they know come from their experience of treating thousands of patients with their diet: "We know this works because we've done it." That's not going to convince anyone who doesn't already trust them; low-fatters will just say they're trying to sell a product. (As if anyone isn't.) They don't cite other sources to back up every single thing they say, because much of their knowledge comes from their own work. Taubes, on the other hand, being an outsider, has a more objective viewpoint, which should make his arguments stronger for skeptics. He goes through each of the competing hypotheses about obesity, diabetes, and heart disease one by one, showing how they became popular, presenting the evidence for them, and shooting holes in that evidence where possible. He cites enormous amounts of research; far more research supports low-carb (and condemns low-fat) than I had any idea existed. All those citations should make it the best source for info to convince your friends, assuming they're willing to listen at all. (Most people aren't; and will just get irritated with your evangelism.) GCBC is a long book, but he doesn't ramble; practically every page has a great point or citation. It's too packed to be a page-turner for me, but it's not really hard reading either. It's just dense with info. As far as I know, it's far and away the most important book ever written on diet and the diseases of civilization. (If it's not, someone please tell me what book is, so I can get that one too.) -- From nobody Fri Feb 8 06:40:30 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Atkins diet not working--and thyroid checks out normal--any ideas? References: <474267a3-931c-41db-b4a1-27484cee83cf@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <608e0db1-f556-42a8-998d-74dfa6b06fb3@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <21dbd15b-2fbf-4486-9d79-82b3241c47cf@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <67efd8c2-adb2-49b1-86b8-0e2d346e1ce0@k39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <864pclk9k0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 06:40:29 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk5v8vuq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 "Hilly" writes: > I don't know. Have you ever tasted deer fat? It tastes extremely NASTY > IMO. Well, I don't sit around eating chunks of deer fat, but I don't do that with beef fat either. When I was a kid, I hated meals like pork chops or steak, because I felt like I was gonna gag on the pieces of fat. (I'm getting better, really.) I've eaten plenty of it with meat, though, especially as sausage. One thing about deer is that people often go out and shoot a big old buck for the antlers, and then try to use it for food too. They shoot it, and maybe it wanders around in the woods bleeding slowly for a few hours, then they have to find it and haul it out to where they can dress it. It's no wonder the meat tastes bad; the same thing would be true of an old boar or bull treated that way. That's a far cry from taking a young, female or castrated animal, killing it quickly, and bleeding it out immediately, as we do with the domesticated livestock we butcher. When I've had deer steaks that came from does or spike bucks (bucks too young to have full antlers), that were shot by hunters conscientious enough to wait for a sure killing shot, I couldn't tell the steaks from a very lean beef steak, honestly. Tastes vary, though. -- From nobody Mon Feb 11 09:45:53 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dreamfields Problem References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:45:52 -0600 Message-ID: <86d4r3jy33.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "FOB" writes: > Advice, forget pasta, use a substitute. Spaghetti squash is my > favorite, but stir fried cabbage or shredded zucchini work well, too. Or shirataki noodles. I boiled the last batch I made (the tofu kind, 3g/carb/serving) about 20 minutes, then stirred them into an Alfredo sauce along with some cooked chicken. Excellent. -- From nobody Tue Feb 12 07:58:59 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Dreamfields Problem References: <86d4r3jy33.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <2f01r3hm33v5iie1b6j7nkv90ohfp0q35l@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:58:58 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk5q2s4d.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 27 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 09:45:52 -0600, Aaron Baugher > wrote: > >>"FOB" writes: >> >>> Advice, forget pasta, use a substitute. Spaghetti squash is my >>> favorite, but stir fried cabbage or shredded zucchini work well, too. >> >>Or shirataki noodles. I boiled the last batch I made (the tofu kind, >>3g/carb/serving) about 20 minutes, then stirred them into an Alfredo >>sauce along with some cooked chicken. Excellent. > > I actually made a concerted effort to find these at the store last > week -- no joy. They're usually in the produce section near the tofu, > right? I found them in the organic section, next to eggs and dairy stuff, so I suppose tofu was nearby. I've only found them at one store, so they aren't exactly common yet. They can be found online too, for about the same price. -- From nobody Tue Feb 12 08:12:19 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Blood sugar question for the diabetics here References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:12:19 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcge2ri4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 tsedinger@yahoo.com writes: > Although I'm not diabetic I think it might be ineresting to track the > effects of carbs on my blood glucose. Can you recommend a simple > monitor? And, what might I expect to pay? thanks. As others have mentioned, it's the price of the strips that counts in the long run on cost. I paid a little more for my Accu-chek Active than the store brands, but the strips are just as cheap (about 2 for a dollar) and I can get them from many different places. Any time I can avoid a trip to Satan's Box Store, it's a good thing. By the time you've used a couple hundred strips, you'll have paid more for them than any monitor costs, so get one that: A) Uses cheap strips. Don't get suckered into a free-after-rebate tester that takes $1 strips. B) Has a reputation for reliability and accuracy. Every time you get an error or a false reading, that's 50 cents wasted, even with the cheapest strips. C) Has the features you want. Mine remembers the last several tests, which could be handy if you write your numbers in a journal and don't want to haul it everywhere. For what it's worth, Dr. Bernstein (sort of the patron saint of self-testers) recommended one of the Accu-Chek models (not mine; a step or two up) last time I checked his forum. -- From nobody Tue Feb 12 08:18:07 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: what can i eat on a 1200 calorie a day diet? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:18:07 -0600 Message-ID: <86d4r22r8g.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 ona1200caloriediet writes: > ive been sticking to the daily caloric intake and im not getting > satisfied with what im eating.anyone got any tips or advice on what i > can eat while staying at the 1200 calories a day?thank you Calories are irrelevant, so I'll just advise you to use capitalization, apostrophes, and correct spacing. Your writing will be easier to read and look less like trolling or spam, so you'll be more likely to get serious answers. -- From nobody Thu Feb 14 07:45:27 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Blood sugar question for the diabetics here References: <86hcge2ri4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <089fd39d-1457-435d-85c4-e7161c2ede61@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <61ekgoF1udjtfU1@mid.individual.net> <65825$47b346f6$d844daae$7330@FUSE.NET> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 07:45:26 -0600 Message-ID: <864pcbfy89.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 56 "Principal Skinner" writes: > "Susan" wrote: >> Using a bg meter if you're not diabetic may not show you any effect >> of carbs on your bg. >> That's because non DM folks secrete enough insulin to keep bg in a >> tight, steady range. So you could be IR and hyperinsulinemic and not >> see that on a meter. > I guess that makes sense...hadn't thought of that. I know that the > hunger pangs and constant need to eat have gone away since going LC, > so I assumed that I had lowered BG. Was curious on what I actually > had. You may very well have had high BG, even if you've been tested officially non-diabetic. There are probably millions of people in the range between "solid BG control" and "diabetes bad enough to be diagnosed by a doctor." For one thing, most doctors will say that anything under 140 is fine, but anything over 120 can cause organ damage. Also, a one-time hospital test will show your fasting level and how you react to a big shot of sugar, at most. It won't show how your BG changes throughout the day or in response to certain foods, or whether you experience dawn phenomenon. You can only determine those things by frequent testing. In my opinion, *nearly* everyone who is overweight has *some* problem with BG control. (There are exceptions, of course.) It costs about $50-100 to set yourself up with a decent meter and enough strips to test several times a day for a couple weeks. For less than the cost of one doctor's office visit, you can get an excellent picture of your BG situation. That seems like a good deal to me. Even if every test shows perfectly normal, that's knowledge worth having, right? If that's the case, congratulate yourself, then give the meter away to someone who needs one but can't afford it. > Taking cost out of the equation, is there any circumstance where > people like me could still find benefit in using one of these meters? > Apparently Walgreens has these in their rebate program fairly often, > and the net cost is zero. Probably not a good deal for somebody who > needs to test often (buying pricey strips), but YMMV. I'm thinking > maybe of using first thing in the AM, and maybe after > exercising. Thoughts? The usual routine is to test at these times: when you wake up, one hour after each meal, two hours after each meal, after strenuous exercise, and maybe at bedtime. That could be as often as 10 times a day, so even if you only do it for a week or two, expensive strips and a free meter could end up costing you more than a reasonable meter with cheap strips. I'd stick with something that uses 50-cent strips. -- From nobody Fri Feb 15 11:14:07 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Blood sugar question for the diabetics here References: <86hcge2ri4.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <089fd39d-1457-435d-85c4-e7161c2ede61@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> <61ekgoF1udjtfU1@mid.individual.net> <65825$47b346f6$d844daae$7330@FUSE.NET> <864pcbfy89.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <61j2c3F1un0sdU3@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:14:07 -0600 Message-ID: <86pruydtwg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 55 Susan writes: > Aaron Baugher wrote: > >> You may very well have had high BG, even if you've been tested >> officially non-diabetic. There are probably millions of people in the >> range between "solid BG control" and "diabetes bad enough to be >> diagnosed by a doctor." For one thing, most doctors will say that >> anything under 140 is fine, but anything over 120 can cause organ >> damage. > Aaron, do you have a citation for this? I aim for under 120 at all > times, but have only found research supporting 140 as the level at which > organ damage occurs, though fasting bg of 100 or more may cause beta > cell damage to progress, IIRC. I don't have one offhand, no. It's even possible I got the numbers mixed up, and it should have been 140. If beta cell damage can happen at a fasting BG over 100, it makes sense to me that it *could* also happen at peaks over 100, especially if they last a couple hours, but that's just wild supposition. > Also, a one-time hospital test will show your fasting level and >> how you react to a big shot of sugar, at most. It won't show how your >> BG changes throughout the day or in response to certain foods, or >> whether you experience dawn phenomenon. You can only determine those >> things by frequent testing. >> In my opinion, *nearly* everyone who is overweight has *some* problem >> with BG control. > Aaron, that makes no sense. In the earliest stages, when DM can be > prevented, bg is tightly controlled by hyperinsulinemia. This is a caue > of obesity and appetite control problems, but will prevent bg spikes. I'm counting hyperinsulinemia when I say "problems with BG control." The actual BG number may be controlled, but not in a healthy or sustainable way, so that's a problem. Good point, though, that a meter may not show it in that early stage, so I was getting off the point there. Something I wonder, but haven't yet read anything on: how common is it for hyperinsulinemia to keep BG regulated well enough to mask itself completely? If the extra insulin keeps the BG spike down, does it cause hypo incidents later? If it controls BG during "normal" carb consumption, will it also control it during a Dorito binge? (I'd guess the answer would be: sometimes, but usually not as well.) How long does this stage usually last before the insulin can't keep up and BG spikes start to show up? The more you think you know.... -- From nobody Fri Feb 15 15:02:40 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: South Beach diet. Eating out and Phase 1 References: <9807ef52-546d-4211-bf58-8069c271ece2@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 15:02:39 -0600 Message-ID: <86lk5mdjbk.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 General Fear writes: > I wanted to start my diet. Turns out I'll have to eat out with > associates at work. I guess I'll ask the dumb question: do you really *have* to? If you brown-bag it, you can eat whatever you want to bring from home, especially if there's a refrigerator and microwave available. Cafeterias often have some decent low-carb choices, especially if there's a salad bar. You can usually see what you're ordering there, which helps. > Any recommendation as to what to order. My co-workers will not go to a > restaurant chain like Denny's. Are they too fancy for Denny's, or vice versa? I'll guess the former. About all you can do with non-chain places is ask questions and frequent the places you like often enough to become familiar with their menus. I've ordered vinaigrette that had so much sugar it was grainy with it. I've ordered grilled fish that was breaded and then grilled. I've ordered "grilled chicken with wild rice" and gotten 80% white rice and 20% wild. You just never know unless you ask, and even then you'll get waiters who don't know the answer or get it wrong, or get food that's a problem in some way it didn't even occur to you to ask about. As for specific foods, steak is pretty safe, although I've looked up the nutrition info for some chains and seen non-zero carbs on their steaks, so presumably they're using a carby marinade or something. Baked or grilled meats are usually okay, but ask about breading. Steamed low-carb vegetables are usually safe, as is a salad with olive oil as a dressing. Most places will exchange the potato side for the green vegetable of the day, which helps. At places with self-serve salad bars, I usually take a small amount of the non-low-fat ranch dressing and cross my fingers. Soups are a total crap-shoot. Forget about dessert, unless they have some berries that haven't been coated with sugar. It really just depends on the menu. At most places, I can find something that works, but sometimes I get fooled. Sometimes I end up eating something that wouldn't have been my first choice, simply because it was the safest thing on the menu. Mostly I eat at home. -- From nobody Sat Feb 16 05:58:27 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: help! having trouble meeting daily calorie intake References: <1lrbr3tjln9oaqadfvcdoav084bhjhh515@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 05:58:27 -0600 Message-ID: <86hcg9dsf0.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 58 support@[remove_this_before.replying] writes: > i was told by my doc that my blood sugar is high, i have had > cholestrol problems for years now, and i was just given meds for high > BP. my health totally sucks :( so i went to a nutritionist in early > january, and am now on a high protein low-carb (almost no-carbs and no > refined sugars) diet with lots of fresh greens and veggies. to date, i > have lost 23 lbs :)) with another 90 or so to go, if you go by the > tables. Sounds like you're doing great; I wouldn't worry about calories as long as you're losing weight and feeling good without hunger. If you get hungry or feel like you need more energy, add fat and protein, especially fat. Put butter or olive oil on your vegetables, plenty of mayo (zero trans-fat kinds only) on burgers, bacon on salads, things like that. I've got a BBQ cookbook from 1965 that recommends putting a pat of butter on top of a steak when it's finished--man, that's good! (And the steaks in the pictures have fat like you wouldn't believe.) One thing that struck me reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories" is how many times he cites an experiment that went something like this: Dr. Smith had his patients eliminate sugars and starches and restrict their vegetable intake, while eating as much meat as they liked. They lost an average of two pounds a week. That has happened over and over throughout the last century, sometimes in situations where a researcher was working with a handful of people, and sometimes with a clinician who was treating hundreds. Sometimes they averaged a little less, say 1.5 pounds a week, and sometimes more, but "two pounds a week" keeps jumping out of the book like a mantra. And most of this was before people had carb counters or thought about things like fiber or hidden carbs. They simply cut out the obvious things--bread, sweets, potatoes, flour--and routinely lost weight at a very fast rate. Why don't most low-carbers seem to lose weight that fast today? I suspect it's because we're dealing with a lot more insulin resistance and near-diabetes, so our bodies are more resistant to making that switch. But the lesson, to me, is that you probably don't have to get carried away with the details to lose weight. For most people, just cutting out sugars and starches will do the trick. If that doesn't do it, then it's time to read the books and count carbs and things like that, but there's nothing wrong with someone starting with the simplest plan. That's how I lost weight the first time, years before I'd ever heard of low-carb. A chiropractor told me I had a lot of food allergies, and needed to cut out wheat, potatoes, sugar, and a few other things. I started losing weight quickly, and had so much extra energy I started riding my bike every day. I don't respond that easily now, because I went back to abusing my body with carbs after a while and proceeded further down the diabetic brick road, but that only means it'll take more work this time. -- From nobody Tue Feb 19 11:10:19 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Water References: <620e18F207pf4U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:10:18 -0600 Message-ID: <86ablwhnyd.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 18 "Roger Zoul" writes: >> Water fills the stomach less because it exits pretty >> rapidly. Still, it's easy to mistake thirst for hunger, so we >> recommend having a glass of water before you eat. > Really? This is one I've never understood. Me either; I don't think thirst and hunger are anything alike. I drink about a gallon of water a day, and it doesn't make me any less hungry. If anything, when I'm drinking a lot of water, the speed with which it goes through me makes me feel sort of "washed out" and hungrier than when I drink less. -- From nobody Thu Feb 21 07:58:55 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet,alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Pritikin: my ticket to longevity References: <4690b6f6-6190-4d74-ad0a-a1fa15cb80ed@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com> <25KdnTtFwqiGOSHanZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@comcast.com> <5e76b3c5-0231-4f41-a2eb-4c904afdf465@60g2000hsy.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 07:58:51 -0600 Message-ID: <86ve4ie7hg.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 33 "dkw12002@yahoo.com" writes: > On Feb 20, 2:04 pm, Cookie Cutter wrote: >> Old Boy wrote: >> > This has now been updated on Day 3 and I think its a crock... >> >> >http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/?storyID=18335 >> >> > "Once a week, Pritikin ushers its clients through a local restaurant >> > to show them how to healthily negotiate a calorie-dense, salt-rich >> > menu. The rules are: start meals with a salad (bring your own >> > dressing); ask about preparation methods and request no added oils, >> > butter, cream, salt or sugar; divide a main course dish between two >> > and add two vegetable side dishes; talk to the manager and let him or >> > her know your needs." >> >> > Who is going to do that, really? >> >> > Rubbish......living in a dream world...!!!!!!! >> > The 3 day diary has convinced me its a waste of time!!!!!!! >> >> With the money you save, you can eat steak for a year!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Not all that much since steak is high fat. You could buy several > hundred pounds of oats, lentils and rice though. LOL dkw And feed a cow which will become steaks. -- From nobody Thu Feb 21 08:26:13 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Another Egg Study References: <6253jeF21730vU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 08:26:13 -0600 Message-ID: <86r6f6e67u.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Roger Zoul" writes: > Title: Eggs modulate the inflammatory response to carbohydrate > restricted diets in overweight men I just had five eggs this morning. Yay! Farm-fresh, local eggs too; less than a week old. Yum. Not exactly pasture-raised--there's not much pasture in Illinois in February--but the yolks are still a much deeper orange than store-bought eggs, showing the chickens are finding more than grain to eat. -- From nobody Thu Feb 21 09:05:04 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: CNN: Teacher loses 120 pounds, drops seven dress sizes References: <20080216151616.CB32D4E4B8@outpost.zedz.net> <055er3lkjjuf76hv9fp90d2ofkimoa18vs@bbb.org> <61rhbrF20h5roU1@mid.individual.net> <9mnhr3p8c22a5efjs2qos6h4mfhd4noi47@bbb.org> <47bb1124$0$22865$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <1lc9jq.ufl.19.1@news.alt.net> <6b74b199-58bf-45fb-acf2-833bbe20fe92@z70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:05:04 -0600 Message-ID: <86mypue4f3.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 Doug Freyburger writes: > "AnotherD@rnedSock" wrote: >> >> If heavier women were normal, why is it that all of the women >> considered sexy in magazines, TV & Movies are closer to my GF's build >> than yours? Do you seriously think that after many thousands of years >> of evolution, men are erroneously finding a fit and healthy, lithe >> and agile, fat free woman attractive, that they should be finding >> fatness attractive instead? > > Clearly you've never been to a good art museum and you think that > history began in 1960. The flock of celebreties in this decade look > like a convention of AIDS victims campaigning for anorexia compared > to the pin-ups of the 1940s, paintings of the 1600-1800s, statuary of > the last several thousand years. It's interesting: the "ideal" shape for women fluctuated back and forth during the 1900s, seeming to parallel women's power in society. In the 1920s, after the Nineteenth Amendment was passed, the very thin "flapper" look became popular. By the 1950s, which people think of as a very conservative and patriarchal era, voluptuous women like Marilyn Monroe and Bettie Page became popular. In the 1960s, along with the Pill and bra burning, we got Twiggy. The 80s brought back curves, but not to the point of the 50s. It seems that when women are feeling empowered, they push fashion in the direction of skinnier bodies. When men were in charge in the 1950s and for most of recorded history before 1920, they wanted big boobs, and if that meant some cellulite, so be it. In today's uneasy balance of sexual politics, we seem to have a detente, with men getting the big (mostly fake) boobs they want, but combined with the skinny waists and hips women want. The influence of gay men in fashion surely has contributed to the "boyish" figures of clothing models too, if for no other reason than that it's easier to design clothes to look good hanging on a coatrack without a bunch of bulges. -- From nobody Mon Feb 25 07:57:01 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Nitrates, low carb and cancer (Re: Nitrates in cheese) References: <47BC9679.52AB@softhome.net> <13rrlf0ik2pm958@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 07:57:01 -0600 Message-ID: <864pbxb0lu.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 33 "H.L" writes: > This is not really a response to a post in the "nitrates in cheese" > thread. Having followed up on my original query by checking the numbers, > it strikes me that I have read about the link between "red meat" and > cancer a few times. The abscence of cancer in several native groups with > very high consumption of meat made me curious about this connection. I > don't dispute the scientific findings, but is it because of the nitrates > from preservatives and processing techniques? Low carbers might do well > from those kind of products, including preserved meat, smoked fish and > bacon. Another thing: "native" peoples who eat a lot of meat generally are not stuffing those animals with grain, which drives down the omega-3 fats in the meat. They eat animals that graze local plants, wild fish, and the like. Very different from what the average consumer calls "red meat." Before factory farming, farmers used to keep cattle on pasture most of their lives, then a few weeks before slaughter, they'd feed them a lot of grain. That quickly added fat to the animal, raising the price it would bring at market, or making it more marbled if they were using it for themselves. That's how "corn-fed" beef became popular. As corn got cheaper and factory farms got larger, it became cheaper to simply keep the cattle in a pen and feed them corn their whole lives. Cross-breeding with naturally leaner breeds balanced the increased fat caused by this diet, but the composition of the fat is very different than that of the animal raised completely or mostly on pasture. -- From nobody Thu Feb 28 09:22:12 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Study Details Link Between Obesity, Carbs and Esophageal Cancer References: <62jvk6F23g7s4U1@mid.individual.net> <61cbb6e7-4106-4f08-9a0e-38643ca5645a@x30g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:22:12 -0600 Message-ID: <86pruh85sr.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 24 Hollywood writes: > I'm going to add to that. Reading Marengo on it is like my story, if > he were younger and less far along the path. Sub Tums with whatever > Acid Blocker they come with in the big bottle, and that was my > candy. On top of the other candy. I was partial to papaya enzyme tablets. Chew up 4-20 of those after each meal, especially supper, and the acid stayed down. The effect of low-carbing on acid reflux really is remarkable, like turning off a switch. Times that I've gone off low-carb, that burning sensation that starts back up after a day or two is the first thing that tells me, "Hey, dumbass, what are you doing?" It only hits me now (very mildly, compared to before) if I eat a lot of tomato products, which is probably as much about pushing my carb limit as it is about the acid. Black soybeans set it off too, along with a bloated feeling that lasted about a week. No more soy for me. -- From nobody Tue Mar 4 14:47:18 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Interesting read about Low-Carb diets. References: <2ajls3tobedf0tobt8f66ujppmqs722vet@zzz.com> <7lAyj.11491$xq2.766@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> <245ms3p81dit9q19sl7t34epnusochj9o3@zzz.com> <9cc96353-70f3-4560-9f8f-694ad570ca76@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <0b83911e-ef3d-4526-a43d-359277c4b054@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2008 14:47:17 -0600 Message-ID: <86fxv6xlm2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 25 Hollywood writes: > Last thing: Where these folks cross the line to > evangelism is here: I believe that low fat dieting > will not work for the large majority of people. I > understand the science of why this is so, and > the logic of it. But, for the most part, I don't go > around calling it a failed meme and telling people > who are doing it that they are ruining their health > (which they probably are) or suggesting that they > are morally bankrupt for doing whatever they > are doing. Exactly. Even though I'm convinced that low-fat eating is basically a way to slowly poison yourself, I've never pushed that view on anyone. If someone asks me how and why I eat what I do, I'll explain it, but otherwise I keep it to myself. If someone tries to push carbs on me, like at lunch Sunday when someone said, "Oh, some potato salad won't hurt you," I shrug it off with a joke: "Oh yes it will; if I eat that I'll fall dead right here, and you'll have to clean up the mess!" -- From nobody Wed Mar 5 14:45:20 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Interesting read about Low-Carb diets. References: <2ajls3tobedf0tobt8f66ujppmqs722vet@zzz.com> <7lAyj.11491$xq2.766@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> <245ms3p81dit9q19sl7t34epnusochj9o3@zzz.com> <9cc96353-70f3-4560-9f8f-694ad570ca76@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <0b83911e-ef3d-4526-a43d-359277c4b054@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <86fxv6xlm2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4_udneu12ZflS1DanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@softcom.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:45:20 -0600 Message-ID: <861w6oyk67.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 28 "Cheri" writes: > Hollywood wrote in message ... >>On the offer of carbs, and the little won't kill you, I offer that I >>have trouble keeping the little as a little. And a lot will undo a lot >>of hard work. > > It's easy for me, I'm diabetic, so I just say "no thank you," you > wouldn't like me if my numbers are high. ;-) I tried that, but too many people think they know what diabetics are supposed to eat, and potatoes always seem to be high on that list, along with things like whole wheat pasta and bread. So now I just mumble something vague about blood sugar, which they're less likely to have picked up an expert opinion on. Of course, first I just try "no thank you," but it's amazing how much people hate to see a 250-pound man not eating much. It bothers them something fierce. People love to see a fat guy--even one they care about--shoveling down potatoes or going back for thirds. It's weird. So, after a polite "no thanks" only makes them anxiously up the pressure, I go for the high blood sugar dodge. -- From nobody Wed Mar 5 15:08:10 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ASDLC moderated group? References: <47CD9B0A.3695@operamail.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 15:08:10 -0600 Message-ID: <86wsogx4jp.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 41 Doug Freyburger writes: > "H.L" wrote: >> >> Does anyone know what it would take to make a usenet newsgroup >> moderated? The amount of spam is reaching the kind of level where I >> start missing legit posts. Someone should have the authority to >> remove all obvious "money maker" spamming posts. This group has less spam than most of the other groups I'm subscribed to, and easily better than the other alt groups. Which isn't to say the level of spam isn't annoying. Worse than the spam, though, in my opinion, is the cross-posted trolling. > Note well - There is zero possibility that ASDLC will ever be > converted to moderated. No UseNet server ever retroactively > moderates any group ever. It would be a new group with a new > name like misc.health.diet.low-carb.moderated. Someone > could post a pointer on a regular basis to let newbies know > where to look. I've participated in one newsgroup (comp.infosystems.www.authoring.cgi) that was self-moderated. I don't remember the particulars exactly, but when I posted my first message to the group, it sent me an email with instructions for verifying myself, and when I followed those instructions, my post went through. After that, it recognized me and accepted my messages automatically. That seemed to be a nice compromise between zero and full moderation. Interestingly, it appears that newsgroup converted to moderation after already existing. That was in 1996, though, so maybe that couldn't happen today. After I move in April, *if* I have a static IP address, which I don't know about yet, and *if* there's enough interest, I'll be glad to host the necessary software to moderate a low-carb group. -- From nobody Wed Mar 5 19:37:53 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Interesting read about Low-Carb diets. References: <2ajls3tobedf0tobt8f66ujppmqs722vet@zzz.com> <7lAyj.11491$xq2.766@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net> <245ms3p81dit9q19sl7t34epnusochj9o3@zzz.com> <9cc96353-70f3-4560-9f8f-694ad570ca76@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <0b83911e-ef3d-4526-a43d-359277c4b054@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <86fxv6xlm2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4_udneu12ZflS1DanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@softcom.net> <861w6oyk67.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:37:53 -0600 Message-ID: <86k5kgws26.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "Cheri" writes: > I know. So many of them always buy sugar free cookies and things like > that when I'm visiting, so I ask them to please not do that, though I > do appreciate the thought, but they still do, except they change from > cookies to sugar free pie or something like that. :-) Yep. "I made a special pie just for you, with sugar-free pudding!"--with 2% milk and a white flour crust and low-fat Cool Whip on top. Sigh. That's when I used to have a piece rather than hurt their feelings, but not anymore. I just smile, shake my head, and say, sorry, it looks really good, but I just can't eat it. A couple weeks ago, someone said, "I think you should pick one day a week, like Sunday, and eat whatever you want. Just one day wouldn't hurt, would it?" (Of course, this was because she serves lunch for family on Sunday.) That sounds great, until you spend Monday and Tuesday on a carb bender from the cravings, Wednesday gagging on acid reflux, and Thursday through Saturday getting back into the groove--just in time to screw it up again on Sunday. Been there plenty of times, no thanks. -- From nobody Wed Mar 5 19:46:29 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Interesting read about Low-Carb diets. References: <245ms3p81dit9q19sl7t34epnusochj9o3@zzz.com> <9cc96353-70f3-4560-9f8f-694ad570ca76@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> <0b83911e-ef3d-4526-a43d-359277c4b054@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <86fxv6xlm2.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <4_udneu12ZflS1DanZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@softcom.net> <861w6oyk67.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <8q4us3l07p6cq54sitnnvvm5nqbp9ara13@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:46:29 -0600 Message-ID: <86fxv4wrnu.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 38 Nina writes: > On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 14:45:20 -0600, Aaron Baugher wrote: >>Of course, first I just try "no thank you," but it's amazing how much >>people hate to see a 250-pound man not eating much. It bothers them >>something fierce. People love to see a fat guy--even one they care >>about--shoveling down potatoes or going back for thirds. It's weird. > > I always find this SO bizarre. My husband... back in the days before > he was my husband... was always trying to lose weight, and he weighs a > LOT more than you, and his friends would always come by and bring him > food. Not good food, things like fish and chips, candy, stuff like > that. I could *never* figure this out. Isn't it bizarre? Not only do they love to see a fat man stuff himself with junk food, but they'll poke you in the belly and joke about it. How in the world is this okay? Do they think a guy with extra chins is *happy* about that and likes having attention drawn to it? Maybe just once I should break into tears, and sob about how I'm trying to lose weight but it's so hard and everyone treats me so.....nope, couldn't pull it off. > And he would feel like he couldn't say no, whether he wanted to or > not, because they had *brought* him this food. > I think women get this less, but that might just be my experience. Definitely. I think overweight women have it harder than men overall, but this particular behavior only seems to happen with men. Aside from some sadistic parents, no one pokes a woman in the belly and makes a joke about how it looks like she's eating for two. Fat men get that stuff all the time, from people who really like them. -- From nobody Sun Mar 9 12:09:32 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ASDLC moderated group? References: <47CD9B0A.3695@operamail.com> <635rooF264ijvU1@mid.individual.net> <47CEE35D.1EAE@softhome.net> <63864mF26ivooU1@mid.individual.net> <47CF01D4.57F0@softhome.net> <638mspF239lggU1@mid.individual.net> <47D03A2B.1BF0@softhome.net> <63atbnF25pevdU1@mid.individual.net> <1204909124.52@user.newsoffice.de> <63dbinF274gk6U1@mid.individual.net> <1204994837.51@user.newsoffice.de> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:09:31 -0500 Message-ID: <8663vvx1ro.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 142 Hakan Lane writes: > I would be glad to finish off the thread. Let me just do it by telling > you why I think that it is sad. The group is doing a terrible job of > finding new subscribers. Check the statistics at > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diet.low-carb/about. We > have lost 80 - 90 % of the volume in a few years. I remember how it > was to come here back in 2001 and see a plethora of non-spam posts. In > comparison, there were three new threads for March 7, all started by > the same person who is a long time member. That means that not a > single new person found it worthwhile to ask us anything. We are > obviously not very attractive to usenet browsers. I was here back then too, and there was always a lot of spam; the difference is that there's less signal now for the amount of noise. (Although I still maintain that it's not that bad; and if Google Groups can't implement basic killfile features that real newsreaders have had for 20 years, then that's a reflection on Google, not on us. You wouldn't buy a car that didn't have lights or windows.) A few years ago, there were more valid messages on this group than I could keep up with. Anyway, two things have changed since 2001: 1. LC was booming then. We got new people *every day* back then. A lot of the non-spam traffic was people asking the same questions over and over. "Will my kidneys fall out?" "My breath smells bad now; what should I do?" "My doctor yelled at me; am I killing myself?" We're probably seeing fewer new people here partly because fewer new people today are trying LC for the first time. If you were overweight and the type of person who tries things outside the mainstream, you probably already tried LC back when it was first big news. 2. There are now dozens of low-carb web forums and mailing lists competing with this group. Some of them existed in 2001, but most of us had dialup Internet then, which made web forums even more painful than they inherently are. There are far more of them now, and they've gotten better, and broadband Internet has made them more accessible. People who wanted a more controlled environment than Usenet have already switched. (This is true in general, not just in this newsgroup. Every group I checked through that link you gave had a peak a few years ago and has dropped since then.) We also have a couple of excellent FAQs that answer all the newbie questions that used to make up a lot of this group's traffic. Is it possible people are actually reading them? This group seems to have evolved mostly into an incubator for LC veterans to share deeper thoughts about LC and related nutrition issues. Call it "Low Carb 303: The Science and Reality of Long-Term Low-Carb Living." Maybe the quantity is down, but the quality is way up. If that means this isn't a great resource for newbies, that's okay. The FAQs are still great resources for them, and all those web forums would be glad to help newbies get started. (Web forums cost money to run, which means they need to sell advertising or products, which means they don't need us old hands who are already past the "buying every LC product" stage.) > All that you say to the imminent contraction of the group into > oblivion is "Good Riddance", turning it into a small club for people > who already know eachother. What is wrong with taking a "Customer is > always right" attitude? Because there *are* no customers here. To be blunt, we're all here because of whatever we get out of it. Sure, most of us like to be helpful (although even that's because helping makes us feel good), but that's not why we're here. We're here to learn, to brag, to get inspiration, and to talk to people who have become friends. Gee, sounds like a club, doesn't it? That's the way *all* the worthwhile Usenet groups I've participated in are. They evolve to serve the interests of the people who take the time to post in them. If we got back to drawing enough new "customers" to have hundreds of new posts a day, keeping us all too busy reading and answering questions to debate the latest scientific paper posted by Jim, would that be an improvement? Not for me. Again, there are plenty of resources for LC newbies out there that would *love* to have them. > It is not easy to know about spam filters, when you can access > other groups without the kind of mess that we have. For example? The vast majority of Usenet groups are unmoderated, and outside the comp. hierarchy, I have yet to see any that don't have their fair share of spam. > Also consider that many people can't even install their own software, > because they access us from libraries and other places where they > don't have installation privileges. I don't think that anyone who > finds us through Google wants to post here. That's a good point. It's a shame there's not a good web-based newsreader (that I know of), but the two underlying technologies don't mesh very well. I honestly don't think the spam level prevents anyone from posting though, through Google or anywhere else. You don't have to sort through spam to post, after all. Maybe it keeps them from reading the group regularly, though. > I accept that there are hurdles to running a moderated group. I happen > to think that it is important that we can serve new members (even less > savvy Internet users) instead of just giving them up, so I still > wonder if there's not anything to do about all the spam. Remember that > we may help people with some severe health problems if they find us. I don't want to be mean about this, but: that's not my job. Don't get me wrong; I love to introduce people to LC and help them with it. I have to bite my tongue to keep from being an evangelist about it. But that doesn't mean *this group* has to provide that particular service as its primary goal. Maybe this group has other purposes. > The approach that you take is to impose a pre-requisite of a spam > filter, which we never tell them about, and which other groups don't > do. No, you're the one imposing the pre-requisite that the group be spam-free. We're just telling you how you can accomplish that for yourself. Of course, you're welcome to start alt.support.diet.low-carb.moderated. (Although I personally would try to put it under sci.; alt. groups seem to get more garbage.) > I don't think that a store manager losing most of his customers would > just tell them that "they were not suited" to shop there. You may go > ahead and disregard this problem and killfile anyone who raises an > opinion different than your own. Strawman. No one's going to killfile you for having a different opinion. There's no need to accuse us of intolerance in advance. > Let the group lose all its subscribers to fora who can keep clean of > spam. Again, this will sound mean, but if people who are flustered or angered by the spam, and can't or won't use a real newsreader to filter it, go to other perfectly good forums for LC help....I just don't care. The people who stay here and filter or ignore the spam will continue to have good conversations and develop new ideas, and that's fine. -- From nobody Sun Mar 9 12:37:35 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Please help - Re Diet - Diabetic References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2008 12:37:34 -0500 Message-ID: <861w6jx0gx.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 63 ayeshahill@gmail.com writes: > Please help - Re Diet - Diabetic > > I apologize in advance if this sounds in appropriate. > > I am looking for a 2 or 3 page doc that lists all the good foods for > type 2 diabetic patients. > > Most articles talk in terms of high fiber, low fat etc diets. But what > are high fiber foods ? etc.and they hardly list a few specific foods. If anything tells you to eat low-fat, throw it away. Fiber is beside the point, so while high-fiber foods are often low in carbs (sugar), that's not always the case. It's the carbohydrate content that's the problem, so focus on that. Get the book "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution"; it'll get you on the right track with testing your blood sugar and eating right to control it. If you can't afford that book, hie down to your local used book store or thrift store and grab an Atkins book (there are always a few for sale) or a version of "Protein Power" if they have one. Those have lists of low-carbohydrate foods that you can eat to control your blood sugar. A basic list would be: Meat - Beef, pork, chicken, turkey, fish, wild game, etc. Processed meats like ham and bacon usually have some added sugar, sometimes surprising amounts, so be careful with those. Leafy green vegetables - Swiss chard (the king), spinach, lettuce, other greens. Other vegetables not so leafy or green: cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, radishes, turnips, string beans, peppers, eggplant, summer squash, and a bunch that I'm forgetting. Look up your favorites at fitday.com. Borderline items like carrots, beets, tomatoes, and peas may be okay in small amounts; that's what your blood sugar tester is for. Fruit - Berries are best, whether straw, black, blue, or rasp. Melon can be okay in moderation. High-sugar fruits like apples, bananas, and citrus fruits may be off-limits. Again, you'll discover your limits by testing. Eggs - boiled, fried, deviled, poached, scrambles, or in quiches, frittatas, or omelettes. Get them from pasture-raised chickens if you can. Dairy - Cheese, cream cheese, heavy cream, sour cream, butter. Again, get it from pasture-fed cows if possible. Yogurt may be okay if it's full-fat and unsweetened, which is easy enough to make yourself. Milk is probably out--too high in sugar. Mushrooms are great too. That should give you some variety. -- From nobody Mon Mar 10 08:31:15 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: ASDLC moderated group? References: <47CD9B0A.3695@operamail.com> <635rooF264ijvU1@mid.individual.net> <47CEE35D.1EAE@softhome.net> <63864mF26ivooU1@mid.individual.net> <47CF01D4.57F0@softhome.net> <638mspF239lggU1@mid.individual.net> <47D03A2B.1BF0@softhome.net> <63atbnF25pevdU1@mid.individual.net> <1204909124.52@user.newsoffice.de> <63dbinF274gk6U1@mid.individual.net> <1204994837.51@user.newsoffice.de> <8663vvx1ro.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <47D4358A.13BB@softhome.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 08:31:13 -0500 Message-ID: <86y78qvh7i.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 68 "H.L" writes: > I think that we just have a difference of opinion of what the group > should do. Fair enough. > As for me, I think that "spreading the word" to new people is more > important than internal discussions without the outcome of a diet > change among people who are already into low carbing. That would give > us the chance to really make a difference in someone else's life. On > top of that, it is much more fun to be in an active group with lots of > discussions. I don't agree that it is fine to just let the fora "win". Not to get too metaphysical, but we are the group; the group is us. We don't "let" it do anything; it is what we make it. If you want more discussions, start them. Post recipes you've found or invented, ask questions, take polls about LC products, try to start weight loss challenges. Prime the pump by creating an imaginary friend who's just starting low carb and posting questions as him, then answering them as yourself. Maybe you'll get something started and make the group more attractive to newbies. I certainly wasn't saying that would be wrong; I'm not the arbiter of the group either, just one of cogs that make it go. If you want to put the effort into expanding the group back in that direction, that's great. Some of us who've been here for several years may have lost some interest in that part of it, but that doesn't mean you can't stir it back up. > To inform those of you without spam filters, there are more threads > that are either spam, crosspost or that religious guy than "real" ones > in this group and there have only been one new real thread for the > latest two days. At that stage, I find the group less worthwhile to > visit and I must assume that many newbies turn to other places. Again, > it is a matter of everyone's individual reaction. Well, I won't argue that the quality posts haven't been pretty sparse lately. I filter out anything with 'Chung' in it and anything cross-posted to the fat-acceptance group, and I've added a few other specific addresses over the years, so I don't even know if those people are posting anymore. I only know Chung is because my scoring newsreader still shows me some of the responses to him if the responders are scored high enough to overcome his low score. (If you think killfiles are complicated, try a scoring newsreader. Total control, though.) All that left me with 22 new messages this morning, 7 of which were in this thread. About 4-5 scored down at the bottom look like spam, including one incoherent Islamic evangelization piece. The rest are replies to ongoing threads. We do seem to be at an unusually low ebb, but I wonder how much of that is late-winter doldrums. I think spring will boost the traffic somewhat. We usually have some gardening talk here as it relates to LC, and people just have more energy in the spring. Guess we'll see. > Is there no way to stop all that stuff coming from Google groups? You > are right that a large portion of them seems to come from gmail > accounts. Thank you for that observation. I wasn't aware gmail was a likely source of spam; someone else must have said that. You can stop it from showing up in your own newsreader with a killfile, but there's no way to stop it from entering the group in the first place, if that's what you mean. -- From nobody Mon Mar 17 12:05:17 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Setpoint? References: <765lt3dbj2qo1cdremudpdffh2ud485ee2@zzz.com> <4aed0b9d-9626-4f80-be41-43c353d7e4c2@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:05:16 -0500 Message-ID: <86r6e92sdv.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 36 Always Learning writes: > I know a setpoint is suppose to be the weight you were designed to be > at. That's all I've ever seen on the subject and I've also spoken to > dieticians and doctors on this same subject with no more info than > that. There's a bit more to it than that. Researchers and clinicians noticed that most people who gain weight won't just keep gaining forever. Except for those rare individuals who have to be buried in piano boxes, most people, if they continue to eat a "normal" diet, will gain weight to a certain point and then stop or slow way down. When I was eating carbs, I gained very fast up to about 280 and then stayed there. Taubes cites studies where people were fed as much as 10,000 calories a day without significant weight gain. This led to the notion of a set-point, the idea that some organ (usually the pituitary) wanted your weight to be at a certain point, and would trigger gain or loss to reach that point, overriding to a great extent any dieting or exercise you do. It seems to work that way for many people on a high-carb diet, and I think there were rat studies where rats without a pituitary gland never stopped gaining weight, or something like that (don't quote me). The basic idea isn't too far off, but overly simplistic: fat metabolism *is* controlled by hormones, so at any given time, your body is working toward a certain level of fat storage. But the hormones come from more glands than just one, and those hormone levels are affected by diet, stress, and other factors. So while you may have an overall set-point as long as you're eating and living a particular way, that point isn't set in stone; you can move it by changing your diet and other factors. -- From nobody Mon Mar 17 12:07:20 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Leg Cramps & Low Carb References: <47da78df$0$30699$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> <47da7dee$0$30696$4c368faf@roadrunner.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:07:20 -0500 Message-ID: <86myox2saf.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 12 "DRA" writes: > I do have bp and take meds. I am taking potassium supplements...maybe > I need to up the dose. I rarely say this, but check with your doctor first. Some heart medications cause potassium retention, so taking more could be a bad thing. -- From nobody Mon Mar 17 12:11:16 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: OT: If Cilantro Tastes Like Soap, What Does Paprika Taste Like? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:11:15 -0500 Message-ID: <86iqzl2s3w.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 BlueBrooke <.@.> writes: > I always sprinkle a bit of paprika on my deviled eggs just 'cause > that's the way Mom did it. But as I was doing that today, I wondered > if it was supposed to actually taste like something? I've read about > it -- it *is* supposed to have some kind of taste to it, but not to > me. Paprika varies a lot. Some better quality ones have flavor, but most of them just add color. -- From nobody Thu Mar 20 08:02:19 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: the dark side of soya References: <2d911704-fabf-4cce-bb8c-7cd626c25ad5@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <875a0854-7c82-476e-9a2d-53ebc88ce53d@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com> <63f206e4-2c87-42bb-9def-633f26c9cad4@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <706aadce-186a-49b0-bab2-695a368b6225@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <328ffc09-33a6-40dc-a46d-5b58f340dcfa@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1205619930.91@user.newsoffice.de> <8b898e08-ca88-44fa-91ec-543e891d9615@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <1205953950.63@user.newsoffice.de> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:02:18 -0500 Message-ID: <86eja535wl.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 44 Hakan writes: > Isn't there an obvious difference here? I mean, the composition of > beef is really not that much separated from the game meats available > to our ancestors. As others have said, there are big differences in the meat and fat depending on whether the animals eat mostly grain or mostly grass. I was reading an old book on small farming that said that when pigs are raised on animal products like skim milk from dairies or fish waste, their fat is "soft" and won't make good lard. So people who used to raise pigs on waste products like that would finish them on grain to "harden" the fat. Just a few weeks on grain would change the composition that much. Beef cattle were the same way: finishing them on grain for the last month or two fattened them up and stiffened the tallow so it would keep better. > I think that one should also be aware of the devastating effects of > soy production on the world's rainforests. I'm not sure why soy production affects the jungles any more than other grain farming, but anyway. I tried soybeans once, and I bloated up until I thought I might pop, so that's all I needed to know about them. On a related note, I recently talked to a professor from U. of Missouri who is experimenting with timber grazing. Conventional wisdom has been that you should never let your grazing animals into your timber because they're hard on the trees. These guys go in and clear out the unhealthy and junk trees, keeping the healthiest native ones, until enough sunlight gets through the canopy to grow a shade-loving grass. Then they divide it up into paddocks and do intensive rotational grazing. Since the cows are only in each paddock for a day, they don't have a chance to be hard on the trees, and with mottled shade covering the whole area, they don't group up during the hot part of the day and concentrate their manure in one place. It sounds very cool; I hope to be trying it myself in a couple years. -- From nobody Thu Mar 20 08:04:35 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hey, I'm losing weight on a low-carb diet again! References: <2tett314kkrmsqjgvrvlvge66essfsk9vg@4ax.com> <4jntt3dtv5ut8i4fplpjc10k1ss15c0erd@4ax.com> <3ebc3d11-eb1f-4c13-8c28-c98f046e19cb@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com> <34h2u3tsokihfm0fnm5v0tnaaijjpek27n@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:04:35 -0500 Message-ID: <86abkt35ss.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Avatar writes: > Well, I don't think my pancreas has failed--glucose was 350+, then I > started taking metaformin to decrease insulin resistence, and januvia > to stimulate the beta cells. Glucose is now 165. Not ideal, but > better. Certainly better, but still high enough to keep insulin up and your triglyceride factor running at high speed. -- From nobody Thu Mar 20 08:07:40 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Hey, I'm losing weight on a low-carb diet again! References: <2tett314kkrmsqjgvrvlvge66essfsk9vg@4ax.com> <424158c0-2c58-4376-8bd8-7442e0133862@u69g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <592580f4-475f-4894-87e7-ee042892aa4e@n77g2000hse.googlegroups.com> <6q20u3h5ic40nt1sda4qgovi0r30akev8f@4ax.com> <41adaf1f-b5e0-48ae-9699-3ae563999e1f@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:07:40 -0500 Message-ID: <8663vh35nn.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 Avatar writes: > I'm relying on weight loss to reduce blood glucose levels. That sounds like the cart before the horse. I don't know why weight loss would drive BG down, rather than the reverse. -- From nobody Thu Mar 20 08:15:25 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Do artificial sweeteners cause weight gain? References: <9ef0922d-4696-4bf8-89d1-c70f2794f82c@m34g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> <13tsnkcof4kme86@corp.supernews.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 08:15:25 -0500 Message-ID: <86y78d1qqa.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Cheri" writes: > I found that to be true too Peter, but I am losing my taste for sweet > things, even artificially sweetened things, so I don't use them often > anymore. About once a week, I put a cup or raw cream in a glass and add a cream soda (the brand that uses Splenda). It's getting so the soda seems so sweet that I'm going to have to start tossing half of it. Or maybe just drink the cream as-is; that's pretty good too. -- From nobody Mon Mar 24 13:28:03 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Still having trouble with blood glucose References: <58odu3huvalgsq0d1tgv8eu2crgobantps@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:28:02 -0500 Message-ID: <86d4pkm0y5.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 16 Avatar writes: > Last time I went low carb, years ago, triglycerides followed. This > time, they're very high, so am cutting out sat. fat. "This time, they're very high, so am giving up wearing sweaters." There's no reason to think saturated fat will cause higher triglycerides. And even if they did, more than half the fat in a steak is unsaturated, so the standard "red meat bad saturated" view doesn't hold up anyway. -- From nobody Mon Mar 24 13:29:45 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Still having trouble with blood glucose References: <14odu3h4ibi9dqk7f4t88tkaakg3bhlnip@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:29:44 -0500 Message-ID: <868x08m0vb.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 14 Avatar writes: > "Cubit" wrote: >>Dr. Richard K. Bernstein has a book you may wish to find. > I have the book. You have the Bernstein book, but you say BG levels of 165 aren't "too horrible"? Might want to take another look at it. -- From nobody Wed Mar 26 09:50:21 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Still having trouble with blood glucose References: <14odu3h4ibi9dqk7f4t88tkaakg3bhlnip@4ax.com> <868x08m0vb.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <1keiu3lmb1c35ic4dsn1lnsc6pr507d2mg@4ax.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:50:20 -0500 Message-ID: <86hceth74j.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 31 Avatar writes: > "Cheri" wrote: >>Avatar wrote: >>>Aaron Baugher wrote: >>>>You have the Bernstein book, but you say BG levels of 165 aren't >>>>"too horrible"? Might want to take another look at it. >>>Not too horrible compared to what it was, 350+. >>That's kind of like saying one amputated leg is better than two >>amputated legs. Seriously. > OK, Cheri, what do you want me to do? Doug already had a good suggestion: Trust your thinking about how you're probably getting too much protein, and replace some of it with fat, not worrying about the type of fat except to avoid all trans-fats. If your fasting BG is 165, either your body has simply stopped making enough basal insulin (in which case I don't know why your doctors would be against supplementing it) or there's sugar coming from somewhere. Some could be stored glycogen flooding back out of your muscles, but that's temporary. Other than that, it's either carbs in your diet, or protein in your diet being converted. Anyone know any other way to get a fasting BG of 165, that I'm missing? -- From nobody Wed Apr 2 11:35:35 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: man is carnivore References: <7c349394-9686-426b-bb2b-460275d2b51b@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com> <654qofF2e4fo7U1@mid.individual.net> <4fa21e52-02ab-4586-bddd-87c14de731b5@d21g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <65bto9F2fktkkU1@mid.individual.net> <1206962822.1@user.newsoffice.de> <65ddvkF2f5jrhU1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:35:34 -0500 Message-ID: <86ve30w6y1.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 10 "Roger Zoul" writes: > I'm not really trying to debate if early man was a canivore. I always heard that goats were canivores. ;-) -- From nobody Tue Apr 8 14:23:02 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: hunger and atkins References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:23:02 -0500 Message-ID: <86y77orw15.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 11 John writes: > Though I get cravings of the mind .. not > the stomach.. such as today I was craving chocolate milk.. Chocolate cravings can signal a magnesium deficiency. -- From nobody Tue Apr 8 14:44:40 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Question from Noob References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:44:39 -0500 Message-ID: <86tzicrv14.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 54 John writes: > 1. To get the carbs for the food product you take the carbs and deduct > the fiber is that correct? Yes, in the US, usually. In Europe, my understanding is that they usually deduct the fiber for you; but in the US, they usually don't. Deducting the fiber gives you "net carbs." Whether you want to count carbs or net carbs is up to you and the plan you use. Eades and Atkins go by net carbs; Schwarzbein uses total carbs. > 2. For a normal everyday item what products should I be looking. > Meaning products under 10 carbs per serving or what is the number I > should be looking for to be lower in order to buy it? Depends on your plan. On Atkins, you start out at 20 a day, so 10/serving of anything would be too much, unless you split a serving in half and have it at two meals along with something like meat. On Eades, you start at a maximum of 30 a day, so 10/meal would be fine, as long as that serving is all the carbs you have in that meal. On Schwarzbein, you might start anywhere between 90-150 (including fiber), so 10/serving would probably fit, but the particular food might not be on her allowed list. So you really need to pick a plan, so you have some guidelines to start with. "Low-carb" can mean a lot of things. To mix and match allowed foods and carb limits and ideas from different plans, you really need to know what you're doing. (And even then it's tricky.) > If anyone can recommend a good book on low carb stuff that would be > great too! "Protein Power Life Plan," by Drs. Eades. Used copies are generally available from Amazon for basically the price of shipping. The original "Protein Power" is very good too, but I think PPLP is better. "The Schwarzbein Principle," by Dr. Diana Schwarzbein. I don't agree with her on everything, but she does a nice job of explaining insulin resistance in layman's terms. "Good Calories, Bad Calories," by Gary Taubes. Not a how-to diet book at all, but it'll give you the science and history to back up the plans like PPLP. It's a good source of encouragement when the mainstream blather about fat wears you down. If you're at all diabetic, "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution," is good for those specifics. He also has a book that's specifically about the low-carb diet he recommends, but I haven't read that one. -- From nobody Tue Apr 8 14:52:52 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Is it safe for Type 2 ?? References: <47fa1dc6$0$4061$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:52:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86prt0runf.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 34 "RGL" writes: > Is it safe for a person newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes > to go on the low carb diet?? It's not only safe; it's the only sensible thing to do. Carbohydrates are poison to a diabetic. > I went on Atkins years ago, and lost 40 pounds, but got scared of what > all the meat was doing to my blood pressure. Why? If meat does anything to your blood pressure, it'll probably lower it. Since going back to strict low-carb a couple months ago (and using a lot of salt to support my weak adrenals) my BP has gone from 140/90 to 120/78. > I haven't gained the weight back, but now I have diabetes and high > blood pressure (not blaming Atkins for that) and can't get my blood > sugar under control. Read "Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution." Also, if you aren't already testing your own blood sugar, get a tester. (Check this group's archives for plenty of discussion on that.) When you can test your blood sugar several times a day for a few days, you'll get a much better idea of how foods are affecting you. The first time I had a small bowl of cake and ice cream at a birthday party after getting my BG meter, seeing my BG jump up to 160 was quite an eye-opener. It's not quite like looking through a microscope and watching the cells in your pancreas dying, but it's powerful nonetheless. -- From nobody Tue Apr 8 15:07:38 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Banana? Avocado? Onion? References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:07:38 -0500 Message-ID: <86lk3ortyt.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 43 ads-man writes: > How bas are banana / avocado / carrot? Bananas are ugly bags of mostly sugar. Avocados are great, but make sure you get the Haas-type California ones with the rumpled skin; they have more fat and flavor than the smooth-skinned Florida kind. Carrots can be okay in small amounts, but count their carbs like anything else. > What is the least harming fruit I can have? I gave up sugar/bread, no > problem here, but I can't make it without fruits! Starting with the best: strawberries, other berries, melon, cherries, peaches. With all fruits, simply count the carbs and make sure you stay under your plan's limits. With the higher-carb fruits, you just can't have as much. If you'd rather have 1/4 cup of peaches than 3/4 cup of strawberries, no problem. > What about nuts? I LOOOOVE adding dry toasted nuts/sunflower seeds/ > sesame to salads. Nuts are good, but like all seeds, they have anti-nutrients that keep them from breaking down before they're in the right conditions to germinate. These anti-nutrients will bond with the beneficial nutrients in the nuts (or in other things you eat with them) and keep you from absorbing them. To remove these, soak the nuts overnight in salt water (about 1 tablespoon per gallon), then dry them in an oven or dehydrator. They taste great this way, too. > What about legumes? chickpeas? Beans? Peas? Peanuts? Green beans will usually fit fine, as will snow peas or snap (edible-podded) peas. Peanuts can work, in moderation. Legumes (including shelled peas) are usually too carby to have more than a spoonful or two. With all these things, count the carbs. Only meat, oils, and butter have no carbs at all, so everything else should be counted. -- From nobody Tue Apr 8 15:19:21 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: National Weight Control Registry References: <3KednXU4SrwKNWranZ2dnUVZ_tijnZ2d@comcast.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 15:19:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86hcecrtfa.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 47 "Cubit" writes: > Here in the US, it seems to be increasingly an odd thing to do. The > social consequences are not good. I don't get invited to potluck > parties by friends anymore. That's interesting. Do you think they were put off by the high-fat foods you brought, or are they afraid you'll look down on them for what they eat, or something else? > Outside the US, there are indications that legitimate medical > authorities are accepting low carb. According to Taubes, a lot of work on the carbohydrate hypothesis of fat metabolism was being done in Europe, especially in Germany, at the same time that the fat/cholesterol beliefs were being developed in the USA. WWII ended the research being done in Europe, and no one wanted to touch anything German scientists had been working on after they'd been tainted by association with Nazi eugenics (which were pretty popular in this country too, but we've forgotten that). So it wouldn't be too surprising if Europe were more open to low-carb. The anti-fat myth didn't grow there in the first place, and they've always had more appreciation for food. > Once most people in the US can go to the doctor and get a lecture > telling them to eat low carb and get lots of cholesterol, I think the > US food customs will shift. I really think this is coming, but it may > take Years. A generation, at least. Doctors in school right now are still being taught the evils of dietary fat and cholesterol as fact, and the amount of money that flows into government and schools from the grain processors is going to keep it that way. Individual doctors will have to learn better on their own, for the foreseeable future. > I'm about 2 3/4 years into maintenance. The first year, or so, was a > challenge. I had great concerns about being able to maintain. Now, > I've reached a point where I have my maintenance system worked out. > I'm not worried about maintenance anymore. I've got this thing down. Awesome! -- From nobody Wed Apr 9 09:53:40 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Nutritional data - who to belive? References: <9HLKj.4$5P1.2@newsfe02.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 09:53:39 -0500 Message-ID: <864pabrsek.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Hilly" writes: > Who do you belive when the label on the package, FitDay, and the USDA > website all say different things? I'd go with the label, but keep in mind that the USDA only requires labels to be accurate within 20%. If something is so close to your carb limit that 20% extra would put you over, it might be better to put it back on the shelf and pick up a couple steaks and a head of broccoli instead. -- From nobody Wed Apr 9 10:02:55 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: What fats can I add to my Atkins diet References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 10:02:55 -0500 Message-ID: <86zls3qdeo.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 23 Mark Filice writes: > I smoked 2 pork shoulders this weekend. When choosing a shoulder for > smoking, it is best to get one with a lot of fat. The fat dissolves > slowly in the heat and smoke and helps to tenderize the meat. > > However, a lot of fat still remains throughout the shoulder. Yep. Last week, I slow-cooked a pork loin roast that my fiancee raved to everyone about for days. I took a 5-pound bone-in loin roast from one of my dad's hogs (that live outside and aren't pushed to excessive leanness, so the meat has plenty of fat); coated it with sea salt, cracked pepper, and sage; browned it in a hot stainless-steel skillet; then put it in the crock pot. I deglazed the skillet with a little wine, then cooked some chopped onions and celery in it until softened, and added that to the roast along with garlic, bay leaves, and cloves. Cooked it all day on low, and she couldn't get over how good it was--said the fat was like cream it was so soft and juicy. -- From nobody Thu Apr 17 10:43:39 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Soy Noodles - really low carb? References: <65n3bjF2gsp12U1@mid.individual.net> <65vvmkF2i1dn2U1@mid.individual.net> <6600drF2fakb6U1@mid.individual.net> <66d1qfF2k70l8U1@mid.individual.net> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:43:39 -0500 Message-ID: <861w54lc5w.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 Becca writes: > You are right. LOL We bought some more shirataki noodles today, > because my husband wants to try them in spaghetti. He likes them! I found that boiling them for 15-20 minutes instead of the few minutes it says on the bag makes them less rubbery. Putting them in the sauce toward the end of cooking it helps too. -- From nobody Sat May 31 10:57:10 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Shiritaki Noodles References: <7sk%j.48$bn7.31@newsfe07.lga> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 10:57:09 -0500 Message-ID: <86abi631re.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 "Hilly" writes: > Just got some shiritaki noodles, and tried some at lunch. They don't > taste bad, but the texture is like chewing on rubber bands. Is there a > way to make them less rubbery? I boil them about 20 minutes, and I also add them to my sauce when it's about ready so they can simmer in it for 5 minutes or so. That seems to help; the last batch that I had with alfredo sauce didn't seem rubbery at all. -- From nobody Fri Jun 20 09:20:21 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Verizon blocking access to ALT groups References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:20:19 -0500 Message-ID: <861w2schng.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 45 Marengo writes: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 22:54:01 -0600, Pramesh Rutaji wrote: >>Art wrote: >>> Just received a notice from Verizon that starting June 24th all but >>> the big "8" (which doesn't include ALT) will be blocked. >> >>For what I read, they are not blocking anything. What they are doing >>is not providing a service that they had previously provided. > > It's not that simple. They've been pressured by the New York attorney > general into enforcing government censorship. No need to go into > details, google the new stories. It's true that there's pressure involved, but that doesn't make it censorship. Their customers can still use Usenet; it just won't be provided as part of their Internet service package anymore. They can even use it for free through horrible interfaces like Google Groups. That's no more censorship than the fact that my library doesn't carry every book and magazine I want. It's not censorship if they choose to spend their grant money on Dickens instead of Penthouse. Internet providers have to choose which services will cater to the most customers and make the most profit. Running a full-feed Usenet server is expensive, and with only a tiny percentage of customers accessing it, it just doesn't make fiscal sense to keep it up as an internal service. In the olden days of online communications, when the Internet was pretty much restricted to government installations, online services like AOL, Compuserve, and GEnie provided *all* services internally: chat rooms, forums, games, e-mail, everything. As the Internet made it possible to distribute those services to anyone from anywhere, the online services were replaced with ISPs, which have continued to cut back on the internal services they provide. Some don't even run a mail server anymore; they just supply an Internet connection, and send their customers off to Gmail or somewhere if they want a mailbox. It's still kind of skeevy for some politician to push this, but kind of irrelevant too. It's a little like shutting down the buggy whip factories after everyone's already bought a car. -- From nobody Mon Jun 23 09:59:23 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Verizon blocking access to ALT groups References: <861w2schng.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <6c260rF3cr24iU1@mid.individual.net> <7f2c70d6-2078-49ee-9a3e-3a987b688a21@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:59:22 -0500 Message-ID: <86prq8dwol.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 29 Doug Freyburger writes: > "Cheri" wrote: >> Yes, I give it about six months until the others follow...right after >> they put themselves in the position to be a *paid provider.* > UseNet is too low budget for that. With individual.net charging > 10 Euros per *year* it takes thousands of subscribers to > justify one junior engineer running the servers and tens of > thousands of subscribers to build a server farm. Even charging > $10 per month as an extra service few can justify the head > count. And there's just no reason for it. When connections were slow and bandwidth expensive, it made sense to have a newsfeed trickling in all day so your users could connect to your local server at a decent speed. I used to run my own news server at home for that reason. (Still do; but that's because I'm a geek, not because there's any reason to now.) At today's speeds and pipe sizes, users can't even tell a difference between connecting to news.my-own-isp.com or news.somewhere-else.com. With nationwide ISPs, the latter might even be closer or faster than the former. It doesn't really make any more sense now to offer your users a local Usenet feed than it would to offer them a local copy of wikipedia. -- From nobody Mon Jun 23 10:06:52 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Good Calories, Bad Calories References: From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:06:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86k5ggdwc3.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 22 Bob writes: > I'm surprised I see so little discussion here about the bood Good > Calories, Bad Calories, by Gary Taubes. We discussed it a lot when it first came out. > I personally think this book should win some type of award, even a > Pulitzer prize. It really is that good. Agreed. It's probably too dense for most people to read, but if the work he's done by compiling and documenting the facts is reflected in more mainstream-palatable works, that'll be a great thing. It's not a low-carb book in the sense of a how-to diet book, but it provides tons of evidence of the wisdom of low-carb eating, so I found it to be an inspiration. -- From nobody Fri Aug 29 11:24:00 2008 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: Will adding fibre reduce carb. absorption? References: <60875daa-c86b-454a-8543-8e26f58003ef@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> From: Aaron Baugher Organization: Baugher Salvage and Really Wild Stuff Corporation Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:23:59 -0500 Message-ID: <8663pj6b8g.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 13 "Liam T." writes: > My understanding that in some diets like PP, you deduct the fibre from > the original carbs to get the "net carbs", this way by adding fibre > will I be able to reduce carbs? If you have 3 apples and I give you 2, and then I take away 2, how many do you have left? -- From nobody Sun Aug 16 07:01:56 2009 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My Modified LC plan References: Organization: Baugher Consulting Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:01:52 -0500 Message-ID: <86fxbsx8zz.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 26 "JKconey" writes: > I've been a LCer for almost 10 years. Lost 50 lbs, and gradually > put back 30 of it over the years. I won't blame the WOE as much as a > few injuries and health issues that made me very sedentary. After all > these years of various dieting, I've come to the conclusion that > pretty much anything will work, if you stick to it. My problem was > always quantity. When I did low fat, I thought I could eat all the > bread and pasta I wanted but no butter. When I was strict low carb I > thought I could eat all the fat and meat I wanted. Now I do modified > low carb, and for the first time portion control. There seems to be a contradiction here. You say you lost 50 pounds on low-carb, and that you don't blame it for the weight you gained back. But then you say you've decided that portion control is the real answer. Why isn't the answer to simply redo what lost the 50 pounds the first time? If you lost 50 pounds while eating all the fat and meat you wanted, then it seems you *can* eat all the fat and meat you want. Saying "anything will work if you stick to it" doesn't make much sense. Will eating a gallon of ice cream every day work if I stick to it? If something fails, sticking to it will only make it fail longer. -- From nobody Thu Aug 20 10:53:05 2009 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My Modified LC plan References: <865135da-da38-4e36-acfd-0e1d32ce939f@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <7eudalF2fjpkeU3@mid.individual.net> <7eufk9F2ig5leU1@mid.individual.net> <8jjk85ltqtq6s626kinepcq3osqmm6a3up@4ax.com> Organization: Baugher Consulting Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:53:04 -0500 Message-ID: <868whe5vof.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 15 BlueBrooke writes: > I go on "vacation" occasionally myself. It's a choice. It isn't > giving in to ancient primal desires, or the inability to interact in a > social setting without eating what everyone else is eating -- it's a > choice *I* make and *I* take responsibility for without trying to come > up with a long list of excuses. After several years of making those excuses, I finally figured out that it's not the end of the world to just skip the meal altogether in those situations, and eat later when I get home. -- From nobody Fri Aug 21 18:54:21 2009 Newsgroups: alt.support.diet.low-carb Subject: Re: My Modified LC plan References: <865135da-da38-4e36-acfd-0e1d32ce939f@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com> <7eudalF2fjpkeU3@mid.individual.net> <7eufk9F2ig5leU1@mid.individual.net> <8jjk85ltqtq6s626kinepcq3osqmm6a3up@4ax.com> <868whe5vof.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> <583ca19c-c533-40eb-87fd-8c7f4a16943b@d23g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> Organization: Baugher Consulting Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:54:21 -0500 Message-ID: <86k50w4taq.fsf@bannor.baugher.biz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Lines: 20 Orlando Enrique Fiol writes: > That's a really important point for people who consider eating to be a > highly social activity. I would rather eat a few carbs on a given > occasion than feel self righteous and excluded. Then don't feel that way. Does a recovering alcoholic have to feel self-righteous and excluded if he goes to a party where everyone else is drinking and doesn't join in? As others have said, at most gatherings there are meat and vegetables that a low-carber can eat, so we don't have to just sit and watch everyone else. But if I go somewhere and find out they decided to skip the turkey and just make a big batch of lasagna, there's nothing self-righteous about simply skipping it.