almond "flour"



Because humans like to pout ;) I really stared longingly at the 0 carb
Hazzlenut candy bar today until DH reminded me that I always buy them and
never like them and then I remembered I dont like real candy bars so why
would I like the fake ones ;)

Tori

--
Xavier 10/04 "Oh whats this on the floor? A dime? Yummy!"
Bonnie 3/02 "Mommy Look at me! Look at ME!"
349.5/319.5/135
"Cubit" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Question - What if you focused on enjoying the foods
>> you can have rather than lamenting the ones you can't?

>
>
> Bingo!
>
>
 
>"Question - What if you focused on
>enjoying the foods you can have rather
>than lamenting the ones you can't? " >Doug


Well....because Im one of those people who doesnt deal well with "cant".
"Cant" leads to "deprived" and deprived leads to caving....and caving
leads to pigging out....

All of which can be avoided by having the LC substitute.

LassChance



Start LC~5-16-05
202-188-165
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Lass Chance) wrote:

> >"Question - What if you focused on
> >enjoying the foods you can have rather
> >than lamenting the ones you can't? " >Doug

>
> Well....because Im one of those people who doesnt deal well with "cant".
> "Cant" leads to "deprived" and deprived leads to caving....and caving
> leads to pigging out....
>
> All of which can be avoided by having the LC substitute.
>
> LassChance
>


Or maybe by not using "can't" in your vocabulary.

I don't do substitutes, and it's for a reason I don't think I've seen
articulated here. Here's an example:

The old, high-carb me didn't just have a handful of potato chips on the
plate with a sandwich. I'd mindlessly eat a whole bag of chips while
vegging out in front of the tube. Even if I substitute some kind of
low-carb chips, it doesn't make that _behavior_ any more healthy. Just
plugging in "pork rinds" instead of "potato chips" isn't a lifestyle
change. For me, it's not just about what I eat, it's also how I eat and
why I eat.

It's the same with desserts after meals. Why did I eat desserts before?
It was partly because I ate dinner so quickly that my body didn't have
time to know it was full. If I eat slowly and consciously, I'm done
before my plate is clean, and there's no need for dessert, low-carb or
not.

If I remove the situation in which I was likely to eat something starchy
or sweet, by changing the hows and whys of eating, then there's no need
for substitutes.

--
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
 
"Luna" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Lass Chance) wrote:
>
>> >"Question - What if you focused on
>> >enjoying the foods you can have rather
>> >than lamenting the ones you can't? " >Doug

>>
>> Well....because Im one of those people who doesnt deal well with "cant".
>> "Cant" leads to "deprived" and deprived leads to caving....and caving
>> leads to pigging out....
>>
>> All of which can be avoided by having the LC substitute.
>>
>> LassChance
>>

>
> Or maybe by not using "can't" in your vocabulary.
>
> I don't do substitutes, and it's for a reason I don't think I've seen
> articulated here. Here's an example:
>


This is one of the aspects of psychological triggers that people have been
talking about such as eating out of habit or boredom.

Eating is not being triggered by a physiological response such as an insulin
spike, hunger etc but for psychological reasons unique to the person. Often
this is done by association. After dinner dessert, watching the baseball
game munchies, or going to a movie theater and wanting to mindlessly munch.

Sid...
 
Lass Chance wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> >Question - What if you focused on
> >enjoying the foods you can have rather
> >than lamenting the ones you can't?

>
> Well....because Im one of those people who doesnt deal well with "cant".
> "Cant" leads to "deprived" and deprived leads to caving....and caving
> leads to pigging out....


It appears that you missed my point. If you don't deal
well with "can't" focus on the "can" instead. There's
a less black-n-white issue here as well. It's really
a matter of should and shouldn't. You need to progress
through the should's and shouldn't's before you even
know what your own custom individual can't's are. By
turning a shoudln't into a can't, you create your own
deprivation. And so you create your own pigging out.

> All of which can be avoided by having the LC substitute.


Sure. Lobster rules. ;^)

Did eating LC substitutes actually work for you or did
they contribute to caving? Some people think in advance
they will do one but when it actually happens it turns
out they did the other. What did you think in advance
and what actually happened? Turn what happened into a
learning experience whether it's that LC substitutes do
in fact work for you or it's that you think they do but
when it comes down to it they don't.
 
Doug Freyburger wrote:

>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Question - What if you focused on
>>>enjoying the foods you can have rather
>>>than lamenting the ones you can't?

>>
>>Well....because Im one of those people who doesnt deal well with "cant".
>>"Cant" leads to "deprived" and deprived leads to caving....and caving
>>leads to pigging out....


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

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

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

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

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

Jennifer
 
My favorite is, "I don't eat that ****."

--

Eat less, exercise more. -- MFW

--
"Jennifer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
>>>Doug Freyburger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Question - What if you focused on
>>>>enjoying the foods you can have rather
>>>>than lamenting the ones you can't?
>>>
>>>Well....because Im one of those people who doesnt deal well with "cant".
>>>"Cant" leads to "deprived" and deprived leads to caving....and caving
>>>leads to pigging out....

>
> This may sound simplistic, but it does work... When it comes to LC, I
> discovered that I had to change "Can't" to "Don't" in my thinking.
>
> I "can't" eat pasta... means "Poor me, someone or something is not
> allowing
> me to eat pasta". I have no choice. It's beyond my control. (which also
> means that sometimes if I do eat pasta, then it's a "cheat" and there is
> the ensuing guilt and shame for cheating).
>
> I "don't" eat pasta... means that I have made a choice, it's not something
> that's part of my life. I am in control. (which also means that
> sometimes
> if I do eat pasta, I have just decided at that moment to make a different
> choice... no guilt, it's just my decision at that moment).
>
> An bonus to this way of thinking and talking is when you are out and about
> and someone offers you something you would rather not eat at the moment,
> don't works better than can't to get them to understand.
>
> If you tell them you can't have ice cream, they will tell you can... that
> just a little won't hurt. If you tell them you don't eat ice cream...
> what
> are they going to say? Yes you do? And if they say, "well you used
> to"... you can always say "I don't anymore". ; )
>
> Jennifer
>
 
Jennifer wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> >>>Question - What if you focused on
> >>>enjoying the foods you can have rather
> >>>than lamenting the ones you can't?

>
> >>Well....because Im one of those people who doesnt deal well with "cant".
> >>"Cant" leads to "deprived" and deprived leads to caving....and caving
> >>leads to pigging out....

>
> This may sound simplistic, but it does work... When it comes to LC, I
> discovered that I had to change "Can't" to "Don't" in my thinking.
>
> I "can't" eat pasta... means "Poor me, someone or something is not allowing
> me to eat pasta". I have no choice. It's beyond my control. (which also
> means that sometimes if I do eat pasta, then it's a "cheat" and there is
> the ensuing guilt and shame for cheating).
>
> I "don't" eat pasta... means that I have made a choice, it's not something
> that's part of my life. I am in control. (which also means that sometimes
> if I do eat pasta, I have just decided at that moment to make a different
> choice... no guilt, it's just my decision at that moment).


Cool. Here's yet another way of altered thinking:

Think about the cost. What does it cost me to eat this?

For me anything with any wheat risks a major binge. Once
I learned what was triggering my binge eating, deciding I
don't want to pay that price any more makes it easy for
me to avoid wheat. I can't eat what, okay it may be true
but if I rage against can't should I say that to myself.
i shouldn't eat wheat, okay it may be true but it suggests
that i might not have a problem with a little. That
nasty stuff triggers a binge, take it away, okay this
approach works well for me.

For me potatoes are merely high in carb count and fattening.
Since I can exercise portion control on them, for me
potatoes are a matter of eting a quarter of what is on the
dish and then putting my napkin over them so the busing
staff makes the plate go away or giving myself a tiny
portion at home.

> An bonus to this way of thinking and talking is when you are out and about
> and someone offers you something you would rather not eat at the moment,
> don't works better than can't to get them to understand.
>
> If you tell them you can't have ice cream, they will tell you can... that
> just a little won't hurt. If you tell them you don't eat ice cream... what
> are they going to say? Yes you do? And if they say, "well you used
> to"... you can always say "I don't anymore". ; )


It's like there's a salesmanship mechanism that people
want to exercise. "I can't" - salesman tries to handle
objection. Flat unadorned "No thanks" or "I don't" -
salesman can't find an objection to handle and moves on
to the next customer.
 
I know someone who just says she's allergic to whatever non-plan food being
offered so there are no questions as to why she won't have any. :)

on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:41:14 GMT, Jennifer <[email protected]>
wrote:

>This may sound simplistic, but it does work... When it comes to LC, I
>discovered that I had to change "Can't" to "Don't" in my thinking.
>
>I "can't" eat pasta... means "Poor me, someone or something is not allowing
>me to eat pasta". I have no choice. It's beyond my control. (which also
>means that sometimes if I do eat pasta, then it's a "cheat" and there is
>the ensuing guilt and shame for cheating).
>
>I "don't" eat pasta... means that I have made a choice, it's not something
>that's part of my life. I am in control. (which also means that sometimes
>if I do eat pasta, I have just decided at that moment to make a different
>choice... no guilt, it's just my decision at that moment).
>
>An bonus to this way of thinking and talking is when you are out and about
>and someone offers you something you would rather not eat at the moment,
>don't works better than can't to get them to understand.
>
>If you tell them you can't have ice cream, they will tell you can... that
>just a little won't hurt. If you tell them you don't eat ice cream... what
>are they going to say? Yes you do? And if they say, "well you used
>to"... you can always say "I don't anymore". ; )


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

In article <[email protected]>,
Bev-Ann <[email protected]> wrote:

> I know someone who just says she's allergic to whatever non-plan food being
> offered so there are no questions as to why she won't have any. :)
>
> on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:41:14 GMT, Jennifer <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >This may sound simplistic, but it does work... When it comes to LC, I
> >discovered that I had to change "Can't" to "Don't" in my thinking.
> >
> >I "can't" eat pasta... means "Poor me, someone or something is not allowing
> >me to eat pasta". I have no choice. It's beyond my control. (which also
> >means that sometimes if I do eat pasta, then it's a "cheat" and there is
> >the ensuing guilt and shame for cheating).
> >
> >I "don't" eat pasta... means that I have made a choice, it's not something
> >that's part of my life. I am in control. (which also means that sometimes
> >if I do eat pasta, I have just decided at that moment to make a different
> >choice... no guilt, it's just my decision at that moment).
> >
> >An bonus to this way of thinking and talking is when you are out and about
> >and someone offers you something you would rather not eat at the moment,
> >don't works better than can't to get them to understand.
> >
> >If you tell them you can't have ice cream, they will tell you can... that
> >just a little won't hurt. If you tell them you don't eat ice cream... what
> >are they going to say? Yes you do? And if they say, "well you used
> >to"... you can always say "I don't anymore". ; )

>
> -----
> Bev


--
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
 
Why would anyone take a chance that the person may actually be allergic to
a food? That doesn't make any sense.

on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 01:05:52 GMT, Luna <[email protected]>
wrote:

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


-----
Bev
 
Bev-Ann wrote:
>
> Why would anyone take a chance that the person may actually be allergic to
> a food? That doesn't make any sense.


The story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf applies. Lying gets
folks into trouble. False alarms get folks into trouble.

What if ten thousand boys started crying wolf? People
would stop remembering exactly which boys were the ones
who cried wolf and just blow off anyone crying wolf.

I'm wheat intolerant. I don't tell people I'm allergic.
When I explain indigestion and coughing and such folks
say it sounds like an alergy. I compare with peanut or
shellfish alergies that kill and point out I don't want
to make people think that sort of problem unless it
actually exists. If there were a famine, I'd be in
line for bread with everyone else and put up with the
symptoms. In a famine there'd be no worries of a binge.
 
Gee, you people are taking this way too far.
When ordering dinner in a restaurant or eating at homes of people she
doesn't know very well or at parties, etc., she simply says she can't have
[insert whatever food here] because she's allergic to it. There are no
questions or rolled eyes that she's "taking her diet too far" or cajoling
or can't she have [insert whatever food here] "just this once".
I'm not advocating lying, just relating what a person I know does that
works well for her. And the next time she's with the same people, she
really can't have [insert whatever food here] because she'd be found out.
So it doubles as a control mechanism for her.
Personally, I tell anyone and everyone that I follow a LC lifestyle. If
they roll their eyes, I gladly launch into a sermon on the benefits I've
enjoyed in the past year and a half. :)

on 5 Jul 2005 19:48:41 -0700, "Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote:

>The story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf applies. Lying gets
>folks into trouble. False alarms get folks into trouble.
>
>What if ten thousand boys started crying wolf? People
>would stop remembering exactly which boys were the ones
>who cried wolf and just blow off anyone crying wolf.
>
>I'm wheat intolerant. I don't tell people I'm allergic.
>When I explain indigestion and coughing and such folks
>say it sounds like an alergy. I compare with peanut or
>shellfish alergies that kill and point out I don't want
>to make people think that sort of problem unless it
>actually exists. If there were a famine, I'd be in
>line for bread with everyone else and put up with the
>symptoms. In a famine there'd be no worries of a binge.


-----
Bev
 
I just remembered a conversation I had with someone else the other day
regarding why some people binge eat certain foods. I've never experienced
this so don't understand how people can continue to eat even after they're
stuffed.
Anyway...he told me there's a theory that they're allergic to those foods
but instead of reacting by having physical discomfort, they continue to
NEED those foods and therefore have difficulty controlling their portions.
I'd never heard of this before and I didn't think to ask for his sources on
this theory at the time, but who knows? Maybe there's something to it.
So in the case of my fibbing friend, she might not be lying after all and
just doesn't realize it.

on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:20:43 GMT, Bev-Ann <[email protected]> wrote:

>Gee, you people are taking this way too far.
>When ordering dinner in a restaurant or eating at homes of people she
>doesn't know very well or at parties, etc., she simply says she can't have
>[insert whatever food here] because she's allergic to it. There are no
>questions or rolled eyes that she's "taking her diet too far" or cajoling
>or can't she have [insert whatever food here] "just this once".
>I'm not advocating lying, just relating what a person I know does that
>works well for her. And the next time she's with the same people, she
>really can't have [insert whatever food here] because she'd be found out.
>So it doubles as a control mechanism for her.
>Personally, I tell anyone and everyone that I follow a LC lifestyle. If
>they roll their eyes, I gladly launch into a sermon on the benefits I've
>enjoyed in the past year and a half. :)


-----
Bev
 
Bev-Ann wrote:
>
> I just remembered a conversation I had with someone else the other day
> regarding why some people binge eat certain foods. I've never experienced
> this so don't understand how people can continue to eat even after they're
> stuffed.
> Anyway...he told me there's a theory that they're allergic to those foods
> but instead of reacting by having physical discomfort, they continue to
> NEED those foods and therefore have difficulty controlling their portions.
> I'd never heard of this before and I didn't think to ask for his sources on
> this theory at the time, but who knows?


This is a very accurate depiction of how many react to a
food intolerance that also triggers an addictive reaction.
I have exactly that with wheat. Wheat foods in sufficient
quantity (a slice of toast is enough for me) will trigger
a binge where I'll eat all food in sight until I'm
miserably stuffed. Yet avoiding wheat I don't have much
issue with portion control. I've met some AA members who
became alcoholics from the same reaction to yeast. I've
met some folks who react that way to corn. Per the Atkins
books it's one of the most common ways that food
intolerances express themselves.

> Maybe there's something to it.


There is. Be glad you don't have such a reaction. Since
the reaction builds gradually over a period of many years
it is far from obvious which food is the culprit of that
any food is the culprit. The easily observed pattern is
a gradually decaying ability to practice portion control
and a gradually increasing focus on a range of favorite
foods. That could just as easily be explained by
becoming a pig, or by insulin swings if the trigger is a
high carb food or by getting older ...

Anyone who has problems with portion control should
consider that it may be from a food intolerance
addictive reaction that built up gradually over a period
of years. Plus they should consider insulin swings and
other physical causes. Plus address psychological
causes. Assuming Dr Phil style that overeating is only
psychological is a mistake. Assuming Dr Atkins style
that overeating is only from physical causes is a
mistake. But handling physical causes sure makes
dealing with the psych part something that's possible.

I've read a bit about compulsively eating alergy foods.
At least one article claimed it was an instinctive
reaction to do self-innoculation. Regularly eat a food
that triggers a reaction and in the process build up an
immunity to it. Now add in human culture where any one
food can be available 365 days per year where without
human culture any one food is only available seasonally*
Now it's possible to keep eating a food day after day,
month after month, year after year until the reaction to
it builds to an outright addiction rather than just an
instinctive self-innoculation. Theory or not it supplies
a great pattern for events I've seen in myself and in a
bunch of others. Maybe the actual biological mechanism,
maybe not, but it works well enough that I'll take it as
my working theory until something better comes along.

* Meat is available 365 days per year in a stone age
setting. I notice that I've met people who don't like
various types of meat, folks who have trouble digesting
various types of meat, but have I ever met anyone who
will binge on a meat-only meal after they've completed
a cleaning program like Atkins Induction?

> So in the case of my fibbing friend, she might not be lying after all and
> just doesn't realize it.


She should try the entire Atkins process. Then she would
discover exactly what she's intolerant of. Food intolerances
are half of the Atkins process. It's an isolation system
that uses a challenge process. Induction removes all but
two common intolerance foods. Then in OWL and later suspect
foods are added back in one by one and the order does not go
in strict carb density order. The order is from chances of
intolerance.
 
I've posted this link before, at least twice, but here it is again if
you'd like to know more about the addiction/allergy link.

http://www.springboard4health.com/notebook/health_food_addiction.html

I read once, I think it was in Jane Magazine, an opinion blurb from the
editor or one of the writers about how they're sick of women saying
they're allergic when they're really on a diet.

Certain diseases and disorders become trendy sometimes, like someone
diagnosing themselves with "chronic fatigue" when they're just "ordinary
tired," or "obsessive compulsive" when they just like to be organized.
In my opinion, these false self-diagnoses, based on reading an article
in a magazine or something, not an actual diagnosis by a doctor, end up
over time trivializing the real disorders. With enough people faking, no
one takes it seriously anymore, even when it's not fake.

In article <[email protected]>,
Bev-Ann <[email protected]> wrote:

> I just remembered a conversation I had with someone else the other day
> regarding why some people binge eat certain foods. I've never experienced
> this so don't understand how people can continue to eat even after they're
> stuffed.
> Anyway...he told me there's a theory that they're allergic to those foods
> but instead of reacting by having physical discomfort, they continue to
> NEED those foods and therefore have difficulty controlling their portions.
> I'd never heard of this before and I didn't think to ask for his sources on
> this theory at the time, but who knows? Maybe there's something to it.
> So in the case of my fibbing friend, she might not be lying after all and
> just doesn't realize it.
>
> on Wed, 06 Jul 2005 03:20:43 GMT, Bev-Ann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Gee, you people are taking this way too far.
> >When ordering dinner in a restaurant or eating at homes of people she
> >doesn't know very well or at parties, etc., she simply says she can't have
> >[insert whatever food here] because she's allergic to it. There are no
> >questions or rolled eyes that she's "taking her diet too far" or cajoling
> >or can't she have [insert whatever food here] "just this once".
> >I'm not advocating lying, just relating what a person I know does that
> >works well for her. And the next time she's with the same people, she
> >really can't have [insert whatever food here] because she'd be found out.
> >So it doubles as a control mechanism for her.
> >Personally, I tell anyone and everyone that I follow a LC lifestyle. If
> >they roll their eyes, I gladly launch into a sermon on the benefits I've
> >enjoyed in the past year and a half. :)

>
> -----
> Bev


--
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
 
On Wed, 6 Jul 2005, Luna wrote:

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


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

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

Martha



>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bev-Ann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I know someone who just says she's allergic to whatever non-plan food being
> > offered so there are no questions as to why she won't have any. :)
> >
> > on Tue, 05 Jul 2005 16:41:14 GMT, Jennifer <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >This may sound simplistic, but it does work... When it comes to LC, I
> > >discovered that I had to change "Can't" to "Don't" in my thinking.
> > >
> > >I "can't" eat pasta... means "Poor me, someone or something is not allowing
> > >me to eat pasta". I have no choice. It's beyond my control. (which also
> > >means that sometimes if I do eat pasta, then it's a "cheat" and there is
> > >the ensuing guilt and shame for cheating).
> > >
> > >I "don't" eat pasta... means that I have made a choice, it's not something
> > >that's part of my life. I am in control. (which also means that sometimes
> > >if I do eat pasta, I have just decided at that moment to make a different
> > >choice... no guilt, it's just my decision at that moment).
> > >
> > >An bonus to this way of thinking and talking is when you are out and about
> > >and someone offers you something you would rather not eat at the moment,
> > >don't works better than can't to get them to understand.
> > >
> > >If you tell them you can't have ice cream, they will tell you can... that
> > >just a little won't hurt. If you tell them you don't eat ice cream... what
> > >are they going to say? Yes you do? And if they say, "well you used
> > >to"... you can always say "I don't anymore". ; )

> >
> > -----
> > Bev

>
>


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



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

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes
 
"Doug Freyburger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> She should try the entire Atkins process. Then she would
> discover exactly what she's intolerant of. Food intolerances
> are half of the Atkins process. It's an isolation system
> that uses a challenge process. Induction removes all but
> two common intolerance foods.



Shellfish and soy?

--
No Husband Has Ever Been Shot While Doing The Dishes
 
None Given wrote:
> Doug Freyburger wrote:
>
> > She should try the entire Atkins process. Then she would
> > discover exactly what she's intolerant of. Food intolerances
> > are half of the Atkins process. It's an isolation system
> > that uses a challenge process. Induction removes all but
> > two common intolerance foods.

>
> Shellfish and soy?


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

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

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

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

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