Ever the optimist, a recommittment to rigorous low carbs - and agreat first week report!

[Doug Lerner]

Well, I had to do something before gaining back all my weight. While I
believe that ultimately it is a matter of "calories in" (food) vs
"calories out" (base metabolism + exercise) and while I know that a
straight low-calorie diet can work (I've done it in the past) every time
I try a plain low-calorie diet this past year and ignore the carbs I end
up with enormous hunger cravings and digestive problems.

So my idea is to start with very low carbs (under 20/day), take
advantage of initial weight loss to jump start things, then as weight
loss stalls start making more conscious substitutions with low calorie,
low carb alternatives (like white meat chicken instead of steak). And
add exercise, of course.

Also, I am rigorously tracking all my carbs and calories again. That
really seems to help me. Some people don't need to do this, but I do.

Also, I am not guessing at carb values. I found out this is vital. If I
don't have actual data I'm not eating it. I was recently shocked to find
(by actually calling the manufacturer) that some sausages I liked at my
local supermaket have like 15 carbs in the portion I had been eating!
Similar sausages from other companies had about 1.5 carbs - one-tenth!
If you are on a 20 carb/day diet these things can make a big difference.

I didn't eat any "fake low carb" foods - things with sugar alcohols in
them, or glycerin or whatever.

I did drink lots of diet coke though, every single day. It didn't seem
to hurt anything.

I ate lots of cheese. But I avoided nuts because (1) they are really,
really high calorie and (2) there is so much discrepancy about how many
carbs are really in them or not.

For vegies I had things like lettuce, cucumbers, green beans, broccoli
and green peppers.

I sometimes used keto-crumbs to make a fried dinner dish - but just a
couple of times.

I didn't eat any fruits this first week.

Every morning I had the same breakfast. Monotony in the morning doesn't
seem to bother me: 3 poached eggs on top of 200 gm of cottage cheese.
This is just 5.6 carbs and 454 calories, and it seems to keep me full
until well into the afternoon.

I weighed myself every day this first week, just out of curiosity. But I
will only do weekly weighings from now on.

Here are the results, which anybody would be happy with!

2004.12.17 (Fri) 122.0 kg - 2662 cals, 14.2 carbs
2004.12.18 (Sat) 120.5 kg - 2447 cals, 9.2 carbs
2004.12.19 (Sun) 119.5 kg - 1665 cals, 17.3 carbs
2004.12.20 (Mon) 119.5 kg - 2193 cals, 14.5 carbs
2004.12.21 (Tue) 119.0 kg - 2160 cals, 12.8 carbs
2004.12.22 (Wed) 119.0 kg - 1353 cals, 6.2 carbs
2004.12.23 (Thu) 118.5 kg - 2176 cals, 10.3 carbs
2004.12.24 (Fri) 118.0 kg - still the morning here

So that is 4 kg = almost 9 lb lost in one week! That's even better than
the first time I tried low-carb! So it *is* possible to do it again. (If
you have fallen off the wagon and want a good kick-start to your diet,
try doing this without a lot of processed foods or fake low-carb snack
food. I think you will be pleasantly surprised!)

The first day I was pretty hungry. As the calories indicate, my hunger
did seem to naturally settle down as the week went by. I would say most
cravings stopped after 4 days. So you have to stick with it at least
that long to really appreciate it.

Ketostix indicate I am slightly in ketosis.

The average daily calories were 2,093 and the average carbs 12.1
carbs/day. The real carbs though are probably a few grams above that
because I counted everything *except* spices. But as we all know, even
things like garlic powder, black pepper and mustard have carbs in them.

From what I know about my body's base metabolism (about 12
calories/pound) I should be able to continue to lose weight for the time
being even at this calorie figure. Of course, a single 50 gm bag of
macadamias thrown in every day would blow the average up to 2500
calories/day, so I am going to continue to avoid nuts.

Anyway, I continue to try.

[email protected] the road again

 

[marengo]

website: http://users.thelink.net/marengo
"Doug Lerner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Well, I had to do something before gaining back all my weight. While I
> believe that ultimately it is a matter of "calories in" (food) vs
> "calories out" (base metabolism + exercise) and while I know that a
> straight low-calorie diet can work (I've done it in the past) every time
> I try a plain low-calorie diet this past year and ignore the carbs I end
> up with enormous hunger cravings and digestive problems.
>
> So my idea is to start with very low carbs (under 20/day), take
> advantage of initial weight loss to jump start things, then as weight
> loss stalls start making more conscious substitutions with low calorie,
> low carb alternatives (like white meat chicken instead of steak). And
> add exercise, of course.
>
> Also, I am rigorously tracking all my carbs and calories again. That
> really seems to help me. Some people don't need to do this, but I do.
>
> Also, I am not guessing at carb values. I found out this is vital. If I
> don't have actual data I'm not eating it. I was recently shocked to find
> (by actually calling the manufacturer) that some sausages I liked at my
> local supermaket have like 15 carbs in the portion I had been eating!
> Similar sausages from other companies had about 1.5 carbs - one-tenth!
> If you are on a 20 carb/day diet these things can make a big difference.
>
> I didn't eat any "fake low carb" foods - things with sugar alcohols in
> them, or glycerin or whatever.
>
> I did drink lots of diet coke though, every single day. It didn't seem
> to hurt anything.
>
> I ate lots of cheese. But I avoided nuts because (1) they are really,
> really high calorie and (2) there is so much discrepancy about how many
> carbs are really in them or not.
>
> For vegies I had things like lettuce, cucumbers, green beans, broccoli
> and green peppers.
>
> I sometimes used keto-crumbs to make a fried dinner dish - but just a
> couple of times.
>
> I didn't eat any fruits this first week.
>
> Every morning I had the same breakfast. Monotony in the morning doesn't
> seem to bother me: 3 poached eggs on top of 200 gm of cottage cheese.
> This is just 5.6 carbs and 454 calories, and it seems to keep me full
> until well into the afternoon.
>
> I weighed myself every day this first week, just out of curiosity. But I
> will only do weekly weighings from now on.
>
> Here are the results, which anybody would be happy with!
>
> 2004.12.17 (Fri) 122.0 kg - 2662 cals, 14.2 carbs
> 2004.12.18 (Sat) 120.5 kg - 2447 cals, 9.2 carbs
> 2004.12.19 (Sun) 119.5 kg - 1665 cals, 17.3 carbs
> 2004.12.20 (Mon) 119.5 kg - 2193 cals, 14.5 carbs
> 2004.12.21 (Tue) 119.0 kg - 2160 cals, 12.8 carbs
> 2004.12.22 (Wed) 119.0 kg - 1353 cals, 6.2 carbs
> 2004.12.23 (Thu) 118.5 kg - 2176 cals, 10.3 carbs
> 2004.12.24 (Fri) 118.0 kg - still the morning here
>
> So that is 4 kg = almost 9 lb lost in one week! That's even better than
> the first time I tried low-carb! So it *is* possible to do it again. (If
> you have fallen off the wagon and want a good kick-start to your diet,
> try doing this without a lot of processed foods or fake low-carb snack
> food. I think you will be pleasantly surprised!)
>
> The first day I was pretty hungry. As the calories indicate, my hunger
> did seem to naturally settle down as the week went by. I would say most
> cravings stopped after 4 days. So you have to stick with it at least
> that long to really appreciate it.
>
> Ketostix indicate I am slightly in ketosis.
>
> The average daily calories were 2,093 and the average carbs 12.1
> carbs/day. The real carbs though are probably a few grams above that
> because I counted everything *except* spices. But as we all know, even
> things like garlic powder, black pepper and mustard have carbs in them.
>
> From what I know about my body's base metabolism (about 12
> calories/pound) I should be able to continue to lose weight for the time
> being even at this calorie figure. Of course, a single 50 gm bag of
> macadamias thrown in every day would blow the average up to 2500
> calories/day, so I am going to continue to avoid nuts.
>
> Anyway, I continue to try.
>
> [email protected] the road again
>

I believe the success of the low carb WOE is due to lack of hunger because
fat is filling. Seems to me that doing low carb AND low fat defeats the
purpose. You'll get hungry and bored eating just chicken and vegetabes.
May as well do Weight Watchers. Again, this is just IMHO and YMMV of
course.
--
Peter
270/219/180

 

[Luna]

In article <[email protected]>, "marengo" <[email protected] cox.net>
wrote:

> >
>
> I believe the success of the low carb WOE is due to lack of hunger because
> fat is filling. Seems to me that doing low carb AND low fat defeats the
> purpose. You'll get hungry and bored eating just chicken and vegetabes.
> May as well do Weight Watchers. Again, this is just IMHO and YMMV of
> course.
> --
> Peter
> 270/219/180
>
>

I don't find fat to be filling. Protein is filling, fat makes things taste
better. For example, more oil in my veggie and chicken stir-fry won't make
it more filling, but more chicken will. IMO and YMMV too.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

 

[Roger Zoul]

Luna wrote:
|| In article <[email protected]>, "marengo" <[email protected]
|| cox.net> wrote:
||
||||
|||
||| I believe the success of the low carb WOE is due to lack of hunger
||| because fat is filling. Seems to me that doing low carb AND low
||| fat defeats the purpose. You'll get hungry and bored eating just
||| chicken and vegetabes. May as well do Weight Watchers. Again,
||| this is just IMHO and YMMV of course.
||| --
||| Peter
||| 270/219/180
|||
|||
||
|| I don't find fat to be filling. Protein is filling, fat makes
|| things taste better. For example, more oil in my veggie and chicken
|| stir-fry won't make it more filling, but more chicken will. IMO and
|| YMMV too.
||

That's my feeling (and experience) about it. The research says protein
helps reduce appetite much more than fat, BTW.

 

[Tom]

"Doug Lerner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Well, I had to do something before gaining back all my weight. While I
> believe that ultimately it is a matter of "calories in" (food) vs
> "calories out" (base metabolism + exercise) and while I know that a
> straight low-calorie diet can work (I've done it in the past) every time
> I try a plain low-calorie diet this past year and ignore the carbs I end
> up with enormous hunger cravings and digestive problems.
>
> So my idea is to start with very low carbs (under 20/day), take
> advantage of initial weight loss to jump start things, then as weight
> loss stalls start making more conscious substitutions with low calorie,
> low carb alternatives (like white meat chicken instead of steak). And
> add exercise, of course.
>
> Also, I am rigorously tracking all my carbs and calories again. That
> really seems to help me. Some people don't need to do this, but I do.
>
> Also, I am not guessing at carb values. I found out this is vital. If I
> don't have actual data I'm not eating it. I was recently shocked to find
> (by actually calling the manufacturer) that some sausages I liked at my
> local supermaket have like 15 carbs in the portion I had been eating!
> Similar sausages from other companies had about 1.5 carbs - one-tenth!
> If you are on a 20 carb/day diet these things can make a big difference.
>
> I didn't eat any "fake low carb" foods - things with sugar alcohols in
> them, or glycerin or whatever.
>
> I did drink lots of diet coke though, every single day. It didn't seem
> to hurt anything.
>
> I ate lots of cheese. But I avoided nuts because (1) they are really,
> really high calorie and (2) there is so much discrepancy about how many
> carbs are really in them or not.
>
> For vegies I had things like lettuce, cucumbers, green beans, broccoli
> and green peppers.
>
> I sometimes used keto-crumbs to make a fried dinner dish - but just a
> couple of times.
>
> I didn't eat any fruits this first week.
>
> Every morning I had the same breakfast. Monotony in the morning doesn't
> seem to bother me: 3 poached eggs on top of 200 gm of cottage cheese.
> This is just 5.6 carbs and 454 calories, and it seems to keep me full
> until well into the afternoon.
>
> I weighed myself every day this first week, just out of curiosity. But I
> will only do weekly weighings from now on.
>
> Here are the results, which anybody would be happy with!
>
> 2004.12.17 (Fri) 122.0 kg - 2662 cals, 14.2 carbs
> 2004.12.18 (Sat) 120.5 kg - 2447 cals, 9.2 carbs
> 2004.12.19 (Sun) 119.5 kg - 1665 cals, 17.3 carbs
> 2004.12.20 (Mon) 119.5 kg - 2193 cals, 14.5 carbs
> 2004.12.21 (Tue) 119.0 kg - 2160 cals, 12.8 carbs
> 2004.12.22 (Wed) 119.0 kg - 1353 cals, 6.2 carbs
> 2004.12.23 (Thu) 118.5 kg - 2176 cals, 10.3 carbs
> 2004.12.24 (Fri) 118.0 kg - still the morning here
>
> So that is 4 kg = almost 9 lb lost in one week! That's even better than
> the first time I tried low-carb! So it *is* possible to do it again. (If
> you have fallen off the wagon and want a good kick-start to your diet,
> try doing this without a lot of processed foods or fake low-carb snack
> food. I think you will be pleasantly surprised!)
>
> The first day I was pretty hungry. As the calories indicate, my hunger
> did seem to naturally settle down as the week went by. I would say most
> cravings stopped after 4 days. So you have to stick with it at least
> that long to really appreciate it.
>
> Ketostix indicate I am slightly in ketosis.
>
> The average daily calories were 2,093 and the average carbs 12.1
> carbs/day. The real carbs though are probably a few grams above that
> because I counted everything *except* spices. But as we all know, even
> things like garlic powder, black pepper and mustard have carbs in them.
>
> From what I know about my body's base metabolism (about 12
> calories/pound) I should be able to continue to lose weight for the time
> being even at this calorie figure. Of course, a single 50 gm bag of
> macadamias thrown in every day would blow the average up to 2500
> calories/day, so I am going to continue to avoid nuts.
>
> Anyway, I continue to try.
>
> [email protected] the road again

I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things
that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are
what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss.
Tom
210/180/180

 

[FOB]

Actually, I think it is the combination of protein and fat that works best.

In news:[email protected],
Roger Zoul <[email protected]> stated
| Luna wrote:
||||
||||
|||
||| I don't find fat to be filling. Protein is filling, fat makes
||| things taste better. For example, more oil in my veggie and chicken
||| stir-fry won't make it more filling, but more chicken will. IMO and
||| YMMV too.
|||
|
| That's my feeling (and experience) about it. The research says
| protein helps reduce appetite much more than fat, BTW.

 

[MU]

On Fri, 24 Dec 2004 10:37:12 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:

> The research says

lol

 

[Daniel Hoffmeister]

Roger Zoul <[email protected]> wrote:
> Luna wrote:
....
> || I don't find fat to be filling. Protein is filling, fat makes
> || things taste better. For example, more oil in my veggie and chicken
> || stir-fry won't make it more filling, but more chicken will. IMO and
> || YMMV too.
> ||

> That's my feeling (and experience) about it. The research says protein
> helps reduce appetite much more than fat, BTW.

That's been my experience as well. I have never felt I needed to watch
how much (lean) protein I ate but I knew weight loss would slow if I was
eating too much fat. Early on I was on this whipped cream for dessert
thing and it definitely slowed me down. I think if you ARE burning fat
but taking in too much dietary fat, your body will burn the easy fat
instead of body fat.

I do think that fat in moderation helps makes a meal more filling and
let you feel fuller longer because it slows digestion.


Dan
325/192/190
^ can he do it?
Atkins since 1/1/02 (yeah, it was a New Year's Resolution)
Besetting sins: good beer, German bread, and Krispy Kremes

 

[Doug Lerner]

Tom wrote:

> I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things
> that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are
> what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss.
> Tom

Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker in the
past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias.

You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages here
at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low carb
diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also has
a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package!

This goes back to my basic idea that the only thing that low-carb
dieting really does is help control your appetite. So any lower calorie
substitutions you can make while low-carbing helps.

If I had one pack of macadamias every day as an extra snack I would
still be well within my 20 carb/day limit. But over one month, those
extra 358 calories would hurt weight loss to the tune of about 3 lb.
That's 36 lb a year.

Another way of looking at it, that daily package of macadamia nuts could
reverse the weight loss effect of an hour of daily exercise!

That's why I'm trying to eat more fish, chicken and even lean pork (not
so bad in calories!) instead of beef, which is a real calorie buster.

Another thing about nuts, but the way... there seems to be a lot of
discrepancy about the actual carbs in nuts. I've seen figures that vary
by a factor of 4 or 5! So if you are a "true carb theorist" and really
believe that ONLY carbs count and calories don't, the problem *might* be
that that there happen to be more net carbs in nuts than we usually like
to believe.

doug

 

[Luna]

In article <[email protected]a.or.jp>, Doug Lerner <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Tom wrote:
>
> > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things
> > that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are
> > what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss.
> > Tom
>
> Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker in the
> past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias.
>
> You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages here
> at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low carb
> diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also has
> a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package!
>

I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts. Seriously.
They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be
filling, but they aren't. I've tried all different kinds of nuts, and once
I eat a few, it takes tremendous effort to stop eating them. Just like
popcorn, potato chips, and other carby junk food.

I wonder if it's one of those things where a mild allergy or food
intolerance can cause cravings. Although this article I found here:

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

does not list nuts as a primary food allergen, I wonder if it should.

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

 

[Tom]

"Doug Lerner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Tom wrote:
>
> > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little
things
> > that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there
are
> > what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss.
> > Tom
>
> Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker in the
> past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias.

Yes. Atkins' favorite.

>
> You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages here
> at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low carb
> diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also has
> a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package!

That's almost 2 oz and yes it is high calorie. I have heard others claim
that nuts are hard to resist, so they try to limit them. I myself have said
that although I only ate 1 handful to ease hunger, I could easily have eaten
a whole bowl. It would be much easier for me to eat 500 cal of nuts than to
eat 500 cal of eggs which I also like as much.

>
> This goes back to my basic idea that the only thing that low-carb
> dieting really does is help control your appetite. So any lower calorie
> substitutions you can make while low-carbing helps.

Yes, I agree. It aids in appetite supression. And a lower calorie food
may be a better alternative as long as it still gives the appetite
supression affect, like eggs vs nuts for me. Many postings on various
threads have argued whether protein or fat is better than the other to
satisfy a persons hunger. Since both seem to have some affect and are often
eaten together, it is difficult to say which is better. My thinking is more
along the lines of protein may fill you up better, but fat slows digestion
to allow extension of the feeling of satiation. Both seem to have a
stabilizing affect on blood glucose.

>
> If I had one pack of macadamias every day as an extra snack I would
> still be well within my 20 carb/day limit. But over one month, those
> extra 358 calories would hurt weight loss to the tune of about 3 lb.
> That's 36 lb a year.

Yes. Calories are what counts in the end. It will be the difference to
whether weight is lost, or not.

>
> Another way of looking at it, that daily package of macadamia nuts could
> reverse the weight loss effect of an hour of daily exercise!

Exactly.

>
> That's why I'm trying to eat more fish, chicken and even lean pork (not
> so bad in calories!) instead of beef, which is a real calorie buster.

Take into consideration that a lean meat diet is not very good. Rabbit
starvation is caused by eating meat with little to no fat. So, fat should
still be a large % of your intake in calories to avoid complications.
Steffanson the arctic explorer tried to eat only lean meat. The Eskimos
warned him about the affects.

>
> Another thing about nuts, but the way... there seems to be a lot of
> discrepancy about the actual carbs in nuts. I've seen figures that vary
> by a factor of 4 or 5! So if you are a "true carb theorist" and really
> believe that ONLY carbs count and calories don't, the problem *might* be
> that that there happen to be more net carbs in nuts than we usually like
> to believe.

Actually just about any food you try and find a value for will be
different according to which tables you are using. You are correct that the
amounts may not be as stated. Info from different sources may give a better
average amount to rely on. And a notion that a certain food item may cause
one to overeat is a good idea to be aware of as well. The fact that you are
aware that carbs stated may not be exactly true shows that you are paying
close attention to what you are consuming and are willing to tweak the diet
as you go along to keep weightloss going. The guidelines are similar for
everyone, but the little things that make it work for you, or me may be
different than the next person's. Find what works and what makes sense and
you will be successful. Goodluck Doug. I believe you will do well in '05.
Tom

>
> doug
>

 

[Roger Zoul]

Doug Lerner wrote:
|| Tom wrote:
||
||| I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little
||| things that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here
||| and there are what makes the difference in a person that is
||| resistant to weight loss. Tom
||
|| Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker in
|| the past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias.
||
|| You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages
|| here
|| at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low carb
|| diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also
|| has
|| a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package!
||
|| This goes back to my basic idea that the only thing that low-carb

That's not your idea....

|| dieting really does is help control your appetite. So any lower
|| calorie substitutions you can make while low-carbing helps.
||
|| If I had one pack of macadamias every day as an extra snack I would
|| still be well within my 20 carb/day limit. But over one month, those
|| extra 358 calories would hurt weight loss to the tune of about 3 lb.
|| That's 36 lb a year.
||
|| Another way of looking at it, that daily package of macadamia nuts
|| could reverse the weight loss effect of an hour of daily exercise!
||
|| That's why I'm trying to eat more fish, chicken and even lean pork
|| (not
|| so bad in calories!) instead of beef, which is a real calorie buster.
||
|| Another thing about nuts, but the way... there seems to be a lot of
|| discrepancy about the actual carbs in nuts. I've seen figures that
|| vary
|| by a factor of 4 or 5! So if you are a "true carb theorist" and
|| really believe that ONLY carbs count and calories don't, the problem
|| *might* be that that there happen to be more net carbs in nuts than
|| we usually like
|| to believe.
||
|| doug

 

[Roger Zoul]

Luna wrote:
|| In article <[email protected]>, Doug Lerner
|| <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| Tom wrote:
|||
|||| I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the
|||| little things that may cause problems for you. All these small
|||| tweaks here and there are what makes the difference in a person
|||| that is resistant to weight loss. Tom
|||
||| Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker
||| in the past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias.
|||
||| You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages
||| here
||| at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low
||| carb
||| diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it
||| also has
||| a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package!
|||
||
|| I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts.
|| Seriously.
|| They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be
|| filling, but they aren't.

Consider a cup of roasted almonds. By far, the largest percentage of
calories come from fat, not protein.

fat: 82%
protein: 14%

numbers rounded.

So, they really don't provide much protein and hence you don't get much
appetite suppression there. And fat tastes good. Nuts taste good which is
why I think I tend to overeat them (unroasted, roasted, salted, unsalted -
don't matter).

I've tried all different kinds of nuts,
|| and once
|| I eat a few, it takes tremendous effort to stop eating them. Just
|| like popcorn, potato chips, and other carby junk food.

Same here.

||
|| I wonder if it's one of those things where a mild allergy or food
|| intolerance can cause cravings. Although this article I found here:
||
|| http://www.springboard4health.com/notebook/health_food_addiction.html
||
|| does not list nuts as a primary food allergen, I wonder if it should.

I do wonder if nuts are an ideal food for mankind today. But consider this:
without technology, nuts would be much, much harder to overeat! So the
problem likely stems from the fact that today one can buy nuts in much
larger quantities for them to remain in our diets (given human nature and
desires of the flesh, etc.)


||
|| --
|| Michelle Levin
|| http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
||
|| I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3
|| flaws.

 

[FOB]

Everyone is different, I find them quite satisfying but you have to eat a
few--I count out 12 almonds, just over half an ounce, eat them then wait a
few minutes for the satiation to kick in. The problem is if you eat until
you are full, there is a lag between eating and feeling full.

In news:[email protected],
Luna <[email protected]> stated
||
|
| I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts.
| Seriously. They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they
| should be filling, but they aren't. I've tried all different kinds
| of nuts, and once I eat a few, it takes tremendous effort to stop
| eating them. Just like popcorn, potato chips, and other carby junk
| food.
|
| I wonder if it's one of those things where a mild allergy or food
| intolerance can cause cravings. Although this article I found here:
|
| http://www.springboard4health.com/notebook/health_food_addiction.html
|
| does not list nuts as a primary food allergen, I wonder if it should.

 

[Alice Faber]

In article <[email protected]>,
"FOB" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Everyone is different, I find them quite satisfying but you have to eat a
> few--I count out 12 almonds, just over half an ounce, eat them then wait a
> few minutes for the satiation to kick in. The problem is if you eat until
> you are full, there is a lag between eating and feeling full.

Yep...I pay extra money to buy my peanuts in 1 oz snack packs (in boxes
of 48 at Costco). It's much easier to limit myself to 1 1 oz bag a day
than it is to measure out a small handful and not go back for more.

--
AF
"Non Sequitur U has a really, really lousy debate team."
--artyw raises the bar on rec.sport.baseball

 

[The Queen of Cans and Jars]

Luna <[email protected]> wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Doug Lerner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > Tom wrote:
> >
> > > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little things
> > > that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there are
> > > what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss.
> > > Tom
> >
> > Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker in the
> > past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias.
> >
> > You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages here
> > at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low carb
> > diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also has
> > a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package!
> >
>
> I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts. Seriously.
> They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be
> filling, but they aren't.

you mean they aren't for *you.*

they are for me.

there's nothing "wrong" with nuts. they don't work for you? don't eat
them. try putting the blame where it actually belongs.

 

[Luna]

In article <1gpe6dv.fujpep1yu6ht6N%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (The Queen of Cans and Jars) wrote:

> Luna <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Doug Lerner <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Tom wrote:
> > >
> > > > I'm impressed. It looks like you have identified all the little
> > > > things
> > > > that may cause problems for you. All these small tweaks here and there
> > > > are
> > > > what makes the difference in a person that is resistant to weight loss.
> > > > Tom
> > >
> > > Thanks, Tom. I really do suspect nuts as being a big diet breaker in the
> > > past. Consider the lowest-carb nuts: macadamias.
> > >
> > > You can get really delicious roasted macadamias in 50 gm packages here
> > > at a reasonable price. So they are theoretically great for a low carb
> > > diet. Each pack supposedly has only about 1.6 net carbs. But it also has
> > > a diet-busting 358 calories - in just that little package!
> > >
> >
> > I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts. Seriously.
> > They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be
> > filling, but they aren't.
>
> you mean they aren't for *you.*
>
> they are for me.
>
> there's nothing "wrong" with nuts. they don't work for you? don't eat
> them. try putting the blame where it actually belongs.

Of course I meant they aren't satisfying for me. And a whole bunch of
other people, since the necessity of limiting nuts is frequently mentioned
here.

If a food causes a negative chemical reaction in a whole bunch of people,
then yes I would say there is something wrong with that food. I'm sure as
hell not going to blame myself for having cravings, since they aren't a
moral failing, they're a sign of a chemical problem caused by a particular
food.

Going by your logic, if you get sick from some spoiled or undercooked food,
don't dare say there's something wrong with that food. It's your fault for
not being able to handle it, ok?

--
Michelle Levin
http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.

 

[FOB]

But isn't limiting the amount a problem with anything that is really tasty
and easy to eat? Nuts are almost a perfect food, nutritious, no preparation
necessary, keep without refrigeration, taste good, endorsed by squirrels.

In news:[email protected],
Luna <[email protected]> stated
| Of course I meant they aren't satisfying for me. And a whole bunch
| of other people, since the necessity of limiting nuts is frequently
| mentioned here.
|
| If a food causes a negative chemical reaction in a whole bunch of
| people, then yes I would say there is something wrong with that food.
| I'm sure as hell not going to blame myself for having cravings, since
| they aren't a moral failing, they're a sign of a chemical problem
| caused by a particular food.
|
| Going by your logic, if you get sick from some spoiled or undercooked
| food, don't dare say there's something wrong with that food. It's
| your fault for not being able to handle it, ok?

 

[Roger Zoul]

FOB wrote:
|| But isn't limiting the amount a problem with anything that is really
|| tasty and easy to eat? Nuts are almost a perfect food, nutritious,
|| no preparation necessary, keep without refrigeration, taste good,
|| endorsed by squirrels.

That's why I can't control myself with nuts....so this is a failure in
me....

I admit it: I'm not perfect. I like to eat.

||
|| In news:[email protected],
|| Luna <[email protected]> stated
||| Of course I meant they aren't satisfying for me. And a whole bunch
||| of other people, since the necessity of limiting nuts is frequently
||| mentioned here.
|||
||| If a food causes a negative chemical reaction in a whole bunch of
||| people, then yes I would say there is something wrong with that
||| food.
||| I'm sure as hell not going to blame myself for having cravings,
||| since they aren't a moral failing, they're a sign of a chemical
||| problem
||| caused by a particular food.
|||
||| Going by your logic, if you get sick from some spoiled or
||| undercooked food, don't dare say there's something wrong with that
||| food. It's
||| your fault for not being able to handle it, ok?

 

[Nicky]

"Luna" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> I'm starting to wonder if there's something wrong with nuts. Seriously.
> They are high fat and high protein, so theoretically they should be
> filling, but they aren't. I've tried all different kinds of nuts, and
> once
> I eat a few, it takes tremendous effort to stop eating them. Just like
> popcorn, potato chips, and other carby junk food.

If I eat them on their own, then I get the same reaction. But if I know I'll
eat lunch late, I'll add just 2 or 3 walnuts to my morning porridge, and
stay full for at least an hour longer than usual.

Nicky.

--
HbA1c 10.5/5.7/<6 Weight 95/79/72
1g Metformin, 75ug Thyroxine
T2 DX 05/2004