Grim realization re: carbs

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
franxious
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: New Jersey

Grim realization re: carbs

Post by franxious » Sun May 11, 2008 2:41 pm

I've been on No-S for 4 1/2 months now.

Initially, my problem was crazy S-days. I've been doing much better with that lately. I think I still tend to eat meals that are too large, but in a modest way; not towering mountains of food or anything. At one point, I had lost 10 lbs.

I hid my scale several weeks ago because whatever the reading was, good or bad, somehow it always ended up negatively influencing my behavior.

I started to suspect that I was gaining weight, however. Clothing was getting tighter, and I could see an unattractive "filled in" appearance all over my body and face.

At the same time, I had become somewhat intoxicated with the "Now I can eat carbs!" idea. Before No-S, I ate low carb as a rule, but often binged on high-carb food.

So I think that if I eat refined carbs (such as hamburger buns, french fries, and other stuff that I used to avoid), I am still going to gain weight, even on No-S. Especially if I have high-carb treats on S days.

I pulled out the scale, and had gained back 6 of the 10 lbs I had lost. So, thankfully, I'm not back where I started, but I was bummed to see that I was back into the 160s.

I love bread and baked goods. I also love the sanity of No-S and the lack of guilt and the preponderance of almost effortlessly reaaonable eating days. So, even if I didn't go low-carb now, I am still happy to be repairing my relationship with food. But, I really do want to lose weight, too. So I'm afraid that I'm going to have to at least cut back on the carbs.
I will start slow until I find the point at which I can still lose; I'm not going to go crazy, and you'll never find me eating disgusting erzatz products that are supposed to mimic bread or pancakes or whatever.

Them's the breaks!

Lisa

DebbiAnn
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:43 pm
Location: Jamestown, CA

Post by DebbiAnn » Sun May 11, 2008 3:57 pm

I have only been on this for 2 weeks and also noticed a weight game. I too have gone crazy with carbs. Potato salad, mac & cheese, etc. I was thinking about doing low carbs on N days and adding some carbs, sweets on s days. I also want to loose weight, but I really like this way of eating.

hope you find success

Debbi

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Sun May 11, 2008 5:02 pm

At the end of the day, the only thing that is going to cause weight gain is consuming more calories than you burn -- doesn't matter what they are.

French fries aren't a refined carb. They're not the healthiest thing or the lowest calorie thing, but they're not a refined carb.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Sun May 11, 2008 5:17 pm

It's not the carbs, it's the calories,
i.e. not the KIND of gas you are putting in the car, but the AMOUNT of gas.
If you take in more food than you burn, you gain weight.

I find that foods with refined carbs are very easy to chew and swallow, and pleasant to the taste.
My body can hold a lot of them at one time,
and they leave my stomach quickly.
They are almost always mixed with lots of dense fats,
And it's very easy for me to overeat on refined carbs.
But to avoid big-time binging on them, one needs to learn to limit them, not to exclude them.
Here's a quote from a book I recently read:
  • A Constant Failure
    "While low-carb diets may seem to provide good, fast results, over the course of time, they're all failures.
    The reason people turn to a low-carb diet in the first place seems to make sense:
    They think that when you limit the amount of carbs you eat,
    the body will burn its stores of fat for fuel —
    but that's wrong!

    Many of these diets replace dietary carbs with fat,
    and instead of burning the fat already stored in the body,
    your metabolism burns the fat you're ingesting.
    You may see quick results,
    but the lost weight is mostly water weight and muscle mass,
    leaving you with just as much fat on your bones as you had before."
I've done lots of low-carb diets,
and they were successful during the time I was on them
because it seems easier not to have any carbs than just a few.

I always lost lots of weight on low-carb...but it wasn't a fat loss,
because as soon as I began eating a normal low-calorie diet,
and my body's salt/water/waste levels normalized
it all came back.

Still....even knowing this, sometimes I crave the quick weight drop..
and can fool myself into believing that "This time" that low-carb weight-loss will be permanent.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

franxious
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by franxious » Sun May 11, 2008 6:12 pm

dvmccown wrote:I have only been on this for 2 weeks and also noticed a weight game. I too have gone crazy with carbs. Potato salad, mac & cheese, etc. I was thinking about doing low carbs on N days and adding some carbs, sweets on s days. I also want to loose weight, but I really like this way of eating.

Yes, this is what I was thinking. I don't want to cut out carbs completely, by any means.

Brightangel and Wosnes, I respectfully disagree that "a calorie is a calorie." I think the same number of carb calories will turn to fat more easily than the same number of fat or protein calories. However, I realize that this is the minority opinion. Actually, I really am eating less than I was before. I used to snack all day long. Now I have one normal plateful of food three times a day on N days, and that plus a snack or two on N days.

Anyway, thanks for responding. I'll let you know if I see any difference after trying No-S + low carb.

kccc
Posts: 3957
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Sun May 11, 2008 6:18 pm

My suggestion is to gradually (and I do mean gradually) replace the most refined carbs in your diet with whole-grain carbs. Start with whatever is easiest for you. For example, brown rice for white, whole grain breads (or partially) for white.

Add in whole grains that you don't eat as often (I love barley!).

The high-fiber carbs fill you up faster and digest slower. And, once you wean yourself from refined/white stuff, they're extremely satisfying. They really taste a LOT better!

(Also, once you get the "I can have this - wow!" out of your system, you may naturally cut back to levels that work for you.)

DebbiAnn
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:43 pm
Location: Jamestown, CA

Post by DebbiAnn » Sun May 11, 2008 8:19 pm

KCCC said it best. "once you get this 'I can eat this' WOW" out your system" things will calm down.

maybe I need to take a second look at just how much food is on that plate, and shrink it a little. eventually I might get back to normal. I did weight watchers for the last 6 months. I know I can live on less food, but I have this "it's got to carry me over to the next meal." mentality out of my system . I still have that carbs are bad voice in my head also.

Lisa I hope you find a happy medium. if so please let me know.

Debbi

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Sun May 11, 2008 8:58 pm

franxious wrote:[ I think the same number of carb calories will turn to fat more easily than the same number of fat or protein calories.
You couldn't be more wrong and science doesn't support that at all. Low-carb is nothing more than a form of calorie restriction.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

User avatar
JustAnnie
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:08 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by JustAnnie » Sun May 11, 2008 9:24 pm

I think the balance plate proportions are key here. If you divide your plate into 4 quarters, only allow 1/4 of your plate to be carbs. Give 1/4 to protein and the remaining 2/4 to fruits and veggies. You can't go wrong with these proportions.

Also, get some exercise in every day you possibly can, even if it's just cleaning house vigorously or taking the stairs instead of the elevator.

These methods have helped me shed 32 pounds since I started this two years ago.
Just Annie

You Can't Fail Until You Quit Trying

franxious
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by franxious » Mon May 12, 2008 12:27 am

wosnes wrote:
franxious wrote:[ I think the same number of carb calories will turn to fat more easily than the same number of fat or protein calories.
You couldn't be more wrong and science doesn't support that at all. Low-carb is nothing more than a form of calorie restriction.
Depends on what sources you use. For example:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9649C8B63

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Mon May 12, 2008 12:56 pm

The problem with science writers and scientists and nutritionists is that they get bad cases of tunnel vision. They isolate one thing and look at it separately from everything else -- which isn't how we eat.

This is from a variety of Dr. McDougall's newsletters. While I don't agree with his recommendations (he gets tunnel vision, too, based on his beliefs), he knows more about the science behind diet and nutrition than most:
The Human Body Does Not Turn Sugar to Fat

The process of synthesizing fat from sugar is known as de novo lipogenesis—the new production of fat. This activity is highly efficient in some animals, such as pigs and cows—which is one reason they have become popular people foods—these animals can convert low-energy, inexpensive carbohydrates—grass, say, in the case of cows and grains for pigs—into calorie-dense fats. However, human beings are very inefficient at this process and as a result de novo lipogenesis does not occur under usual living conditions in people. Thus the common belief that sugar turns to fat is scientifically incorrect—and there is no disagreement about this fact among scientists or their scientific research.5-8

Under experimental laboratory conditions, however, where people are overfed large amounts of simple sugars, the human body will resort to converting a small amount of sugar into a small amount of fat (triglycerides) in the liver. For example, in one recent study, trim and obese women were overfed with 50% more calories than they usually ate—note, 535 of these extra calories each day came from four and a half ounces (135 grams) of refined sugar. In this forced-fed situation, the women produced less than 4 grams (36 calories) of fat daily from the extra carbohydrate.8 Extrapolation from these findings means a person would have to be overfed by this amount of food and table sugar every day for nearly 4 months in order to gain one extra pound of body fat from the conversion of sugar to fat—by de novo lipogenesis. Obviously, even overeating substantial quantities of sugar is a relatively unimportant source of body fat. (So where does all that fat come from?—the fat you eat is the fat you wear.)

Sugar Does Not Cause Obesity

A universally accepted mantra among dieters is, “Don’t eat starches—starches turn to sugar—sugar makes you fat.†If this were true then obesity would be rampant among rice-eating Japanese—obviously, the opposite is the case. Worldwide, populations with the highest consumption of carbohydrate are the trimmest and fittest.9

Studies of people also show that the higher their sugar intake the lower their calorie intake and the fewer people who are overweight.10 This makes a lot of sense because when you add carbohydrate (even pure sugar) to the diet then fat must be removed—kind of a fat-sugar seesaw—one goes up, then the other must go down. Fat is very concentrated in calories (9 per gram vs. 4 for pure sugar), fat is almost effortlessly stored, and fat provides little appetite satisfaction. Thus, replacing fat in the diet with sugar will cause weight loss. Furthermore, the practice by “low-carbohydrate dieters†of decreasing sugar intake often results in a higher calorie intake, because of all the fat that is added.

Fructose Promotes Obesity

Fructose is the most powerful sweetener of all naturally-occurring sugars; even table sugar (sucrose) owes much of its taste to fructose. (Sucrose is a disaccharide made of one glucose and one fructose molecule.) Corn is the most common source of this kind of sugar and is designated by the name high fructose corn syrup (HFCS). This cheap brand of sugar now represents 40% of the caloric sweeteners added to foods and beverages, and is the sole sweetener used in soft drinks in the United States. (Note: Coca-Cola in the old fashioned bottles from Mexico is made from the natural sugar, glucose.)

De novo lipogenesis, the synthesis of fat from sugar, occurs readily with fructose, whereas with other kinds of simple sugars, like glucose, this synthesis does not commonly occur.11 Many experts blame the recent rise in obesity on high fructose corn syrup consumption.12 The use of this HFCS has increased by more than 1000% between 1970 and 1990.13 Fructose affects hormones very much like the way that fat does; it increases hunger, which results in more dietary fat and food intake. In addition, fructose does not stimulate brain satiety, as glucose does.

Under usual living situations carbohydrates do not turn into body fat. Rather than being stored, excess carbohydrate calories are burned off as body heat, eliminated through the lungs and skin. Only by consuming very large amounts of refined flours and simple sugars will the body resort to converting carbohydrate into fat, a process called de novo lipogenesis. Fructose, often present as high fructose corn syrup and found in sodas and candies, is an exception in that this one form of simple carbohydrate is easily converted into body fat. Otherwise, think: “Carbohydrates found in rice, potatoes, broccoli and bananas will keep me thin and healthy—just like they do for people living in Asia and Peru.â€
The problem isn't "carbs" or sugar, it's HFCS, which is substantially more concentrated than the corn syrup we can buy in the grocery. This is from bestnaturalfoods.com:
Chances are good that you have eaten high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) at least once this week. It is hard to avoid. In fact, virtually all foods that contain caloric sweeteners sold in a regular supermarket, including soft drinks, fruit drinks, canned fruits, dairy desserts, flavored yogurts, baked goods, cereals, and jellies, are sweetened with this inexpensive corn-derived sugar. There are obvious reasons why the food industry has embraced HFCS but recent news may jeopardize its status as a safe additive. This evidence comes as no surprise to health enthusiasts who have long suspected this unnatural sweetener.
The prevalence of HFCS in the American food supply has steadily increased over the last couple of decades. Modifying regular corn syrup with enzymes makes a sweeter corn syrup with more fructose. HFCS is an inexpensive product (11 cents per pound) that blends well in foods and has a long shelf life. In 1970, HFCS represented less than 1% of all caloric sweeteners. Today, due in large part to the growth of the soft drink industry, HFCS accounts for 42% of all added caloric sweeteners. According to a study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (May, 2004), use of HFCS in soft drinks increased 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990. The average American consumes over 130 calories daily of HFCS (roughly eight teaspoons). What’s more astounding is that 20% of the population consumes over 300 calories each day from HFCS or about 15% of their total daily calorie requirement.

For years, proponents of a whole foods diet have pointed the finger at HFCS, labeling it unhealthy primarily because it is a refined sugar. Critics say these empty calories are a risk factor for diabetes by placing an excess burden on the insulin-secreting pancreas. Another concern is that HFCS provides no essential nutrients. The body needs specific nutrients to function properly; those consuming several hundred calories of HFCS each day are often overfed and undernourished. Now scientists are pointing their finger at HFCS, saying it is unhealthy because of its high fructose content. The body metabolizes fructose differently than sucrose (table sugar) or glucose - a factor that may cause obesity and other health problems. For instance, too much fructose in the diet favors the synthesis of new fat stores, a process called de novo lipogenesis. To make matters worse, unlike the sugar glucose, fructose does not stimulate insulin secretion or trigger leptin production. Insulin and leptin secretion are key hormones that help the body regulate food intake. Thus too much fructose as HFCS may cause us to gain weight by stimulating fat synthesis and interfering with the body’s fullness signals. Excess fructose intake may also disturb liver function, although this disease risk needs to be studied further.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

Dawn
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:47 pm
Location: So Cal

Post by Dawn » Mon May 12, 2008 6:23 pm

Lisa,

Even if you are the correct one in the debate on carb calories being worse than other calories, does the lower carb lifestyle work for you? Can you incorporate it into the No-S plan and really stick to it? You know, several people do incorporate other plans or parts of plans into No-S and it really works for them. But if you just can't stick with it or it messes with the integrity of No-S in general, then maybe it's not the answer.

You have to do what works for you. If Weight Watchers was the perfect plan that the commercials claim it is, then we would all be on it and we would all be thin. But I also think when we don't lose the weight as fast as we want - or at all, and then we tend to focus on one thing and kinda blame that one thing. I think if you focus on the over all picture and make small changes you will see that you really aren't doing anything wrong, you just needed to tighten the screws on a few things.

That's what I did and after 2+ months of no loss at all, it is finally happening for me and I am not worrying about carbs or anything outside of the vanilla No-S. Of course it's going slow, but I really feel I am going in the right direction. I figure at the rate I am going it will take at least a year to lose the 17 pounds I started this with.

Good luck and keep us posted as to what changes you make and how they affect your weight.
Dawn

User avatar
JustAnnie
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 4:08 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by JustAnnie » Mon May 12, 2008 6:54 pm

I am Type 2 Diabetic and very carb sensitive. The issue with me is not if carb calories and fat calories burn at the same rate but rather how I feel after eating them. If I were to eat all carbs my blood sugar would rise and I would become ravenous. When I eat fats my appetite is surpressed but I certainly don't believe in clogging my arteries with fat either. That's why the balance plate works for me.

I believe Dawn in correct. You have to find what works for you and then do it. I believe everyones' bodies metabolize food in slightly different ways.
Just Annie

You Can't Fail Until You Quit Trying

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Tue May 13, 2008 2:58 pm

JustAnnie wrote:You have to find what works for you and then do it.
That statement gets my vote.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

franxious
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by franxious » Wed May 14, 2008 12:18 pm

Unfortunately, none of us (as far as I can tell) is actually doing the research that might put an end to this question. For every opinion about carbs, you can find an opposite opinion held by an equally qualified person. So it becomes a battle of the researchers, rather than a battle of the facts.

All I know is that when I stopped worrying about carbs (but still stuck to the letter of the law No-S wise), I started to gain weight. Now I'm going back to restricting the most easily digested carbs, not in a fascistic way, but in a moderately strict way.

So far, it seems to be working...

trytrytry
Posts: 94
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 6:46 am

Post by trytrytry » Thu May 22, 2008 6:07 pm

If I were to eat all carbs my blood sugar would rise and I would become ravenous
Do you guys think carbs might trigger you to binge? Especially things high in refined carbs? Maybe they are just too easy to digest, hence it is so easy to eat way too much?

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Thu May 22, 2008 10:33 pm

Do you guys think carbs might trigger you to binge? Especially things high in refined carbs? Maybe they are just too easy to digest, hence it is so easy to eat way too much?
trytrytry,

I think all of those points are true .. carbs can trigger bingers, especially highly refined carbs, and actually it may be because they completely lack any fiber that it is easy to overeat...

that being said, I don't particularly like refined carbs other than in my treats so I mostly avoid those these days ... other than my treats :D

Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

mikew
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 12:40 am

Post by mikew » Fri May 23, 2008 2:07 am

BrightAngel wrote:It's not the carbs, it's the calories,
i.e. not the KIND of gas you are putting in the car, but the AMOUNT of gas.
If you take in more food than you burn, you gain weight.


Hi, I was on a fairly strict low carb diet for 1.5 years. I ate tons of food. Yet, I lost about 105 pounds. I was actually back into normal people clothes! I think there is actually some truth to being able to lose weight easier with low carbs. To me though, it's downfall was that I was so craving carbs and so sick of meat, cheese, salads, low carb chocolate, etc. that when I fell off I binged on carbs for a year.

Anyway, just my experience.

Mike

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Fri May 23, 2008 10:52 am

mikew wrote:
BrightAngel wrote:It's not the carbs, it's the calories,
i.e. not the KIND of gas you are putting in the car, but the AMOUNT of gas.
If you take in more food than you burn, you gain weight.


Hi, I was on a fairly strict low carb diet for 1.5 years. I ate tons of food. Yet, I lost about 105 pounds. I was actually back into normal people clothes! I think there is actually some truth to being able to lose weight easier with low carbs. To me though, it's downfall was that I was so craving carbs and so sick of meat, cheese, salads, low carb chocolate, etc. that when I fell off I binged on carbs for a year.

Anyway, just my experience.

Mike
On the other hand...most of the slimmest people in the world eat diets based on carbs -- and not all whole grain carbs. They also tend not to eat a lot of food compared to us.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

resting52
Posts: 445
Joined: Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:59 pm
Location: Between the mountains and the beach

Post by resting52 » Fri May 23, 2008 12:01 pm

Just to put in my non scientific 2 cents:

To me it seems to be about the sugar. I've noticed that sweets have lost much of their appeal to me-although I enjoy them in moderation on the weekends. Wait, I don't even know if that is true. They actually make me feel pretty lousy. I know I'm clearer headed, have more energy, and more focus doing the NoS thing. Before I would have a big bowl of icecream after dinner and inevitably fall asleep in front of the TV. Or almost fall asleep at work after a sugary snack.

Again, I like such a simple gate on my behavior. I never expected this wakeful bonus.

Resting

franxious
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by franxious » Sun May 25, 2008 2:01 am

mikew wrote:[I think there is actually some truth to being able to lose weight easier with low carbs.
Yes, I think so too, although I truly do not want to get into a debate about this subject. It's kind of like debating who should be president. No one is going to change their mind.

And, I agree that the biggest problem with sticking to this kind of diet is the boredom/resentment that eventually occurs.

So, I'm thinking, low (relatively) carbs on N days, higher (relatively) carbs on S days, and certainly including the treat on S days. I'd like to lose 20 - 30 lbs, but I don't feel it's necessary to be fascistic about weight loss.

xJocelynx87
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 am

Post by xJocelynx87 » Sun May 25, 2008 2:34 am

In my opnion, calories are more important than carbs. As a former anorexic, when I was knee-deep in the disease, I was eating mostly carbs, but only about 500 calories per day, and dropping weight like I was getting paid.

The reason low-carb diets work has MORE to do with the fact that carbs are calorie-dense, therefore restricting or cutting them out completely causes a sharp decrease in the amount of calories.

Just my $.02 :-D

palomayombe
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Post by palomayombe » Sun May 25, 2008 2:20 pm

..................
Last edited by palomayombe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Sun May 25, 2008 7:59 pm

That being said ...
Hot off the press is a study from Penn State University investigating the effects of a whole-grain-enriched, low calorie diet on weight loss and cardiovascular disease risk factore in men and women with Metabolic Syndrome .... The results were quite interesting. There was no difference in the total amount of weight lost between the two groups; both groups lost 8-11 pounds. However, the group eating whole grains lost significantly more abdominal fat compared to the group eating refined starches and cereals. High levels of abdominal fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease all by itself, because it may be at the root of elevating some other factors systemically in the body that can elevate heart disease.
from an article in june 2008 fitness RX magazine by Susan M. Kleiner, PHD, FACN, CNS, FISSN

you know what they say ... thin is not necessarily healthy ... :D

Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

palomayombe
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Post by palomayombe » Mon May 26, 2008 2:30 pm

.............
Last edited by palomayombe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Tue May 27, 2008 1:54 am

Was that date March 1964? :D

I am certain they must have come up with absolutely NO RELIABLE new information since then .........

Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

Kathi
Posts: 34
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 1:59 am

Post by Kathi » Tue May 27, 2008 3:01 am

I don't know all the science behind carbs, but I do know how my body reacts. I tried a low-glycemic diet for a week or so awhile back, and then I inadvertently limited carbs my first two weeks on No-S (because I added more protein to carry me over to the next meal).

Both times I felt more energetic and considerably less irritable. During my initial N-days on No-S, I might have been a little hungry as it got closer to the next meal, but I didn't obsess about food. Then came my first S-day, and wham! I started the day with a chocolate donut and it was all downhill from there. Not just eating-wise--my mood plummeted as well. So, of course, I turned to more sweets to make me feel better, which I did, so long as I was eating the treat...and then, wham, crashed again. Due to a special day, I had three S-days in a row, and it was like coming off a alcoholic binge by that next Monday.

I had another good week of N-days, another disastrous S-weekend, a so-so week of N-days...and finally I slipped off No-S altogether. Mind you, when I say carbs I'm not talking about brown rice and oranges--I mean sweets and bread in any way, shape, or form. The so-so N-week was filled with lots of bread and pasta, and I was very hungry and irritable between meals, so I had a few small snacks. That set up a new pattern (well, actually a very old pattern) of "I blew it already, so why not just keep eating?"

So, anyway, I think I'm modifying my vanilla No-S somewhat. On N-days I won't skip bread or other carbs, but I'll try to focus on the protein and fruits and veggies. On S-days, I'll try a snack during the day and one very decadent dessert after dinner (seconds were never my problem to begin with). I'm trying less for weight loss at this point and more to get off this mood/food rollercoaster.

I have no idea whether I'm "carb sensitive," and I got terribly sick on Atkins (after five days, had heart palpitations and then almost passed out in my basement, with three sleeping kids upstairs and DH out of town). I just know that I love refined carbs but they don't love me!

Remy
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:31 am

Post by Remy » Tue May 27, 2008 6:04 am

I recently read an interesting book "Potatoes not Prozac" which links sugar sensitivity and diet. I don't know how relevant it may be to you but I found that the description of a sugar addict was me to a tee. I have no willpower to resist eating when I am on a high sugar/refined carb diet.

The book discusses various studies linking brain chemicals and hormones with diets. It is not a diet book per se but more explaining what may be happening to sugar sensitive people when they crave sugars and carbs.

Anyway this book led me to the no-s diet and I certainly feel better (less on a rollercoaster of emotions) when I cut out sugar/refined carbs and even "pretend" sugars. So although a calorie is a calorie when it comes to losing weight in principal, I can't lose weight on a sugar/carb diet because I literally can't stop eating so I always consume excess calories. I really feel like an alcoholic or drug addict in my desperation for food. And I also can't stand the way I feel or how grumpy I become.

It may be all in my head but I know I feel better when I restrict sugars and refined carbs. Therefore I won't be having them on n-days and I will be having them later in the day and in moderation on s-days.

As someone said earlier we are all different and what makes one person able to stick to a diet may not be the same for another. Do what makes you feel good and helps you to feel in control.

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Tue May 27, 2008 2:35 pm

Remy wrote: Do what makes you feel good and helps you to feel in control.
I think your statement above is Excellent advice.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

palomayombe
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Post by palomayombe » Tue May 27, 2008 10:35 pm

////////////////////
Last edited by palomayombe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mavilu
Posts: 319
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:57 pm
Location: California

Post by Mavilu » Tue May 27, 2008 11:09 pm

I find that the common belief that carbs will make you gain extra weight or gain weight faster or in special places or whatever is a very hard to erradicate myth.
After seeing students argue to no end with their professors of Nutritional Sciences classes about it, I mean, seriously: arguing with the ones that know better and while having their textbooks open on the relevant issue disproving them, I don't even get into these discussions any longer, it's not worth it.

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Thu May 29, 2008 2:35 am

And I'm certain you don't know what you are talking about.
grump. grump. grump. :P someone must have had a grumpy sandwich today.... probably on white bread :D

hahahahhahahehehhehhehehhoohohoho

Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

franxious
Posts: 136
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 8:00 pm
Location: New Jersey

Post by franxious » Thu May 29, 2008 1:02 pm

Hee hee.

But seriously folks, this has turned into a completely useless discussion. I could, but will not, cite quite as many studies as you could ever wish to see, proving the low carb hypothesis. Because what would it accomplish? You [anti-low-carbers] are in your camp, I am in my camp. What would it take to persuade you to change sides? Probably nothing short of a retraction by the authors you trust. Same here. But that's probably not going to happen, so let's drop this...

palomayombe
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Post by palomayombe » Thu May 29, 2008 5:39 pm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last edited by palomayombe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Thu May 29, 2008 5:44 pm

Someone must have had an Atkins Advantage bar today (Yuuuuk!!!!!!!).
What in the heck is THAT!

some scientific creation posing as food based on a peer reviewed study? :roll:

Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Thu May 29, 2008 5:54 pm

blueskighs wrote:
Someone must have had an Atkins Advantage bar today (Yuuuuk!!!!!!!).
What in the heck is THAT!

some scientific creation posing as food based on a peer reviewed study? :roll:
I remember eating those bars at some point in my past.
I found them SOOOOOOO awful tasting.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

wirerat123
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 1:30 am

Post by wirerat123 » Thu May 29, 2008 6:02 pm

The special K protein bars are incredibly good!
SW = 205
CW = 178
TW = 165

NoS is working for me!

palomayombe
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Post by palomayombe » Fri May 30, 2008 12:46 am

/////////////////
Last edited by palomayombe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

blueskighs
Posts: 1787
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 4:11 am
Location: California

Post by blueskighs » Fri May 30, 2008 2:13 am

You know ...
I think it was you that didn't know what I was talking about.

I am not a proponent of low carb diets and I do not adhere to one so I don't I understand why you won't get off my back and leave me alone!

WHOEVER you are ARGUING WITH IT IS NOT ME! SO PLEASE LEAVE ME ALONE AND TAKE YOU GRUMPS YOUR GRIPES YOUR ATKINS ADVANTAGE BARS AND YOUR METABOLIC ADVANTAGE DOGMA AND WHATEVER OTHER CRUD YOU ARE SO OBESSESSED WITH SOMEWHERE ELSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


thank you
Blueskighs
www.nosdiet.blogspot.com Where I blog daily about my No S journey

palomayombe
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:39 pm

Post by palomayombe » Sat May 31, 2008 1:01 am

***********
Last edited by palomayombe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

kccc
Posts: 3957
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:25 am

Um... can everyone tone it down?

One of the nicest thing about No-S is that there's no dogma about overall food choices - on carbs, proteins, or anything else. :)

My own belief is that there is a lot of individual variation as far as reactions to different diets, which western science is only beginning to unravel. Hence the many conflicting claims, all of which may be entirely true for the subjects being studied but which may not generalize to the population at large.

At any rate, it's just not worth arguing over. Particularly by people who are normally very easy-going and helpful on this board. :)

xJocelynx87
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:17 am

Post by xJocelynx87 » Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:35 am

Agreed. What's with the hostility on this board lately? It's so uncharacteristic of everyone here. It's summer, lighten up :-D

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:11 pm

Folks,

Carbs vs. whatever is a not a subject about which I personally have strong feelings.

But I do have strong feelings about keeping things civil on this board.

So please, please, think twice before posting something aggressive.

And think twice more before taking offense. That's almost guaranteed to just escalate things further.

If you're burning with indignation and want to get it out somehow, feel free to private message or email me.

Thanks in advance for your tolerance and understanding,

Reinhard

gingercake
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 5:19 am
Location: western U.S.

Post by gingercake » Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:28 pm

I recently read an interesting book "Potatoes not Prozac" which links sugar sensitivity and diet. I don't know how relevant it may be to you but I found that the description of a sugar addict was me to a tee. I have no willpower to resist eating when I am on a high sugar/refined carb diet.
Love this book and learned a lot from it as well as from the author's other books.
I definitely can't manage my food if I'm eating very much refined carb. It just does a number on my body that I can't deal with. Fortunately, I've come to prefer whole foods...brown rice, whole wheat pasta, interesting whole grains. Last summer I ate as a vegetarian and ate a ton more carbs than usual (mostly in the form of beans and rice) and feared I'd gain, but I didn't. I really believe that it's the quality of the carbs that matters most.

swimfit
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:26 pm

Post by swimfit » Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:16 am

if you liked "Potatoes not Prozac" then you might be interested in
"Sugar Shock"

funfuture
Posts: 577
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:00 am

Post by funfuture » Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:14 am

I have to say, I don't have an opinion about low carb/high carb, but I also fit the 'sugar addict' description to a tee - and I have a really hard time on S days if I start eating sugary carbs - just can't stop.

And it's interesting, but I too find that NoS gives me more energy and leaves my head much clearer - I posted about that as a thread to the discussion board some time ago. No S is great. And it's great because it is an approach to eating that anyone can use, regardless of his or her beliefs. :-)

Post Reply