Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
Today my hairdresser and I got into a discussion about diets.
Good Advice from a No S forum Member.oolala53 wrote:It really is going to be somewhat a matter of deciding
that this is important enough for you to go through some times of toughing things out.
But sometimes, having the right motivation can help.
Down deep, you want to do this, but in your moments of temptation,
the present urges outweigh the long-term desire.
This is actually natural. There is a perfectly good biological basis for it.
This doesn't mean it should be an excuse,
but knowing about it can give one the impetus to muster the effort to thwart it.
One idea that might help to know, is that reports of successful losers on the National Weight Loss Registry
show that learning to stop a slide off one's plan right away
was considered to be the turning point for many maintainers.
It can be easy to get on a roll, but sooner or later, most losers hit a point at which it's not particularly easy
to stick with their restrictions, whatever they are, and they eat too much.
They say they just stop right as they realize it, and just wait until the next appropriate time to eat.
Many were not successful at this many times before they got determined enough to stick with it.
Even two or three times of doing this can reinforce a sense of control.
As one of the other posters said, "Yes, you can".
Hard to hear, but actually, when you do it, it's exhilirating!
And it starts creating new memories of new habits, which is what this is all about.
it can be the same decision to just stick to say,
a 3-hour time frame of not eating in the morning between your 9 a.m. breakfast and a noon lunch.
While you are working up to compliance, you might allow yourself a mid-morning tea break.
You'll notice that much of the time you want to eat, you are not actually empty-stomach hungry.
The urges to eat when we are not hungry are very similar to the thoughts of obsessive compulsives
in that there is a specific brain pattern that reinforces the strength of the urges,
and there is a strong, false sense that something terrible will happen if the urges are not obeyed.
When OC-ers acknowledge that the urge they experience to wash their hands or whatever
is not actually an emergency and they then turn their attention over and over to another activity,
it was found that their brain patterns changed
and they experienced a great decrease in the intensity and frequency of the urging thoughts
over a period of weeks.
The same brain change happens with food impulses.
Participating in the urg-ent behavior reinforces and strengthens the cycle,
in fact more so the more they eat; resisting it greatly decreases it,
but not usually before the urges get stronger!
(That's when people usually give in; then the cycly gets reinforced again,
and they think it is impossible to end.)
And they reduce in cycles.
It is not a linear change and certainly not a big drop off for most people.
I'm sure that you see this matches your own experience,
and dovetails with what Reinhard tells us about habit change,
though he doesn't use all the chemical foundations.
It FEELS as if you can't do anything
because your brain is sending very powerful messages to other parts of your body and your mind.
But they are false emergencies, and mostly represent habit.
Plain old habit!
Not immorality, slovenliness, emotional weakness, or the like,
though the urges are often paired with certain emotions,
and not always negative ones.
The bottom line is that if you don't do something to thwart these habits,
they will likely continue.
Others have made very good suggestions about behaviors;
I've tried to give one about the reasonable motivation to adhere to those behaviors.
It is worth the effort! it will become easier!
The greater your adherence to moderation, the easier it will be sooner,
but do expect it to take more than a few weeks to feel relatively solid.
OlderandNotWiser wrote:BrightAngel,
This is unrelated to the overall topic here, but I just had to jump in and say
that I was fascinated by your use of the term "hobby" in regards to dieting.
I have often stressed over the fact that dieting was one of my main "hobbies"
and thought other people would not consider it a valuable use of time
(compared with other hobbies, I guess).
In fact, that is partly why I cling to No S despite the fact that I have some difficulties with it.
My understanding is that No S has the "benefit"
of putting dieting into the background of your life and making it less of a hobby.
But maybe I shouldn't worry so much about having dieting as a hobby.
When you say it, it sounds legitimate and reasonable.
Maybe dieting as a hobby is just a fact of my life,
just like stamp collecting is a fact of someone else's life.
Thanks for helping think about this in a new light!
OlderandNotWiser,Yeah, hallejuah, amen sister, way to go, fantastic, awesome, rock onBrightAngel wrote: In fact, I am in the process of...(sometime in 2011)....
creating a Blog at my brand new Domain, DietHobby.com.
which I bought specifically for that purpose.[/color]
Overcoming obstacles one at a time
Our goals may not come easy.
There is no accomplishment without work,
and no "win" without something to beat.
It's easy to get discouraged when roadblocks appear--
--in fact, it's only natural.
We've invested time and emotion into creating the perfect plan,
and then something has to come along and muck it all up.
Sometimes, though, all we have to do to beat that barrier
is to get back up and move forward again.
Obstacles are like the Wizard behind the curtain—
--they're a lot less intimidating once we see them up close.
Next time we take a step back,
don't let guilt pile it on top of our previous "stumbles."
Just take two steps forward
and we're still farther along than we were before.
It doesn't matter how many walls we face.
We only have to get the better of that last one.
Fall seven times. Stand up eight.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Japanese Proverb
This morning I saw this post on a Low Carb Thread,Obviously I’m Stupid
...because I've learned nothing over the past year.
For the last week I have been eating pretty much whatever
and however I've wanted...and it is reflected on my scale.
How can it take a month or more to *lose* 10 pounds
and a week to put it right back on?
All I can think looking back at this last week is that sugar makes me stupid.
Even by yesterday when I was obviously feeling the effects of this added weight,
not to mention the carbs and sugar running through my body,
I was still eating that crud and thinking,
"I can't wait until tomorrow so I can stop eating this junk."
After breakfast this morning I'm going to be cleaning out the pantry
and all the junk...and stuff to make junk...is going into the trash.
Stick a fork in me because I'm 'done' and so ready to get back to my low carb eating.
***
Start Weight: 330
Current Weight: 236
Future Goal Weight 130
Now that December is ending and the New Year is almost here,
Here is a recent quote I found interesting,Kathleen wrote:I found an entire chapter on fasting in Rediscover Catholicism by Matthew Kelly.
Here is the first sentence I found on fasting:
"As I have observed it, people want a diet
that will allow them to eat whatever they want, whenever they want,
yet still allow them to look great, feel great, and lose that undesired weight.
Basically what we are looking for is a miracle product
that will remove the need for any discipline in our eating and exercise habits
so that we can continue to indulge in the hedonistic ways
that violate the-best-version-of-ourselves at every turn." (p. 251).
Later in the chapter on fasting, the author writes:
"Our lives change when our habits change.
Our habits change when we make resolutions,
remind ourselves of those resolutions,
hold ourselves accountable for them,
and perform them.
Sometimes we fail,
but there is no success that isn't checkered with failure.
Don't give up. Press on, little by little."
Those who have been following the posts between Kathleen and me on her Thread 
Although Kathleen and I do not agree on what those particular Behaviors are...Kathleen wrote:...the brilliance of The No S Diet is not in the specific rules of the diet.
Instead, the brilliance of the diet is in the philosophy
of cultivating habits that are sustainable for life and that result in weight loss.
It is so obvious that it almost seems like a tautology, but it is not:
the way to be thin is to cultivate habits that result in being thin.
Every year so far, I've promised myself 
Reading new diet books is part of my Hobby,
Re Gary Taubes' new book "Why we get fat and what to do about it" 
Many of you who follow my Thread know that for the past 6 months or so, Behavior Goals: 
Result Goals: (Any or all of these would be great.)so I'm going for it NOW.Nothing will ever be attempted
if all possible objections must first be overcome.
Kathleen,
I am experimenting with Low-Carb because I have not yet found 
“The fewer carbohydrates we consume, the leaner we will be. This is clear. But there’s no guarantee that the leanest we can be will ever be as lean as we’d like. This is a reality to be faced. As I discussed, there are genetic variations in fatness and leanness that are independent of diet. Multiple hormones and enzymes affect our fat accumulation, and insulin happens to be the one hormone that we can consciously control through our dietary choices. Minimizing the carbohydrates we consume and eliminating the sugars will lower our insulin levels as low as is safe, but it won’t necessarily undo the effects of other hormones….
This means that there’s no one-size-fits-all prescription for the quantity of carbohydrates we can eat and still lose fat or remain lean. For some, staying lean or getting back to being lean might be a matter of merely avoiding sugars and eating the other carbohydrates in the diet, even the fattening ones, in moderation; pasta dinners once a week, say, instead of every other day. For others, moderation in carbohydrate consumption might not be sufficient, and far stricter adherence is necessary. And for some, weight will be lost only on a diet of virtually zero carbohydrates, and even this may not be sufficient to eliminate all our accumulated fat, or even most of it.
Whichever group you fall into, though, if you’re not actively losing fat and yet want to be leaner still, the only viable option…is to eat still fewer carbohydrates, identify and avoid other foods that might stimulate significant insulin secretion…and have more patience. (Anecdotal evidence suggests that occasional or intermittent fasting for eighteen or twenty-four hours might work to break through these plateaus of weight loss, but this, too, has not been adequately tested) “
Happy New YearThis could help with a wide range of health problems, obesity, being one of them. Thanks for the heads up on the book.BrightAngel wrote: I recently read Gary Taubes' new book
"Why We Get Fat and What To Do About It"
The concepts in this book may be helpful to many of our obese members,
when combined together with the basic structure of the No S Diet.
This could especially be the case for those
for whom "vanilla" No S has resulted in little or no personal weight-loss,
or for those who find that "S days gone wild" don't subside after a reasonable trial period.
This is a copy of a few relevant posts from the General Thread.
BrightAngel wrote:Taubes' is a controversial science journalist, not a diet guru.wosnes wrote:I've not read either of Taube's books
I think he's a prime example of how anything can be proved using research.
He is famous because of his extremely accurate and thorough reporting
of the past 100 years of research in this area.
As you say, you have not read either of Taubes' books,
but merely read "comments" about them.
I do not believe that an unbiased person such as yourself,
who has your experience and intelligence,
would have that opinion after actually reading his books.
BrightAngel wrote:Taubes is not a Researcher, a science writer, or a scientist.wosnes wrote:I haven't read comments -- I've read articles written by Gary Taubes.
And I know that any science writer or researcher worth his/her salt can make anything sound credible.
He is not involved in science or research, except as as an award winning journalist
who researches and writes about controversial science issues.
Except for the really famous article written by Taubes-"What if it's a Big Fat Lie",
Taubes is not well-known for his articles, but for his books.
These made him famous, and there have been many articles by others about him.
It sounds like you read articles by others about Taubes, who perhaps quoted him out-of-context.
The famous New York Times article, and the book Good Calories Bad Calories,
are his primary previous written contributions to the Health care area.
I understand that previous to that he wrote a controversial book on a Physics issue,
and then another on an Engineering issue.
He seems to be sensible, down-to-earth, and unbiased, which is unusual
in such a brilliant man. He has a Physics degree from Harvard,
an Engineering degree from Stanford, and a Journalism degree from Columbia.
Your prejudice against him surprises me.
I can only suppose it is due to your lack of accurate information,
especially since he is so greatly respected and admired
by many of the natural food diet gurus that you frequently quote here in the forum.
I suggest you keep an open mind until you've actually read his book.
If you were to invest $14 and actually read his latest one,
I would then be quite interested in your opinion.
BrightAngel wrote:As a retired Attorney with 25 years of trial experience,Sharpie wrote:As a scientist and writer myself, I can vouch for this.
I can make anything sound good/credible and give you a whole page of references to boot.
Doesn't make it True (with a capital T) though.
Fortunately, (or not) most people stick to writing what they believe to be true.
Then you have to decide if you believe them yourself.
I agree with your statement of how easy it is to make people believe your opinion.
This, however, isn't applicable or on point in the present case.
I believe that most people who have read Taubes books
would agree that this...although true... simply misses the entire point.
The point is not what Taube's personal opinions or conclusions are, BASED on his research of the area.
The point is the shocking, but true, state of the actual scientifc research in this area.
BrightAngel wrote:wosnes wrote:If you look at all the slim, healthy populations throughout the world, most of their diets are based on a combination of whole and refined grains and legumes with vegetables, fruits, meat and dairy added as available and affordable. (There are just a handful whose diets are meat based.) One could say that it's genetics, but when people from those places come to the US and start eating like Americans, they develop the same weight and health issues as Americans.Both sides of the issues and questions stated above are discussed in detailjohn wrote:You know, on the topic of grain based diet of populations elsewhere in the world, I was also thinking about past populations. I believe the usual diet of a Roman Legionnaire was mostly grain(oats) with little meat or animal products? Any corrections or thoughts on this or other historical perspectives??
within the 500 pages of difficult reading in Taubes 2007 book, Good Calories Bad Calories.
which was written for the medical profession.
They are also discussed rather thoroughly in his new book,
Why We Get Fat and What to Do About It,
which is only 250 pages and was written for intelligent, average people.
If you are an open-minded person who is truly interested in both sides of those issues
you owe it to yourself to read Taubes' new book.
Without knowledge of the total picture, the validity of one's opinion is questionable.
To show you how important a book that I feel this is...
Although as part of my choice to treat dieting as a Hobby,
I read almost EVERYTHING published about dieting.
Some of these are good, some are not.
However, I have chosen to review only TWO books on Amazon.
One of them was the No S Diet, back in 2008.
The other is Taubes new book.
I have always been a calories-in-calories-out person,
and I am undecided about the unprocessed foods question...but beginning to lean toward natural foods.
However, my own experience,
put together with the details of the past 100 years of all dieting research,
has led me to my VERY RECENT experiment with low-carb eating.
At this point, I am totally undecided about its value to me.
After 6 months or so, I might have an opinion as to it's effectiveness,
now...I've just become open-minded enough to actually try to find out for myself.
I think that this is a very good point.TexArk wrote: I have also read enough in the past
to see the truth in the insulin argument for some people.
It is my opinion that those who have never been obese
and have never had a bingeing disorder would not be interested in this argument,
and it probably doesn’t even apply to them.
I loved this.Kathleen wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWW1vpz1ybo
gettheweightoff wrote:In an effort to live a lifestyle free from an obsession with diets ....
This appears to be a common Theme among members here.
I saw that Taubes' lecuture on YouTube when it first went up,TexArk wrote:http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/ims- ... aubes/8971
Update on my experiment of NoS Low Carb:
First two days ...I ...am extremely satisfied.
Kathleen wrote:Monday, January 3, 2011:
On Sunday, a local Minneapolis Star Tribune columnist, Katherine Kersten, said:
"Honesty, generosity and self-restraint don't come naturally to human beings.
These traits are difficult to acquire,
and require suppression or rechannelling of base human instincts.
Only a society with a moral system based on claims of transcendent truth
can help its citizens overcome their selfish tendencies and successfully cultivate virtue."
I have been pursuing a method of eating that would allow me to eat as much as I wanted.
I have wanted to lose weight on a diet without portion control.
It was a noble venture to find a way to avoid
the misery I certainly experienced with coventional diets,
but now I realize that it was all a dream:
the key to successful weight loss is moderation,
and moderation means portion control.
Sometimes long-cherished beliefs are hard to let go,
and sometimes they are a relief when you let them go.
I've had a long break-up with this notion that portion control isn't necessary, either,
but I think the recovery is going to be much easier.
At Last !
Way to Go! guadopt1997 wrote:Breakthrough research revealed in this book (Carb Lover's Diet) shows ............
It is important to remember that there are a lot of rules 
Reading it will provide a great deal of enlightenment 
One of the things I like best about Reinhard, (along with his Habit concept), Another relevant passage from the no-s diet book:reinhard wrote: No-s is, in a way, a lower-carb diet.
Sweets are carbs.
They're just easier to identify and more indisputably bad for you than other carbs.
They're the "low hanging fruit" of carbs.
So while I am not persuaded that the "carbness" of sweets
makes them worse than any other calories (to my mind,
it's all about the bigger picture behaviors they're associated with)
you're hedging your bets a little with no-s:
if they are in fact worse you are in fact eating less of them.
If you feel the need to add additional carb based restrictions to no-s,
you certainly can, it's an easy framework to hang additional rules onto.
...the No S Diet...is accommodating and unobtrustive enough
that you could combine it with another diet if you want to hedge your weight-loss bets,
want to take a systematic approach to specific nutritional issues...
People on No S...have reported combining it
with various types of low-carb plans,
the Shangri-La Diet, vegetarianism, and more.
Here's something I recently found amusing.
stonetoomany wrote:A UK comedy show has a diet club character
who promotes the “Half-calories Dietâ€.
She takes a chocolate bar and holds it up
She cuts the bar in two and says:
“Now look, you can eat this now because it is half the calories.
And because it's half the calories you can eat twice as much.â€
IT"S SO COOL...
I found this recent broadcast on obesity interesting and informative, Kathleen wrote:I have now read the first part of the book (first 8 chapters),
and I think it makes a compelling argument for why a portion control approach is a dead end.
Those who can manage to stay in a semi starved state do stay lean
but at the very high cost of being hungry all the time.
It IS a good argument against portion control (...in a Traditional balanced diet...).There are strong cravings at first, but for me they have already been greatly reduced,...stop reading now...until the end of the month, but I did skim through the rest of the book.
To me, taking a low carb approach means you'll have carb cravings that you can never satisfy,
which is similar to having cravings from a portion control approach.
I will be reading the rest of the book thoroughly
but more to evaluate what can be applied to fasting than what it says about a low carb approach,
and as a result my reading will be very biased.
I am very sorry to hear that.
If my current low-carb trial proves successful, I don't want to get into a discussion on the General Thread,Where would you like to have this discussion?
One way would be...
Very True.Kathleen wrote:Recognizing and acknowledging I have a bias is better than not recognizing it.
Amusing....but your sister-in-law's poor cooking skillsmy sister in law's low carb cheesecake cured me of ever being willing to try low carb
How about a discussion on the general forum instead of one of our threads?
I'd like to go through this chapter by chapter.
While I think going through it chapter by chapter would be great.
and make it extremely difficult for the two of us have a discussion.
I just had another idea.... TexArk wrote:I have worked my way through the first 17 chapters on Good Calories Bad Calories
and watched many of the lectures posted on internet.
I wanted to read through the science before the short version.
I am not a trained scientist, but a university critical reading and thinking teacher by profession.
I have been reading nutrition research for years, however,
and I find Taubes easy for a lay person to understand.
I see the logic and the reasoning in what I have been reading
and I am seeing evidence (albeit short term) for me.
I would like to join you and Kathleen in your discussion
I firmly agree that it should not be held on the main discussion board.
There is too much groundwork that has to be laid
to try to respond to comments from those who have not studied his writings.
Also, people who have tried some of the low carb diets in the past
may consider themselves experts
when they still don't know the science behind the diet.
I certainly do not want to get in an exchange with those
who are not open minded or resent this discussion.
TexArk, Thanks for your comment, While I welcome the additional participation by unbiased people, Over43 wrote:I would like to see this discussion. Personally I think Gary Taubes is brilliant.
Glaciers move faster than I did getting through Good Carbs, Bad Carbs, but it was worth it.
I have not read the second book yet, but plan on it.
Thanks for your comment. 
He is Brilliant...and well-educated.
EACH of those schools 
I just read this review by a Biochemist of Taubes' new book,In 2008, Gary Taubes' GCBC changed my life for the better.
I'm raving about his new book WWGF.
If you can't slog through GCBC, read WWGF because it might just save your sanity.
If you haven't taken a course in chemical thermodynamics and aren't sure he's correct, let me add –
he's right and no laws of thermo were harmed in his hypothesis.
But he's smart and educated enough for you to be safe in trusting the accuracy of his statements.
"Only need to count calories and move more"- buzz words and jingo phrases
......(especially when incomplete and misconstrued because of the complex subject matter)......
are dangerous things.
`Calories' (as they are currently misrepresented in the context of human nutrition) do not count.
I'm a biochemist and I teach thermo. I'm a parent (cook for my family).
I also eat and I'm thankful I'm a voracious reader and I found Taubes.
Keep in mind our bodies are much more than a simple mono-functional furnace –
which only burns fuel to produce heat. We need to eat for fuel, heat, insulation,
and what is always neglected in these discussions- constantly supplying raw materials.
We eat for all these reasons, for our 100 trillion cells that `turnover' at various rates,
but also for our 1000 trillion prokaryote symbiotic passengers that turnover all the time.
Cholesterol is never used for fuel- only for raw material.
And since these discussions seem to only ever mention fuel calories, this is crucial.
Cholesterol is so important to our structure and function
and for us to thrive that most cells can make it. Drugging it down might not be a good thing.
Restricting dietary fat and protein calories for energy to make cholesterol
(low calorie, semi-starvation diets)
or decreasing animal fat and protein components, raw materials,
to build it, or acquire it, and then blaming it for heart disease -might just be incorrect.
And there quite simply is no requirement in human nutrition for dietary carbohydrate.
Ingested carbohydrate is only used for fuel.
Don't you think that the body is a little more complex than a furnace?
So the simplistic directive –
do not eat much fat because it supplies 9 calories/gram
and it will make you fatter than if you eat carbohydrate, 4 calories/gram-
could be problematic.
Could it be that eating sugar, grains and carbohydrate is what's causing the trouble?
Read everything Taubes writes. It might save your life.
I know Kindle is about $10 and Google is about $14,
For those of you interested, 
Allegedly, my minimum protein requirement is between 20 grams (WHO) and 36 grams (US RDA).
I have been avoiding sugar and refined starch, I have many different measures of Success in this Low-Carb Experiment."A person who never made a mistake
never tried anything new."
.........................Albert Einstein
Here is a recent Boston Globe article that I found interesting. Eat less, move more’’ has been the exhortation
of countless physicians trying to encourage their patients to lose weight.
Alas, if it were only so simple.
The health benefits of not being overweight include reducing the risks
of diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease.
There are also aesthetic, social, and practical benefits to staying slim,
as anyone who has recently flown on a commercial airline can confirm.
And yet, more than two-thirds of adult Americans are either overweight
or obese, most struggling in vain to lose weight.
This advice is based on the premise that weight gain (or loss)
is all about the balance between calories in and calories out:
Excess energy is stored as fat, which is then burned when extra energy is required.
But, as Gary Taubes points out in this well-researched and thoughtful book,
what we eat and how it affects our metabolism may matter more than how much we eat.
Describing what he calls “the 20-calorie paradox,’’
he points out that for a lean 25- year-old to gain 50 pounds by the time he is 50,
all that is needed is to consume exactly 20 calories more that he burns per day, every day.
This is “less than a single bite of a . . . hamburger or croissant.
Less than 2 ounces of [soft drink] or the typical beer.
Less than three potato chips.’’
If calories in-calories out was all there was to it,
“you [would] need only to rein yourself in by this amount
— undereat by 20 calories a day — to undo it.’’
Or, perhaps, to exercise more.
Except that increased physical activity doesn’t always seem to result in weight loss.
Examining the effects of estrogen, cortisol, growth hormone,
and especially insulin on weight gain, Taubes suggests that
the way our carbohydrate-laden diet influences the secretion of and sensitivity to insulin
is likely the main cause of fat production and storage.
Much of what Taubes writes makes intuitive sense.
It is known, for example, that insufficient sleep is associated with being
overweight and obesity, which are caused in part by changes in two
hormones that govern hunger and satiety, ghrelin and leptin.
Taubes writes that while we accept that children eat more
when going through growth spurts (which are hormonally driven),
we are quick to assume that overweight people are that way
because of overeating and not that they may be overeating
because they are growing (in this case out instead of up).
And this connects with one of the most important messages of the book:
that while the popular perception is that fat people are somehow weak or deficient in character,
they may in fact have a heightened sensitivity to the effects of our modern diet
and to the resultant rapid and frequent swings in blood sugar levels
and insulin that lead to increased adiposity.
Some of this may be acquired, but much of it is likely genetic.
And while one can try to modify diet to counterbalance genetic susceptibilities,
judging a person based upon inherited traits
that have nothing to do with “strength of character’’ is both unfair and unhelpful.
So should we all live on steak, eggs, and romaine lettuce, forswearing everything else?
This seems extreme and even potentially dangerous,
especially for children and pregnant women, among others.
However, reconsidering how our diet affects our bodies,
how we might modify it to be healthier,
and being less harsh with those who struggle with their weight
are all worthy goals.
Taubes has done us a great service by bringing these issues to the table.
http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles ... e_get_fat/
For future reference, I'm copying this post from the General Thread.I find this statement interesting.Imogen Morley wrote:I know that if it comes to food,
addiction is more a matter of psychology than physiology,
but... nothing is impossible
I recall from the No S book, that Reinhard, personally, doesn't find the term "addiction" helpful,Imogen Morley wrote:How do you combat N-day cravings when they hit you like a ton of bricks? Ignore them, try to substitute?
What are your views about possible sugar addiction
(which has not yet been confirmed by science,
though a word "dependency" is often used in this context)?
That sounds like a reasonable plan for you, since you appearImogen Morley wrote:To free myself from the grip of my sugar dependency,
I've been toying with the idea of replacing sugar-laden desserts
with their healthier equivalents (sweetened with honey, xylitol, maple syrup).
"Natural" sweeteners seem to agree with my physiology much better than simple sugar,
as they do not provoke overwhelming cravings.
I'd like to treat those things like regular S-day indulgences,
to be enjoyed on special occassions and in moderation... if it's at all possible
osoniye wrote: What was your average carb intake before starting this low carb adventure?
I estimate that my “normal†average carb intake has been between 100 and 150,
So, there were simply less calories to take in as carbohydrates.
I have detailed daily records of my food-intake from 9/20/2004 through today.
To maintain at or near my current weight:….
There simply don’t appear to be any factors….
You might be interested in this chart of some detailed nutritional information.
I think your statement is correct,TexArk wrote:It seems to me that the main cause of kidney damage
is high blood sugar not protein,
and excessive protein seems to be a problem only
after there is kidney disease especially in the diabetic patient.
Does a Low Carb Diet Cause Kidney Damage?
The belief that high protein diets cause kidney damage is one reason why, for many years,
doctors warned people with diabetes that low carb diets would kill their kidneys.
Fortunately, this turns out not to be true.
While almost any intake of protein is a problem for people with advanced kidney disease,
studies have found repeatedly that for people with normal kidney function
or early diabetic changes the low carb diet not only doesn't promote kidney damage,
it also reduces blood pressure, which is a major cause of kidney damage
and may actually reverse early kidney changes.
In fact, people who are able to normalize their blood sugars with a low carb diet
often report that their kidney function recovers
and that microalbumin disappears from their urine.
A low-carbohydrate diet may prevent end-stage renal failure in type 2 diabetes.
A case report. Jorgen Vesti Nielsen et al. .Nutr Metab . 2006; 3: 23.
One possible reason this may happen is because a low carb diet
is really a high fat diet, not a high protein diet.
While protein might make up a larger percentage of intake on a low carb diet,
the actual amount of protein eaten is usually not all that different
from that found in a low fat diet.
Think of it this way. If I eat a hamburger with no bun and no fries and a salad
and you eat a hamburger, bun, and fries,
my protein intake may be 50% of the calories I ingest,
making it look like I'm eating a "high protein" diet.
You are eating the same amount of protein,
but the intake of all those high calorie carbohydrates makes your protein intake
a much smaller percentage of your total calorie intake,
so a nutritionist will consider this a safer, "lower protein" intake.
Meanwhile, someone eating a high carb diet has to contend with all the glucose
from those carbohydrates that are routed through the kidneys,
while the person eating the hamburger and salad will not
because their blood sugar will not rise out of a normal range.
If you are really concerned about possible problems with a high protein diet
and your kidneys, there is a simple solution.
Don't EAT a high protein diet.
Eat a low carbohydrate diet with just enough protein
to provide enough to repair your muscles and organs
and provide the glucose needed to run your brain.
Use the Protein Calculator you'll find here to determine
your exact protein need while eating a low carb diet.
A review of research evidence on the topic of whether low protein diets
actually help people with diabetes preserve kidney function published in
Sept of 2008 comes up with the suggestion that they do not,
and suggests that ACE inhibitors and ARBs are as effective
Copied here for reference and discussion.Member of Another Forum wrote:I'm not a nutritionist or a biochemist, but I am a chemical engineer by degree
and I've done plenty of mass/energy balances in my life.
The deficit does matter,
but most people seem to think the equation should be:
change in fat storage = calories eaten - calories used by body.
It is probably a lot more complicated than that, more like:
change in fat = calories eaten + calories released from fat storage
+ calories pulled from protein matter in the body - calories expended by cells
- calories added to fat storage - calories added to protein matter in body
and I'm sure I'm leaving some things out.
We don't have a lot of control over most of those things
on the right side of the equation,
even though we'd like to think so.
They're driven by genetics and hormones
and regulatory systems in our bodies,
which even biochemists and nutritionists don't fully understand,
probably because it can differ so widely from person to person.
The one thing I can control
is what kind of substances I put into my mouth.
For me, keeping carbs low seems to help
with several of those pieces of the equation,
so I know I'll have to continue with this way of life,
if I want to lose to a reasonable weight and maintain it.
****
(July 2010) Start: 296 lbs
(January 2011) Current: 248 lbs
Goal 175 lbs
Second Member of another Forum wrote:Yes, Yes, Yes.
Very True.
**
Start 236 lbs
Current 128 lbs
This online dialogue between two men, was so unusually civilized,Guy 1 wrote:Some people do seem to have success
at losing and maintaining weight
by following a low-carb high-fat diet.
It doesn’t work for me,
but I don’t deny that it seems to work for some people.
Guy 2 wrote:I, too, had difficulty losing weight after my initial (couple) induction weeks,
as despite my vigilance in keeping my carbs around 20g/day,
I had weeks of “zero†weight loss, causing me tremendous frustration.
I still greatly admire and respect Taubes’ books and lectures,
especially his review – and debunking – of the calories-in/out theory.
Yet despite this, trying to lose weight has been hell.
However, rather than “throwing the baby out with the bathwaterâ€,
I feel that, for myself, I have to also include calorie reduction,
as it has helped me to lose weight.
Guy 1 wrote:If you look at the fine print at the Atkins site (I have links for reference)
They say if you are not losing weight cut back on protein.
If you are still not losing weight cut back on fat.
If you are still not losing weight cut back on calories to about 1800 per day.
Voila. You’re back to where you started from – counting calories.
Guy 2 wrote:I know.
In “The New Atkins†book by Westman, on page 107, he writes,
“Although you don’t have to count calories on Atkins,
if you’re overdoing the protein and fat, you may be taking in too many calories.â€
He does explain this more but it still is paradoxical.
Even Atkins talked about weight stalls and going for a week
doing 1,000 calories on macadamia nuts & cream cheese.
I think Taubes’ book was designed
to relate the basic mechanisms that make us fat (and how to get rid of it),
but for you and me, we have to look at calories as well. Not fair!
Guy 1 wrote:The basic Japanese diet is very very high carbohydrate…
[but] the obesity rate in Japan is about 3%.
Guy 2 wrote:I remember hearing a recent interview where Taubes acknowledges the paradox,
although mentioned that the lack of sugar may have something to do with it.
I don’t know what’s true,
but certainly one cannot discount the malevolent influence of sugar,
HFCS, and all that crap
Guy 1 wrote:Exercise is good because
(a) it helps you expend more calories;
(b) certain kinds of exercise can help build muscle mass,
which results in an overall higher metabolism.
Guy 2 wrote:I only know my own experience with exercise.
It helps me feel good, it stretches my muscles, helps my lower back,
but I don’t lose a drop of weight.
That’s my reality (I don’t like it, but it is what it is).
Guy 1 wrote:There is nothing wrong with eating less during the day
and saving your calories to eat more in the evening.
Guy 2 wrote:Again, I only know my own experience.
If I eat a large meal at night, it makes me “conk outâ€,
resulting in an insatiable “sweet tooth.â€
Night time is worse for me because I am usually sedentary,
contrasted with daytime where I can be “out and about†more.
Guy 1 wrote:Some people are somehow able to lose weight
by just eating certain kinds of food
and forcing themselves to stop eating when they are “almost full.â€
This does not work for me.
My sense of fullness is too out-of-kilter to make such a system work.
Guy 2 wrote:Well written.
I have no “graduating†sense of fullness.
I notice I am full way too late to be useful.
Guy 1 wrote:All diets are diets.
It drives me crazy when proponents of this or that diet
claim it’s not really a diet it’s a “way of life.â€
Guy 2 wrote:Yup.
Whether it’s a diet, calorie restriction, a “lifestyle changeâ€,
the bottom line is that you can’t eat what you want,
especially if you love bread, potatoes, pasta, and sweets (like me).
I found this post really interesting.TexArk wrote:I still have my 3 meals, no snacks or sweets,
but I have not been using S Days for sweets
because I just do not need them.
So much more peaceful.
...my husband ...was excited to report the results
of his one week low carb experiment (no wheat or sugar)
and he has stopped his ultra low fat obsession.
His sinus and congestion problem is completely absent for now.
He said he thinks he must have a mild wheat allergy.
He also reported that he was very calm
and not agitated craving his usual evening snacks.
I never could get him to try NoS because he didn't want to give up snacking
--lots of toast with fake butter spray and frozen individual pizzas!
His family has a history of diabetes
and he has put on tummy weight for the first time in his life.
Taubes' book really got his attention.
connorcream wrote:Magic Bullet
What is your favorite use of it?
I use it for a great many things, but 
I found this post helpful and am copying it here for reference.member of another forum wrote:I recently rediscovered a few things:
(1) Eating too high a proportion of carbs
makes me really, ready-to-eat-the-wallpaper hungry.
I received a gift of fruit and discovered that an apple or a pear
is a really bad snack for me.
(2) I need to eat some fat to feel satiated.
I've had stretches of several days in the last three weeks
when I ended up doing mini-binges (yes, plural)
because I was so darn hungry.
I should have noticed sooner that I was eating way too little fat.
During the week before Christmas and New Year's,
I decided to use a few fast food coupons.
I used to eat quite a bit of carefully chosen fast food
early in my new lifestyle but have phased out most of it.
During the week of eating more fast food,
I was surprised to find that, despite the fact that my meals had lower volume,
they were keeping me satisfied until the next meal.
It was a good booster shot reminder.
I don't know if I'll make it a point to eat more fast food,
but I will make it a point to eat more fat.
(3) Sadly, perhaps, I still like the feeling
of being noticeably full (but not stuffed).
However, if I can avoid the hunger pangs,
I am not tempted to eat until I reach this point.
(4) I seem to be OK with chocolate in the refrigerator
in small, individually wrapped portions.
Chocolate in large bars or other snack-type foods
in large containers seem to be more problematic.
One or two small pieces of chocolate
seem to be good for me for scratching the itch,
without triggering a physical craving.
Between being less busy and struggling with hunger pangs,
I've eaten more than planned,
but it hasn't been ridiculous, and I still plan to pay it back.
Now that I've reminded myself how to keep the hunger under control
and I'll be busier again, I think it will be much easier to stay on plan.
One food I think I'll be eating more is cheese balls/logs.
I found today that 4 oz of cheese log and a pear (550 calories)
made a very nice lunch--I was a little hungry five hours later,
but not the kind of hunger that Must Be Obeyed.
Sometimes I feel like a chemistry experiment!
**
Start 260 lbs
Current 144 lbx
Height 5’5â€
You can find a transcript of Tom Naughton's (of "Fathead" fame) 
Copying a fellow member's great post. TexArk wrote:Today I weighed in at 170 lbs.
NoS has helped me form some habits and I no longer snack.
I gave up sweets during the week and I don't eat seconds.
I have lost 30 lbs. since adding Calorie Counting to NoS
and have counted carbs since January 1.
Since limiting carbs I feel so much better and have no cravings.
As I have said before, the counting is so easy
with software programs and nutrition labels.
Absolutely no exercise (in a wheelchair) and I am still losing!
TexArk wrote:I know that we are not alone.
When I read all the posts from those who never get S Days under control
and seem to have huge bingefests each weekend,
I suspect that is more than lack of self control.
I am more sure of that after reading again the effects of insulin.
I kept perfect 21 day N Days and had lousy S Days for 2 years...gaining as I went.
The calorie counting helped with the control, but it was mostly because
the carbs had to be less even on the weekend.
I used to be like the men in the starvation experiment.
I would think all week long what I could eat on the weekend
and I read cookbooks all week long.
I told a friend I felt like I was reading food porn all week!
NoS was not supposed to be about deprivation because of the S Days.
It just didn't work that way for me.
I am sure there are others who are lurking and reading
and can use your information when the time comes for them.
TexArk, It occurred to me that others of you might like to try this recipe,Graham wrote:Now, are there such things as low-carb treats?
What are they?
If I normally have pancakes on Saturday, are there low carb things to equal them in appeal and pleasure?
Or should I let carbs be my treats?
If sugar is bad for me, and sweeteners raise insulin too,
what can I do about my sweet tooth if I want to get slim?
Being sugar free seems so SAD.
BrightAngel wrote: I agree with you about how sad this seems.
Personally, I choose not to go that route,
and I find that artificial sweeteners fill the bill for me.
Sure, they aren't as good for one as going totally without,
but considering the alternatives, it's a vice I can live with.
Many low-carb people appear to be able to have artificial sweetners without any problem.
It is my understanding that splenda is one of these which DOESN"T raise insulin...
(low-carb people who oppose it think any "sweet" taste is bad for one)
Anyway, I always use liquid splenda in my tea,
(a powdered pkg counts as a carb because of the binders)
and I allow myself occasional treats made with splenda...
and even some with sugar-alcohol.
The majority of low-carb people seem to do the same.
I have a favorite pancake replacement that I'm using on low-carb.,
I use a very small amount of bottled sugar-free maple flavored syrup with it,
but it is good with just a pkg or two of Splenda sprinkled over it.
Here's the recipe.
Mock Pancakes
1 whole egg,
2 egg whites,
1 TB cream cheese
1/2 tsp vanilla
1/2 tsp cinnamon
1 pkt splenda
Blend all ingredients thoroughly.
Spray non-stick coating on small skillet
heat on medium high heat.
Pour mixture into heated small skillet
Then cook like pancakes - except
lift the edges to allow the batter to flow under
like one does with an omlet.
When the bottom is browned and the top is almost set,
Spray non-stick coating on top of pancake,
turn it over and brown.
I used to do this recipe when I was doing low-fat,
but then I used 1 TB ricotta cheese, and no butter.
However, on low-carb, I put butter on it, and then a couple of tablespoons
of sugar-free syrup.
I've been using this recipe for quite some time,
and it is one of my favorite go-to breakfasts.
It tastes good, and makes my body feel good.
In fact, I feel really abused if I ever have to have real pancakes.
Even my husband, who doesn't eat "diet" foods loves it.
Try this and see if it helps out.
Something to Think About:Many of us have preconceived expectations
when we start this journey
as to how long it will take.
We think that by doing everything to a T,
everything will go as planned.
But many times that is not the case.
We must learn to accept the obstacles
that are inevitable in this journey,
knowing that the end is not what makes us who we are
or who we were meant to be.
It is the journey of overcoming obstacles
that defines who we are and who we are meant to be.
Giving up is not an option.
Connorcream... Recently I ran across this interesting postMember of Another Forum wrote:I had an insight last week.
I came home from town and ate some chocolate chip cookies,
then opened up a loaf of bread and ate several slices with butter.
That was one of my old habits before I lost weight.
I'm about 50 lbs lighter now,
but after eating those cookies and that bread,
I felt as fat and sluggish as I used to feel.
I thought I had so much more energy on account of losing weight,
but then I realized it wasn't just that I'd lost weight,
I had more energy because I was eating better.
That was a turning point for me and I've been back on track
(and feeling much more energetic) ever since.
***
Start: 189 lbs
Current 137 lbs
Height 5’6"
My thought for today: Post copied from the General Discussion Thread for future reference.There are many No S members who agree with the above-quoted statement.gettheweightoff wrote:I just threw out the last of my diet books and it felt great.
I could have given them away but to me they are sort of evil
and why put anyone else through the nonsense.
No-S is for me... why read anything else!
That said... I like looking at the different methods
If I had stopped reading diet books after I reached my goal weight,
Graham wrote:...if I need to reduce/eliminate bread,
what will give the texture of bread or other stodge that is low-carb?
What gives a bread experience without the downside?
My low-carb experiment is very new,
Then exposing them to air several hours on a cooling rack.
ChubbyBaby wrote:In your case you may find that simply reducing your refined carbohydrates
will be enough to control your hunger.
You can try switching to higher fiber breads and unprocessed grains as well
and keeping your foods as unrefined as possible.
Another suggestion would be to read Protein Power by Dr. Michael Eades.
...he has a great blog.
ChubbyBaby, Thank you for your comments. Copying this inspiring comment from another member.connorcream wrote:I think the term low carb is not even well defined.Graham wrote: I was wondering, CC,
do you stick to No S now or just low carb
or is it low carb plus calorie counting or what?
Some sources say 25 gms, some 72, others a range 50-100,
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-to-s ... blueprint/.
I find it helpful to think reduced carb
because I have found with tracking that <100 carb I lose. >120 I gain.
I do not like posting calorie counts because the low calorie police show up.
But the truth, is if I ate what the calorie calculators say I can,
then I would get fat again.
I definetely am having way to much fun being trim to get fat again.
I also think calories matter
and it is no more difficult to monitor my calories along side my carbs.
I have an easy time staying low if my calories are high quality, nutritious,
satisfying most of the time.
When I track my money with DH: we balance the checkbook,
look over investments, save for retirement, plan our giving, etc...
It is not just one thing.
When I think of my family: I study their health, know their interests & friends,
send them emails about those things, go to doctors, etc...
The things that matter, and my health matters a lot,
like these other important interests, have many facets to it.
So yes calories count,
a lot of low carbers stall because of their high consumption of cheese and nuts!
However, equally as important, is where those calories come from.
I preplan for major splurges, jsut like money.
If a big withdrawl is coming soon, I save up for it.
DH & I are taking a cruise for 30th anniversary this summer.
Paying cash for it, no debt, saving. It is just a way of life.
So find your happy foods, take them apart,
decide what parts you like, then make it for yourself.
You can do this.
It is not beyond you or anyone else for that matter.
With something as important as our health,
we really should not leave it to someone else.
Note: I thought this was an interesting comment on Member of a Low-Carb forum wrote:
My understanding of why we lose weight comes from these Taubes conclusions...
Fattening and obesity are caused by an imbalance
—a disequilibrium—in the hormonal regulation of adipose tissue and fat metabolism.
Fat synthesis and storage exceed the mobilization of fat
from the adipose tissue and its subsequent oxidation.
We become leaner when the hormonal regulation of fat tissue
reverses this balance.
Eating in a way that allows our hormones to regulate properly
is the how the weight loss happens.
The above-quote is a good description of binge behavior.Anoulie wrote:I plan on making the most out of my S days tomorrow.
Even if that means I'll be shoveling plain sugar into my mouth
and eating until I vomit.
I think there's a good chance that this was a "tongue in cheek" statement,
if I was fat and that I was unacceptable to her. She was never very "grandmotherly" to me, was not allowed to sit on her lap as I might muss her dress, displace a hair on her perfectly coiffed head, etc etc. It was then the GREAT SECRET OF HOW TO BE THIN was imparted to me! BULIMIA!!! I was given a box of chocolate ex-lax and was told to eat some after every meal.....and thus, the sick dance began. Although I have dealt with bingeing all of my life,glimmergrrl wrote: ED is a demon I have fought all my life
I have quite a few rather unusual opinions about ED, 
Often, I find Dieting as a Hobby quite a lot of fun.
Of course, I really hope all you guys will drop by after it goes up 
I'm going to work to create a place that has a courteous, accepting attitude..
Today, my only sister's dear husband is still in the hospital
BrightAngel wrote:
and is having yet another emergency surgery on his spine...
...this will be the 7th lengthy surgery within the past month,
the last 4 of which have been due to complications of his first surgeries for back-repair.
This is a life-threatening problem, and
I ask any of those who Pray to join me in praying for him,
and for my sister and their children.
Thanks to each of you for your prayers and kind wishes.
I am thankful that I have such terrific online friends. I'm told this will be soon...maybe even by the end of next week. 
for the past 12 years. 
