Low Carb Friends  
Netrition.com - Tools - Reviews - Faces - Recipes - Home


Go Back   Low Carb Friends > Eating and Exercise Plans > Weight Loss Plans > Other Plans
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-15-2011, 11:26 AM   #511
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
jem51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Posts: 3,645
Gallery: jem51
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
Cathy, me too. Done them all, pretty much and also throw in an ED which was a spin off from vegetarian/vegan.

Groves fat recommendations worked for me intil post meno. Thats when the heartburn came back along w really slow digestion. They seem to be connected since fat slows digestion and hours after eating the acidity will start. Just seems to sit too long in my stomach.

I seem to be at a good level now, whatever that is....
jem51 is offline   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old 05-15-2011, 11:42 AM   #512
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,360
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Jem, so glad you have found a good level. I have had heartburn for years. The last time I was free of it was when I initially went l/c (11+ yrs. ago). I expected it to disappear again when I came back to l/c but it didn't.

Just in the last couple of months, am I almost completely rid of it. I had been taking Zantac and tums to alleviate it but then read that I shouldn't do that but rather give my system time to readjust to my diet. And that appears to be what has happened! Yaaaaayyy! I hope it stays that way.
__________________
Cathy
Original start - Feb. 2000 180/125

"The energy content of food (calories) matters, but it is less important than the metabolic effect of food on our body." Dr. P. Attia

"dumping carbohydrates on your broken metabolism is tantamount to doing jumping jacks on two broken legs" -The Spark of Reason

“Eat animals. Mostly fat. Enjoy!
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 12:04 PM   #513
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
piratejenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,840
Gallery: piratejenny
Stats: 293/<278/<160 (5'7")
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: restart 6/12/14 @ 289.4
Hi Jem & Clackley!

I totally understand the "falling off the LC wagon" phenomenon; I didn't mean that to sound judgmental in any way. But I really hope that I can find a WOE that not only works for weight loss, but will be sustainable long-term. I admire the people who can cut out dairy & all processed foods, but I don't think I can commit to that. Or, I haven't come to the conclusion that that's what I need to do. It works for so many people, though, that I have to keep it in consideration.

My weight gain started largely due to emotional trauma; my boyfriend died in Aug 2006 and I don't remember doing much besides crying & eating Cheetos for a few months! My grandmother got sick 2 weeks after he died, then passed away a week before Christmas; in between, a dear neighbor had emergency heart surgery, and 3 of my great-aunts died.

I have severe depression issues & bipolar disorder II, which were untreated at the time; I started on medication but by the time I found one which helped, it was January and I had gained at least 30 pounds. My medication is "not supposed" to cause weight gain, my doctors keep telling me!!! But I am 100lbs heavier than I was when Michael died.

I also had serious sleep issues. I don't think I slept for more than 2 hours at a time, but often only 20 minutes, for 5 months. "Diets" or sticking to a certain calorie restriction are much easier to follow when you're asleep for 6-8 hours a day!

Clackley, I hope you have the heartburn issue under control. I didn't suffer from that, but from acid reflux. What helped me was bentonite clay. I've recommended this to several people, and it's worked for them too. I told a midwife friend about it, because pregnant women often have heartburn & acid reflux, and she's told me that it has helped a lot of her clients when nothing else did. I'll share more info if anyone is interested.
__________________
"Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast." --Ace Rimmer
"Really, how is eating a piece of cake bad? Being bad is murdering someone.
That's bad. Don't do that." --Sarah Michelle Gellar
****************************************
New lows, 2014:
7/27 275.4
piratejenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 08:00 PM   #514
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
jem51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Posts: 3,645
Gallery: jem51
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
Wow, jenny. That was a rough time. I'm so sorry.
jem51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 08:31 PM   #515
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
U]PirateJenny[/U] - so sorry you went through such hard times, and took such a toll on you

Jem51 - Kwasniewski's recommendation for weight loss is to reduce fat. I also see upon reviewing this book again that I missed the preface, which explains the ratios represents grams.

Back to weight loss - as usual, he is vague. P.18:

It must be emphasized that the proportion 1 (protein) to 2.5 - 3.5 (fat) to 0.5 (carb) is not an iron rule. Assuming the proteins and fats are animal-source, such a ratio guarantees a body's proper functioning during the initial stages of optimal dieting. Once a body gets used to its new diet, which happens after 2-3 weeks for healthy young people and after 6 weeks or more for older people, its demand for protein and energy falls. Then the propoertion between protein and carbohydrates, given as 1 to 0.5, changes to 1:1 or even more where the biological value of the protein is high.
(anyone reading along now, stay tuned, I post then type more so I don't lose the work if I flub it up).

I suppose this is where the 50 grams of protein to 50 carb ratio comes from - eventually, they line up at 1 to 1.
There may be certain variances from this principal depending on the dieter, his environmental conditions and the sicknesses he suffers from. So, for example, overweight people - if they are already losing weight on the diet - can and should in the first months reduce the amount of fats to 1 - 2 grams per gram of protein, as they are also intensively burning off their own fats...
Kwasniewski's diet is a low carb diet, with a reduction in protein based on utilizing high-quality protein. I really don't think he is counting the protein in the potatoes from reading his text - and the 50 carbs of potatoes is what allows for a reduction in the protein as well as the reduced need for the body to make ketones (if one is coming from a VLC diet, as I was). Although he says his diet is not ketogenic, it does induce ketosis around 4 to 5:00 p.m. daily for me when I follow the 50 gram protein (mostly eggs) and 50 grams of carbs (potatoes) recommendations. I really don't see why people would not lose weight on this regimen.

Jem - were people actually doing this that you were reading that were trying to lose weight? Were they actually eating something like 50 grams protein, 100 grams fat, and 50 grams of potato carbs? This is 1300 calories (or less, if they go with less than a 1 to 2 ratio), most people would lose weight. When I looked through threads briefly when I first started the diet, I noticed people saying they were eating more protein, not eating potatoes, all kinds of tweaks, I was not interested in that.

I strongly feel if someone is not eating 50 carbs (the potatoes!), they are using protein for functions that by design in the OD should be fueled by mostly by carbs and will likely go into muscle wasting if eating only 50 grams of protein, which will eventually backfire, assuming they bypassed the potatoes or other carbs and instead opted to go for ketosis. Also, if not eating potatoes, if they using other vegetables, I think much of it varies in absorption of carbs (raw veg not well chewed is not going to result in obtaining much from the vegetables).

I am going to conduct an experiment to incorporate a lot of greek yogurt, given my recent readings about gut bacteria - I am going to keep the gut "populated" eating it throughout the day. I will be sticking to the ratios as best I can, but will be dropping the sweet potatoes for a while since carbs would skyrocket. I have to watch my bloodsugar, I don't want to end up in diabetes territory on my bloodwork. I will shoot for 70 grams of protein, since I won't be getting the mysterious, or maybe obvious, benefits of tubers in reducing protein needs. I like experiments. I am not claiming to be following Kwasniewski precisely!

Clackley - I'm glad to hear of improvement in your digestive issues! I am keeping the oysters in the rotation, definitely, that was such good information on zinc helping produce stomach. I keep reading that shellfish are so nutritious, I think these are going to be my stand in for liver. If only I liked liver! The meat case is still putting me off lately, I don't know why, I guess there is something extremely satisfying in the eggs and dairy and shellfish so I don't feel the need. I haven't purchased a whole chicken in a while (for the gizzards).
__________________
I'm hanging out here:

http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/ot...el-method.html

Last edited by Key Tones; 05-15-2011 at 09:18 PM..
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 01:47 AM   #516
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
YouTube - Science For Smart People

Tom Naughton's presentation (of FatHead) is entertaining and full of good reminders about thinking critically about research you come across.

Interesting piece on estrogen at the end. I know next to nothing about this, but I will definitely look into transdermal rather than oral medication if I decide I should need it. Clotting risk if it goes through the liver?!?! Wow.

I definitely should not be staying up this late. If I were sleeping, I wouldn't be chowing on egg casserole, I might be losing weight in my sleep!
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 07:44 AM   #517
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
jem51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Posts: 3,645
Gallery: jem51
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
KT, thanks for posting that.

Yes, the peop who were following were by the book (in america), although, I never heard that particular discussion of fat reduction just the ratios

I'd be careful of going into ketosis w yogurt. I could eat yogurt daily and still be in ketosis....not really enough carbs (that act on BG), so might not take the place of starch.

I will still get into ketosis in the afternoon and that's eating a banana daily in the morning.
Once the carbs are gone, they're gone.
I can usually eat a carrot/cherry tomatoes to relieve the sx.
jem51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:03 AM   #518
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
jem51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Posts: 3,645
Gallery: jem51
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
There's some discussion/clarification on the other LC forum today.
jem51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 10:14 AM   #519
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Hmph, I looked at that just now. I don't get it, I really don't recall see anything that precise in the book. I think the formula attracts people that want "answers" and focus on the formula. It is appealing since he tells you what to eat, too.

As I recall, he says make the recipes and eat them, the formula is a guideline (and if you look at it together with his narrative explanations, you can drive a truck through it, it is not precise at all) the appetite comes down over time, these are general guidelines.

His diet is meant to be a healing diet, I think his bag is to help people with ailments by applying a mildly ketogenic diet. It is not a weight loss book, but he does clearly state to reduce the fat grams to lose weight.
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 12:09 PM   #520
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
piratejenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,840
Gallery: piratejenny
Stats: 293/<278/<160 (5'7")
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: restart 6/12/14 @ 289.4
From his website:

" The ideal proportion between the main food components of protein, fat and carbohydrates should be in the range of:
1 : 2.5 - 3.5 : 0.5

...for our typical 60 kg* person, the consumption of 60 g of protein has to be accompanied by between 150 to 210 g of fat, and 30 to 50 g of carbohydrate in order to follow the principles of the Optimal Diet.

The main exception from that rule is the state of obesity. In such a case, the proportion between protein and fat should be changed to 1 : 2 in the initial period of 3-4 weeks (by the increase in protein and the reduction in a fat intake), in order to stimulate the catabolism of the stored fat. The amount of carbohydrate should be kept low, preferably at no more then 50 g/day. Subsequently, when the weight loss is well on the way, the amounts of protein and fat can be adjusted to the ideal proportion."

*60kg is actually calculated from height, not current weight. (height 160cm-100=60)

But where he says "increase in protein"...I can't find where he explains how/by how much to do this?
Because by his "equation", I just come up with reducing fat, not increasing protein. :/

Also, IDK if I was really following this by grams of fat (although I've been trying to keep it under 100g protein/day). ****** gives 100% of calories, not % of grams.

And what to do if you are more hungry some days than others?
piratejenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 12:16 PM   #521
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,360
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Really enjoyed the talk by T. Naughton - thank you for the link. I don't imagine I would have other wise seen it. Btw, what is this cruise?
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 01:11 PM   #522
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Clackley - Cathy - I don't know much about the low-carb cruise, but Jimmy Moore is posting podcasts from it. If you friend him or his show on facebook, he sends out notices on upcoming podcasts. I think I found that particular youtube link on his blog. Glad you liked the talk!

PirateJenny - check out Auntie Em's Optimal Diet daily menus thread!

Optimal Diet (Dr. Jan Kwasniewski) Daily Menus: with your adaptations, :)

I am not following any websites, so I don't know RE: your Q about protein requirements. If I recall correctly, he made some vague remarks about body size affecting protein requirements in the book. He is the king of vague.

Last edited by Key Tones; 05-16-2011 at 01:12 PM..
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 07:41 PM   #523
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
jem51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Posts: 3,645
Gallery: jem51
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
KT, I appreciate all your hard work.
I thought that hearing a couple peop who'd read both books and some followers from across the pond might be helpful but I just glanced back and see that the confusion still exists.
Sounds like Calculus Victus just increases the confusion.
Honestly, I can't even deal w nutrient counting sites anymore, at all.

You are correct and I guess the only way to really figure it out is to see the man in the flesh.....

It makes sense that after healing, there might be a change in ratio.

But I think it makes the most sense not to overthink.
jem51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:56 PM   #524
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Jem51 - you're welcome! It isn't hard work at all, I enjoy reading about this plan. I was attracted by Dr. Kurt Harris and Peter at Hyperlipid; they are wicked sharp-- I just had to see the basis for their diets myself. Treating ailments with this mild ketogenic diet, fairly low in toxins (for people not sensitive to nightshades anyway), is such genius.

Heh, you were right about the yogurt, I see I picked up the Trader Joe's version of greek yogurt, which is even lower carb than the Fage. I had some sweet potato tonight. I have some carrots in stock, too.

I like this idea of eating only vegetables that grow underground to reduce the toxic insect defense substances. Carrots, sweet potatoes, and just a little onion to flavor the stock broth - I think I read onions are bulbs.
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 09:59 PM   #525
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Here is another Tom Naughton item, he posted a link to his blog on FB today. It has ads, so I will just paste it below:

◦ What “Everyone Knows” May Be Changing
Posted by Tom Naughton in Low-Fat Nonsense

Part of the problem with convincing people to cut back on carbohydrates and eat more natural fats is what I call everyone knows knowledge. As in everyone knows whole grains are good for you. Everyone knows saturated fat and cholesterol will clog your arteries and kill you. Just try convincing someone who isn’t a critical thinker that what everyone knows can be flat-out wrong.

Everyone knows knowledge permeates the culture. I enjoy watching old reruns of Seinfeld, and while they still crack me up, they include a lot of everyone knows ideas about health and nutrition. I recently watched the episode in which Jerry is trying to get healthier by eating veggie sandwiches and salads. Elaine’s cousin cooks dinner for him and asks how he likes his pork chops, to which Jerry replies, “I like mine with an angioplasty.” In another episode, Jerry and his friends gain weight eating frozen yogurt that was advertised as fat-free, but turned out to contain fat. (As if sugary fat-free foods won’t do the trick.) And of course, in countless episodes, Jerry chows down on breakfast cereals. Nothing wrong with those, right? Everyone knows cereal is health food.

In the hilarious film My Cousin Vinny, a cook in a small-town diner plops lard onto a grill to begin fixing breakfast, prompting Vinny to remark something along the lines of “Are you by any chance aware of the rather large cholesterol problem in this country?” And in the very witty film Thank You For Smoking, the scheming tobacco lobbyist defends himself against a crusading senator by pointing out the senator’s state is known primarily for producing “artery-clogging” cheese.

I’m not knocking the writers of these great films and TV shows, you understand. They were simply relying on everyone knows knowledge. I did the same while writing for a small health magazine 20-some years ago …Should you switch to a low-fat diet? Of course! Everyone knows fat is bad for you.

I’m an optimist, so I may be engaging in wishful thinking here, but it seems to me that what everyone knows about diet and health is changing — slowly, perhaps, but changing. When I began my research for Fat Head, I discovered some well-researched articles claiming that the anti-fat hysteria sparked by the McGovern committee was misguided, but those articles appeared mostly on blogs and alternative-medicine sites. (The Gary Taubes article What If It’s All Been A Big Fat Lie? was a notable exception.)

Lately, I’ve been noticing more articles in the mainstream media knocking the standard-issue advice. Back in December, the Los Angeles Times ran an article titled A Reversal on Carbs with the sub-headline Fat was once the devil. Now more nutritionists are pointing accusingly at sugar and refined grains. Here are a few quotes:

Most people can count calories. Many have a clue about where fat lurks in their diets. However, fewer give carbohydrates much thought, or know why they should.

But a growing number of top nutritional scientists blame excessive carbohydrates — not fat — for America’s ills. They say cutting carbohydrates is the key to reversing obesity, heart disease, Type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

“Fat is not the problem,” says Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health. “If Americans could eliminate sugary beverages, potatoes, white bread, pasta, white rice and sugary snacks, we would wipe out almost all the problems we have with weight and diabetes and other metabolic diseases.”

Outstanding. I can say it, you can say it, Jimmy Moore can say it, Dr. Eades can say it, a hundred other bloggers can say it, and the average mainstream journalist either won’t know or won’t care. But when Dr. Willett at Harvard says it, mainstream journalists pay attention. “Fat is not the problem” ends up being printed in the Los Angeles Times. Now it stands a chance of becoming everyone knows knowledge, at least among newspaper readers.

Over the weekend, readers sent me links to other articles that appeared in the popular press. An article in Consumer Reports that rated diets gave the top pick to the Jenny Craig plan because of a high level of adherence – that’s the bad news. The good news is what the article said about the Atkins diet:

The 2010 edition of the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which we’ve used as the basis for the diets’ nutrition Ratings (available to subscribers), still frowns on eating 10 percent or more of calories from saturated fat from meat and dairy products and more than 35 percent from fats overall. So the Atkins diet, which is 64 percent fat calories overall and 18 percent saturated fat, ends up with only a Fair nutrition score.

But there’s more to the story. Evidence is accumulating that refined carbohydrates promote weight gain and type 2 diabetes through their effects on blood sugar and insulin. “If you have insulin resistance, your insulin may go up to 10 or 20 times normal in order to control your blood sugar after you eat sugar or carbs,” says Eric C. Westman, M.D., an associate professor of medicine at Duke University who co-wrote the newest version of the Atkins diet. “But the insulin also tells your body to make and store fat. When you restrict carbs, your insulin goes down and you can burn your body fat, so you eat fewer calories and aren’t as hungry.”

Isn’t it dangerous to eat so much fat? That’s still a subject of vigorous scientific debate, but it’s clear that fat is not the all-round villain we’ve been taught it is. Several epidemiology studies have found that saturated fat doesn’t seem to increase people’s risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke.

Moreover, clinical studies have found that an Atkins or Atkins-like diet not only doesn’t increase heart-disease risk factors but also actually reduces them as much as or more than low-fat, higher-carb diets that produce equivalent weight loss.

So there’s an interesting admission for you: Consumer Reports uses the USDA Guidelines as the basis for its nutrition rankings, then explains that actual research doesn’t support those guidlines. Perhaps in the future, Consumer Reports can do one of its famous reliability tests on the USDA Dietary Guidelines. (“A whopping 92% of our readers report these guidelines failed within the first year.”) But this article is a good start.

Another reader informed me over the weekend that the Dallas Morning News ran an opinion piece that shredded the government’s dietary advice. I couldn’t access that article without a subscription, but found that the same article (I think) was also published in City Journal magazine:

America’s public-health officials have long been eager to issue nutrition advice ungrounded in science, and nowhere has this practice been more troubling than in the federal government’s dietary guidelines, first issued by a congressional committee in 1977 and updated every five years since 1980 by the United States Department of Agriculture.

Controversial from the outset for sweeping aside conflicting research, the guidelines have come under increasing attack for being ineffective or even harmful, possibly contributing to a national obesity problem. Unabashed, public-health advocates have pushed ahead with contested new recommendations, leading some of our foremost medical experts to ask whether government should get out of the business of telling Americans what to eat—or, at the very least, adhere to higher standards of evidence.

… The McGovern committee, in coming up with its diet plan, had to choose among very different nutritional regimes that scientists and doctors were studying as potentially beneficial to those at risk for heart disease. Settling on the unproven theory that cholesterol was behind heart disease, the committee issued its guidelines in 1977, urging Americans to reduce the fat that they consumed from 40 percent to 30 percent of their daily calories, principally by eating less meat and fewer dairy products.

… The latest nutritional thinking has indeed zeroed in on carbohydrates as a likely cause of heart disease. Easily digestible carbs, in particular—starches like potatoes, white rice, and bread from processed flour, as well as refined sugar—make it hard to burn fat and also increase inflammations that can cause heart attacks, several studies have concluded. A 2007 Dutch study of 15,000 women found that those who ate foods with the highest “glycemic load,” a measure of portion sizes and of how easily digestible a food is, had the greatest risk of heart disease.

Looking at such evidence, several top medical scientists have concluded that the government’s carb-heavy guidelines may actually have harmed public health …“In general,” the doctors wrote, “weak evidentiary support has been accepted as adequate justification for [the U.S. dietary] guidelines. This low standard of evidence is based on several misconceptions, most importantly the belief that such guidelines could not cause harm.” But, they concluded, “it now seems that the U.S. dietary guidelines recommending fat restriction might have worsened rather than helped the obesity epidemic and, by so doing, possibly laid the groundwork for a future increase in CVD,” cardiovascular disease.

I certainly don’t expect the nutrition geniuses at the USDA to change their guidelines, no matter how many articles like these appear in the mainstream press. But I don’t think it’s overly optimistic to believe we’re approaching the time when everyone knows those guidelines are a load of bologna.
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 12:34 AM   #526
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
My family has not been enjoying some of the meals I've been making. I decided to make something tasty. I ended up eating a lot more than usual. What did I do? I coated the chicken with coconut oil and spices and sauce. I don't have season salt, so I made my own - salt, onion powder, cayenne pepper, cracked pepper, sweetener to the underside of the chicken wings, then put Frank's sauce on top with sweetener.

This affected me more than anyone.

This got me thinking, I turned this chicken into a fatty, sweet (although not with sugar, sweet nonetheless), spicy, and salty treat. Not a good idea if you're trying to eat less!

Here is an article about this, I think is pretty good. I can't say I'm on board with Matt Stone's diet, but it is good to see that he might be coming to his senses after following Ray Peat and gaining weight on ice cream. Sheesh.

This discusses the palability of food, the discussion of sugar makes me think about sweeteners and their effect on the reward value of the food.

If you go to the link, there is a youtube video at the end on the topic as well, an interview of Kessler. Also, the article is much prettier on the site with the pictures and all. I'm not sure the link will stick; I hope so.

= = = = = =

180 Degree Health: The End of Overeating by David Kessler

I’m spoiled. By spoiled I mean that my greatest luxury is that I can wake up in the morning and write about whatever the heck I want to write about. Having to write about Ray Peat all month? Well, drudgery has set in. I wanna talk about something that is interesting to me now – like, today, and Ray Peat’s stances on starch and how it has caused the rise in obesity (is this a joke Ray?) or estrogen just won’t do. Screw Ray May. We’re going to play and feel the day, okay?

A lot of people have contacted me over the past few months wondering how I feel about Stephan Guyenet’s recent focus on food palatability in governing weight. When I get these emails, I do get a little annoyed. I get annoyed because I’ve been writing about the role of palatability in weight set point for two years now, and thinking about it for four years – since I encountered the work of Seth Roberts. I even gave it my own name and flippin' sweet acronym - the "Pleasure Center Activation Theory (PCAT)." This is nothing new. There is a vast amount of research and common sense pointing in that direction. And so, I address this, for about the 6th time – drawing upon a book dedicated entirely to the subject – The End of Overeating by David Kessler.

“Where traditional cuisine is meant to satisfy, American industrial food is meant to stimulate.”

For starters, when you mention the word “palatable,” many get the wrong idea. I know in some back and forth earlier this year with Aaron F. and others, that the idea of good food being the culprit of obesity didn’t sit well. And it shouldn’t. By palatable, scientists mean the ability of a food to stimulate the reward centers in the brain, more or less. And while I would never opt for a Cool Ranch Dorito over seared foie gras slung over brioche, there’s no question, in terms of the scientific definition of palatability, that the magic, chemically-enhanced, MSG-laden flavor dust on a perfectly-crunchy Dorito measures much higher on the palatability Richter scale. I had a Tabasco Cheez-it recently to remind myself of how potent modern food-like things are. And I gotta tell ya, that stuff is mesmerizing. Food like that gets ever more drug-like every time I taste it.

“To understand how eating promotes more eating – and why homeostasis is under sustained assault – we must first understand the concept of ‘palatability’ as the term is used scientifically. In everyday language, we call food palatable if it has an agreeable taste. But when scientists say a food is palatable, they are referring primarily to its capacity to stimulate the appetite and prompt us to eat more. Palatability does involve taste, of course, but, crucially, it also involves the motivation to pursue that taste. It is the reason we want more. Palatability is largely based on how food engages the full range of our senses. Usually, the most palatable foods contain some combination of sugar, fat, and salt. The sensory properties of palatable foods – the cold, creamy pleasure of a milkshake, the aroma of chocolate cake, the texture of crispy chicken wings sweetened with a honey-mustard dipping sauce – all stimulate the appetite. And it’s that stimulation, or the anticipation of that stimulation, rather than genuine hunger, that makes us put food into our moths long after our caloric needs are satisfied.”

With this broader definition you have a whole host of sensory stimuli that play a part in weight regulation. Food packaging, lighting, social setting, ambience, food color, music, aroma, crunch, texture contrast, moisture content, chewing time, fiber content – these all play a role in the sensory environment of the food experience. And these things are understood by the people who sell food successfully. The first person to conceptualize of pink lemonade or the infamous blue raspberry knew a thing or two about human senses. Heck, you can even taste test the same thing in two different types of packaging to find out which package “tastes better.” This kind of research is being done to make food as hyperpalatable as possible.


What I like about what could be called the “addiction model of obesity,” is that addiction, unlike the insulin or leptin system of the body (or recently discussed TXNIP), is not a negative feeback loop. It’s an escalation process, where you must go ever higher to achieve the same level of gratification. We know for sure that weight regulation occurs in the brain – to think that something as dominant in the brain as the relentless hunt for pleasure stimulation doesn’t play a role, or couldn’t trump the metabolic signals of leptin or TXNIP, would be foolish. It’s certainly part of the picture. How much of the picture, and whether or not Bob Ross painted it, is a question that has not been answered – and is probably highly individual.

“Eating foods high in sugar, fat, and salt makes us eat more foods high in sugar, fat, and salt. We see this clearly in both animal and human research. Barry Levin, a physician and professor at the New Jersey Medical School, demonstrated this principle with rats. He bred one strain to overfeed when a high-calorie diet was available, producing an obesity-prone rat. The other strain did not ordinarily overfeed – an obesity-resistant rat. After a period of eating extra calories, the obesity-resistant rats typically cut back their food consumption much faster than obesity-prone rats. But when both groups of rats were offered a rich, creamy liquid high in sugar and fat, those patterns changed. All the animals ate without restraint. Levin said that when they are given such a palatable combination, ‘they will just gorge themselves.’ Increasing only the fat content of a resistant rat’s diet won’t make the animal overeat or become obese. But feed it a high-fat, high-sugar diet, and it will grow just as fat as an obesity-prone rat on a high-calorie diet.”

This is an important concept to take note of. Sugar is not fattening. I lose weight rapidly eating 800 grams of sugar per day. Fat is not fattening. I remained very lean gobbling up 300 grams of fat per day for several years on a diet with about 100-150 grams of carbohydrates per day. There is no one substance that is fattening and is the culprit of all obesity. Sure, vegetable oils are a prime suspect in terms of playing a role, potentially a major one in a discussion of root causes – as they have far-reaching pro-inflammatory and anti-metabolic properties that are capable of short-circuiting the weight regulation mechanism of the human body over lifetimes and generations.

But we should instead look at foods as a whole. In general, we could say eating in restaurants is fattening. Brownies are fattening. Ice cream is fattening. Potato chips and French fries are fattening. If I eat lots of these foods I gain fat at a pretty rapid rate, at least for a few weeks. Recently I got all gung ho on Peat and began eating ice cream to appetite. But lo and behold, just like many who have a tendency towards weight gain have reported to me about Peat’s high fat/high sugar combo, I gained fat very quickly with ice cream in my diet, needing roughly 4,500-5,000 calories to satisfy my appetite instead of the normal 3,500-ish. Substituting more fruit and juice and starch for the high fat content in the ice cream strips the fat off quickly, and lowers my appetite tremendously.

But even with these generalizations, much complexity remains. Monotony trumps all, removing the pleasure away from what would otherwise stimulate the pleasure circuitry. Eat nothing but ice cream or French fries and your appetite will likely plummet and you will lose weight.

Further confusing the issue, the largest my appetite has ever been was after prolonged calorie restriction. I wasn’t really an “addict” when it came to food until I did that. Before that my appetite regulated itself pretty well without ever thinking much about all this health and nutrition stuff. It certainly wasn’t a case of eating “fat, sugar, and salt makes you want to eat more fat, sugar, and salt.” Instead, it was NOT eating fat, sugar, and salt that made me want to eat to the point of sheer agony of fat, sugar, and salt. After doing that for long enough, my appetite regulated itself once again, and fat, sugar, and salt began to once again lose their relentless appeal.

On the program I devised on how to raise your metabolism, nearly everyone has noted a huge drop in cravings for sugary foods and other high pleasure items. Why is that? Also, pigging out on ice cream which I have done on two occasions this year, left me totally sick of ice cream and craving cardboard by the end of a week.

Similarly, the 5-year old girl that I recently watched overcome nightmares and bed wetting by eating ice cream and whatever else she wanted totally unrestrained, started out eating two ice cream cones in one sitting, then moved to one, then asked for ice cream and had two licks before throwing it away, and now doesn't even ask for it with dinner anymore. Ice cream lost its excitement. It didn't become more appealing and suddenly catapult the kid into obesity.

And what about all the intuitive eating preachers like Geneen Roth and Jon Gabriel who have had great success telling people to eat whatever the hell they want, only to find that giving themselves permission to eat anything and everything they wanted ended up making them lose weight – as removing the stigma of forbidden foods and the emotions like guilt and reward around eating just made people crave healthier foods and lose their appetite?

My suspicion is that the one key factor left out of the whole equation is addiction proneness. I do think addiction proneness can be diminished if not eliminated entirely by increasing the metabolic rate, lowering stress hormones, and removing all of the psychological baggage surrounding food – certainly getting away from the concept of food as a treat, reward, or a form of entertainment.

Anyway, it’s all very fascinating, and a big part of the big picture – as big or bigger than Bob Ross’s happy little trees. To hear former head of the FDA, David Kessler, talking about his conclusions, scroll down to watch a tv interview with him...

Here are some other interesting Kessler quotes to make ya go hmmm….

“Animals, humans included, seem to have a built-in preference for features larger than those that occur naturally. Ethologists, scientists who study animal behavior, have tried to understand the attraction of the ‘super-normal stimuli.’ Consider the oystercatcher, a shorebird with black-and-white plumage, a red bill, and brightly colored legs. Back in the 1950’s, Dutch ethologist Nikolaas Tinbergen conducted now-classic studies of the bird’s incubation behavior and discovered something astonishing: When presented with a choice between brooding its own small egg and the giant egg of a much larger bird, the oystercatcher invariably chose to sit on the giant one.”


“Just as a compulsive gambler can’t place a single bet and feel satisfied, many people can’t stop after a few bites of hyperpalatable food. We have become conditioned to seek more reward. The barricades to repetitive behavior have been toppled. We keep looking for the next big wow.”








Posted by Matt Stone at 1:51 PM
Labels: Addiction and Obesity, David Kessler, Dopamine and Weight Loss, PCAT, Seth Roberts, sugar addiction, The End of Overeating

Last edited by Key Tones; 05-18-2011 at 12:36 AM..
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 08:43 AM   #527
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,360
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Very interesting. I don't think there is much doubt about the brain's involvement with weight regulation and the play between taste and appetite. I do think that the physiological component is huge and he seems to ignore this.

I did enjoy this article and the talk and the site looks like it is chock full of interesting topics!! Thank you once again KT!!!
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 10:10 AM   #528
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Cathy - Clackley - thanks, glad you enjoyed the article. I think Matt posts some interesting articles, I can't follow his diet plan, of course, I have to stick with the gurus that talk diabetes for that.

Regarding the brain, oh my gosh, I thought the gut-brain axis podcast on the Healthy Skeptic's site was really good. I can really circle the drain with stress. Did you see it? Here is the link and description:

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-hea...cast-episode-9

In this episode we discuss the gut-brain axis: the relationship between digestive health and cognitive function, memory, depression, anxiety and other mental and behavioral health issues. We cover:
  • the basic physiology involved
  • how inflammation in the gut affects the brain
  • how decreased brain activity compromises gut function
  • how to recognize the signs and symptoms of gut-brain axis dysfunction
  • studies demonstrating gut-brain dysfunction and its effects on health
  • dietary and lifestyle modifications to improve gut-brain function.

I think the gut-brain axis is one of the most important and least recognized factors in human health. If you follow a good diet (Paleo, Primal, Perfect Health Diet, etc.) and you’re still experiencing gut symptoms, it’s likely you have a gut-brain axis issue.
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 10:17 AM   #529
Senior LCF Member
 
Juliemb414's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Baltimore, Maryland
Posts: 188
Gallery: Juliemb414
Stats: 355/341/135 5'6", High: 380+?lbs. in 2008
WOE: Atkin's Induction/VLC
Start Date: March 14, 2014
KT- Thanks for all your hard work in bringing thought provoking, topical content to this thread. You rock! And thanks again for the good laugh i got imagining your family showing up at the dinner table! I will pray for them!

I must say that Mr. Stone has some concepts that I am not onboard with either. Ice cream? I didn't even have to read back posts, etc. to get to his rationale for going there- to know that is not something that will be effective, or even make any sense whatsoever. And some of his statements: "Sugar is not fattening." and "There is no one substance that is fattening and is the culprit of all obesity." and "Substituting more fruit and juice and starch for the high fat content in the ice cream strips the fat off quickly, and lowers my appetite tremendously. " ????? Okay. I understand that when you blog daily (or whenever) you develop a need to say something (anything?) that may provide some singular controversial point that will differentiate you from all the others. I get that. But, good grief! Given all the legitimate research that Taubes and Enig, et al have brought to the forefront, this simply sounds like a man that just wants to eat his doritos and ice cream and juice and sugar- despite the facts. Unfortunate.

Equally unfortunate and oversimplified (IMHO) are his ideas surrounding addiction. "My suspicion is that the one key factor left out of the whole equation is addiction proneness. I do think addiction proneness can be diminished if not eliminated entirely by increasing the metabolic rate, lowering stress hormones, and removing all of the psychological baggage surrounding food – certainly getting away from the concept of food as a treat, reward, or a form of entertainment. " Addiction proneness? My understanding is that is genetic- either you are genetically prone to addiciton, or you are not. Whether or not you progress into actual addiction, given your DNA inlaid propensity, will certainly depend on many variables, the management of which may or may not affect the eventual development of the disease... So what is he talking about? How to "eliminate entirely" addiction? Every model that i have ever heard of (that actually worked) in managing addiction begins with total abstinence from the substance. If you want to bring addicition into the picture, whether you're speaking on palatability or not, you can not legitimately contend that it can be managed without taking charge of the substance. What he's saying is like saying to an alcoholic that all you have to do is drink all the good tasting alcoholic beverage you want, and eventually you will get tired of it and not want it anymore. Really???? Sadly, if you are prone to addiction, you cannot simply drink all you want (or eat all you want of sugar/starch etc.) and expect to "mind over matter" remove all the psychological baggage , and sidestep all the progessive, negative consequences of unchecked active addiction.

Aside from some of Mr. Stone's questionable (dangerous?) opinions, i thought the information on palatability was quite informative and certainly provided food for thought. In my own n=1 I know that if it tastes fantastic, i will eat more. Even with the VLC/ZC items. I did this about a month ago with dry rub spare ribs from a nearby BBQ carry out. They were delicious and i worked myself up from 3 ribs to 1/2 slab just because they tasted so good. The day i ate a 1/2 slab i was miserable all the rest of the day and night and didn't feel "unstuffed" enough to eat anything until around 3pm the next day. I now haven't bought any in about a month, and am not really feeling any desire for them. I do know that if i make, for instance, a plain pork chop, lightly seasoned with say - low sodium Spike- and pan fried in bacon grease, i am quite content with one, and never think of eating 3 or 4 of them until i am miserably stuffed just because they taste good. I think it was very informative when he says "Palatability does involve taste, of course, but, crucially, it also involves the motivation to pursue that taste. It is the reason we want more." I certainly learned my lesson about this and will utilize this in my considerations about what to put in my mouth. It is still further confirmation that i should lean toward simpler, plainer foods as the mainstay of my diet.
Juliemb414 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 10:58 AM   #530
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Juliemb414 - yep, I agree, I don't think Matt has the correct notions on a lot of things, but he happened to recently post about palatability, which I am so curious about right now.

Sugar - he has been following Ray Peat lately. I totally disagree, I don't mean to point anyone to these ideas or to follow Ray Peat or Matt's blog.

I am not an expert on addition, but I don't think it is black and white. Fuhrman (which I read when I was off in a ditch trying to be vegetarian) has written about the addictive-like properties of food. It is not the same issue, but has some curious similarities.

Metabolism - Matt writes about upping the metabolism, to warm up a cool body temperature, to be healthier, and believes low metabolism causes health problems. I think this is probably why he has been reading Peat, Peat writes up dietary strategies to help the sluggish thyroid. I don't know, there is contradictory information out there about this. The Chronies (some are Fuhrman followers) are all about eating less to lower the metabolism to live longer - like the Okinawans - these are some incredibly healthy people producing an unusual number of people reaching 100 years of age and beyond.

He just has me thinking about things. Right now, I am looking at what I am doing to spice foods and using sweeteners and eating too much chocolate, albeit low carb.

He has me thinking about my body temperature, it is low, always has been. I do think there is something to this, in that my losses tend to come after a little hiatus. I think perhaps eating a little more and exercising a little more might do me some good. If nothing else, I will get a bit more nutrition, even if it is adding only 100 calories (I know my kind of exercise does not burn much).

Last edited by Key Tones; 05-18-2011 at 11:00 AM..
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2011, 11:30 AM   #531
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,360
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
I did listen to that episode of the healthy skeptic and think there is a lot - a lot that is little understood about weight regulation and the gut and brain link seems very likely to me. I am going to listen to it again - I don't think I have leaky gut, but I am certain I have 'leaky brain' - some would say, like a sieve!
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 04:49 AM   #532
Chatty Cathy
 
clackley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Ontario
Posts: 16,360
Gallery: clackley
Stats: 228.5/168/125
WOE: N.K.=vlc/hf/moderate protein & organic/pastured
Start Date: Restart Oct 18 2009
Ha, ha, I wish I could edit my previous post but too late....I thought I had listened to episode 9 of the healthy skeptic but had not. Thank you for pointing it out K.T. - very interesting and makes my comment above - pretty funny.

There was another podcast that I thought you were referring to with a guy named Stephan Guyenet who talked about some of the same things. The brain/gut connection makes a lot of sense. I am not quite finished the episode 9 but will today. Do you think people with autistic kids know about this connection?
clackley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 07:40 AM   #533
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
jem51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Posts: 3,645
Gallery: jem51
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
Cathy, SCD has a huge autism following. In fact it is a larger group than those healing the gut, I think.

So I listened to about 45 min of episode 9. I don't know how long it last.
Can someone summarize the rest?

I went through about a year of lacto fermenting, which Chris seems to recommend. I was making buttermilk at the time so used the whey.
I never really saw any amazing results and the products were so-so.

As far as probiotic supplements are concerned; SCD states that they are bound in proteins when consumed as yogurt, etc, so are not destroyed by the high acidity in the upper gut/stomach.
That makes sense to me since I never got the positive results from supplements that I do w yogurt.

Have a good day.
jem51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 11:11 AM   #534
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
piratejenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,840
Gallery: piratejenny
Stats: 293/<278/<160 (5'7")
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: restart 6/12/14 @ 289.4
hey y'all...

my psychiatrist ordered some blood work last week (he always does), he just called me and was concerned...

My fasting blood sugar was 137 (umm, that's yikes, right?!)
My A1c was 6.2
Triglycerides 178
*Elevated liver enzymes, too: ALT 70 (normal range 0-40)

Any thoughts?

I have an appointment with a doc who is said to be super-awesome (and a diabetes specialist) on May 31st.

Last edited by piratejenny; 05-19-2011 at 11:12 AM.. Reason: ETA*
piratejenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 11:35 AM   #535
Major LCF Poster!
 
shunsweets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2,621
Gallery: shunsweets
Stats: maintenance
WOE: Bernstein
Start Date: May 2003
Hi Jenny. Yes those levels are elevated. Good your seeing a Dr. At our lab at the hosp anything over 125 fasting is considered a diabetic level and we like A1C to be less than 6. Liver enzymes are often thrown off by medications -can't remember what you said you take and triglycerides usually come down on a lc diet so it's good you are getting it all checked out. Hope your new Dr is wonderful and if he's really good send me his name - I'm in NJ too!
shunsweets is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 03:55 PM   #536
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
jem51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: south central OR
Posts: 3,645
Gallery: jem51
Stats: oh so happy at 120
WOE: Mine, all mine
Start Date: controlled carb '97-98
Bummer, Jenny. Your doc has every reason to be concerned.
Fatty liver disease is not uncommon in diabetics and is increasing in high carb eating Americans.
All of this can fall into place w dietary changes....but you may need meds to start if your BG's are really high at other times.
If you haven't read Dr Bernstein yet, now's a good time...and make sure you get a meter.
Also bloodsugar101.
jem51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 04:21 PM   #537
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
Clackley - Cathy - I am really enjoying the Healthy Skeptic podcasts, too, I'm glad you are as well. I am really curious to hear the next one (Stephan Guyenet again). Yep, they run together, I can't laugh, I have leaky brain, I have to keep reviewing, repeatedly for things to really sink in!

Jem51 - interesting on autism dietary assistance with SCD. I had not seen this before.

PirateJenny - the fasting glucose looks a bit high for your A1c. Did you fast from midnight then take the test in the morning? Eat anything unusual the night before or more than usual? I used to freak out the night before going to the doc and eat more then get a higher morning reading. I was really scared back then, I didn't believe I could reverse it.

Dr. Bernstein is really great, I wish I had known about him six years ago! Look up Richard Bernstein on Amazon.

I like the Bayer Contour meter, but check insurance for what they cover. If they don't pay or you don't have it, the strips are cheap on Amazon.

Keep us posted.
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 04:48 PM   #538
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
piratejenny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 3,840
Gallery: piratejenny
Stats: 293/<278/<160 (5'7")
WOE: JUDDD
Start Date: restart 6/12/14 @ 289.4
Key Tones,
I fasted for at least 12 hours, possibly 13-14. I think I had dinner around 9pm, then my appt was at 11:30am. (I made it late b/c I often can't fall asleep until 3-4am). Didn't eat anything unusual, maybe 50g carbs for the day.

I got one of Dr B's books from the library a couple weeks ago. Good stuff, and I love his sense of humor!

oh, that meter is on sale for $8! from 80! Heck, maybe I'll get one anyway...I'm a bit curious about what's going on with my blood sugar, and my appt is 12 days away...

Last edited by piratejenny; 05-19-2011 at 05:26 PM..
piratejenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2011, 05:22 PM   #539
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
If you call the doc's office and ask for a nurse, they might give you one for free. Sometimes a company wants you to have their meter so you will buy their strips. Just an idea. The machine might come with some strips.

Eight bucks is cheap, though! I would spend almost that just driving to the doc and back!

Shoot, sorry to hear on the reading, it will be good to measure and see what is really going on.
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-20-2011, 05:16 PM   #540
Very Gabby LCF Member!!!
 
Key Tones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,475
Gallery: Key Tones
Stats: 312/227/??? 5/10"
Start Date: LC start 2005, have tried everything...
I don't know if you guys enjoy this as much as I do, but I am getting a kick out of Chris Masterjohn lately. Oh my gosh, paleo and health bloggers, if Chris is reading your blog, you had better have your ducks in a row.

Chris Masterjohn taking on Joel Furhman (Eat to Live) on the Inuit:

Chris Masterjohn ripped up Don's Primal Wisdom blog posting about melting points/coconut oil. It was a hair-brained (or is it hare-brained) post. It is still in google cache. That is the problem with the internet, things just can't really be deleted!

Last edited by Key Tones; 05-20-2011 at 05:17 PM..
Key Tones is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:51 AM.


Copyright ©1999-2014 Friends Forums LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms of Service | Privacy Policy
LowCarbFriends® is a registered mark of Friends Forums, LLC.