12:15PM
1 1/4 pounds grass-fed ground beef formed into hamburger patties with bacon, Colby Jack cheese, and mayo
Coke Zero
8:15PM
Pork tenderloin with Colby Jack cheese
Coke Zero
Vanilla CarbSmart ice cream with fresh blueberries, whipped cream, and Truvia
NOTE: Hey guys and welcome back to my menus blog today! I'm so happy to have you here checking out my low-carb menus and I look forward to sharing with you another thought-provoking commentary about healthy low-carb living.
Let's take a look at what I had to eat and drink today--grass-fed beef, bacon, Colby Jack cheese, mayonnaise, pork tenderloin, Coke Zero, water, CarbSmart ice cream, blueberries, whipped cream, and Truvia. As you can see, the overwhelming majority of calories in my diet today as it is everyday is good fat and protein-based low-carb foods. Looking at the percentage of the total number of calories consumed that come from good wholesome real foods, they DOMINATE my menus every single day.
Some have argued that including things like diet soda, low-carb ice cream, and even bacon and mayo into your diet somehow negates all the good things you are doing when you eat low-carb. But why? The thing that makes a diet so successful for someone is to assimilate better and healthier nutritional choices into their lifestyle. The goal isn't necessarily 100% perfection in every single menu of every single day for the rest of your life. Even the most ardent of nutritional purists out there cannot honestly say they eat perfectly all the time. It's just not happening and anyone who says otherwise is lying.
So where's the cutoff point between perfection and being totally carefree with your low-carb diet? It's certainly a subjective gray area based on who's perspective you are listening to. There is one camp that says you should never eat any of the "low-carb products" in your diet EVER while the another camp contends you can eat just about whatever "low-carb products" you want in any quantity you want. These are the two extremes that are usually exploited by the media when they attempt to describe low-carb as a means for discrediting it. Here's an except from this June 2006 blog post I wrote about this subject where I describe these two polar-opposite positions:
1. NO “LOW-CARB” PRODUCTS ALLOWED
People who are on this extreme end are extremely serious about livin’ la vida low-carb and believe everything they put in their mouths should be only organic, whole foods that don’t need any packaging whatsoever. They’ve lost their weight “naturally” without the use of anything labeled “low-carb” and highly discourage other low-carbers from picking up these “Frankenfoods.” They have kissed the days of packaged foods goodbye forever.
2. ALL “LOW-CARB” PRODUCTS ALLOWED
People who are on this extreme end are wayfarer low-carbers who are gullible enough to buy virtually ANYTHING that blares the words “low-carb” on the packaging whether that claim is accurate or not. They love to find a “low-carb” version of just about anything and everything so they can eat like they always have and call it “low-carb.” Then these people get mad at their low-carb diet months down the road when they haven’t lost any weight despite the fact they have been eating all of these “low-carb” products.
I hope you take the time to read that entire article I wrote in defense of the use of certain low-carb products for people who need a little more than just meat, eggs, cheese, and a few low-carb veggies every single day. My philosophy is to eat the highest quality healthy whole foods as much as possible in your low-carb lifestyle with strategic use of the low-carb products as a means for rounding out your personal tastes and enjoyment in your diet. Some people can follow a diet as mundane as meat and water all day everyday for the rest of their lives. But the vast majority of us couldn't and wouldn't want to live that way forever.
Plus, I think we need a reality check here--while there are subtle nuances that those of us within the low-carb community can debate about how to eat low-carb the "best" way, in the real world there are hundreds of millions of people out there living their lives everyday who are still oblivious to the dangers of stuffing their faces with carbs, carbs, and more carbs all with the blessing of the so-called health "experts" and they're left scratching their heads wondering why in the world they're so fat and sick. This sobering news is heartbreaking to watch unfold right before our very eyes day after day after day.
Just go to any grocery store and watch what people are putting into their shopping carts. Rice, pasta, white bread, flour, along with sugar, sugar, and more sugar! It's disgusting to see how much our society has been brainwashed about the negative health implications of carbohydrates that people don't even care--or even worse, they don't know that they are supposed to care about their carb consumption. That's probably the biggest travesty of all because people just haven't been properly informed about what the best way to eat for weight and health management is. It's one of the reasons I work so passionately on behalf of this critical topic every single day because there's a world that desperately needs to hear the positive message of livin' la vida low-carb.
Today I had the privilege of interviewing a famous Hollywood television star for an upcoming podcast episode in September and she's a full-fledged supporter of low-carb living through and through. It was so refreshing to hear this highly successful TV star bragging about how low-carb living has changed her life for the better over the past ten years by keeping her weight and health in check. When I asked her why more celebrities don't promote that they eat low-carb since it is so commonplace in Hollywood, she said they do it all the time in popular entertainment magazines describing their menus with foods like fish, egg, non-starchy veggies, cheese, etc. But she added that they're not labeling it "low-carb" since there's such a negative stigma to using that term.
To me, that's just too bad. From a PR standpoint, low-carb is severely ostracized right now because people have been scared into thinking it is just some passing fad diet that came and went rather than looking at it as the long-term, lifestyle change that so many of us know that it is for controlling weight, managing blood sugar and insulin levels, lowering blood pressure, improving cholesterol and so much more. What could be more normal and natural than consuming real foods like you get to enjoy while livin' la vida low-carb with the addition of a sugar-free, low-carb food here and there within the context of your daily diet?
People who eat a carbohydrate-restricted diet are LIGHT YEARS ahead of the game from what most of the population is doing. Who really cares if someone chooses to have a sugar-free, low-carb bar, chocolate, or ice cream within the context of their menus when 95% of people are stuffing their faces willingly with gobs and gobs of sugar and foods that turn to sugar in the body without a care in the world what that is doing to them. Even those people who aren't suffering from a weight problem as a result of consuming all that sugary junk can still fall prey to the health implications that elevated blood sugar and insulin levels inevitably produce. This is the message we need to be sending out to the world--just get on the low-carb bandwagon.
Convincing the masses of that is much too important than any one individual low-carber's menu choices.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
28 comments:
I eat lower carb, but not low carb. I base my feelings on the packaged low net carb products on what I know from people who have successfully kept A LOT of weight off,and no longer struggle with it(generally, everyone has a bad day or 2). The ones I know are not religious fanatics about their carbs, but they do severely limit low net carb items that are prepackaged and filled with actual carbs,& "fake" products, but are technically low net carb. They've told me they only use them when they have cravings, not as part of their regular diet, because when they eat too many of them instead of natural food, they still have trouble maintaining their weight, and they do have more cravings.
It does make sense to me. ~Mary
Interesting...the first time I did low carb, I was in Anchorage and there just were not low carb products available up there. This time, I ran out and bought all sorts of "goodies". Three months later, most of them are sitting in my cupboard. I eat something once in a great while- like last night when my husband went out and grabbed a pint of Ben and Jerry's Brownie Ice Cream (my FAVORITE). Looking forward to your interview with the TV personality. I have been using that approach with family members. Low carb has such a stigma and there is so much mis-information, it is easier to say that I am focusing on whole foods and totally eliminating sugar.
I am often asked to help create or review a menu for those attempting to lose weight. I will still continue to promote a non-frankenfood diet to these people. Why? Is it because I am heartless or cruel or want to deprive them of the little pleasure "low carb" foods could provide the drab boring diet of low carb? No, it would be because I want success for them. I have seen too many stall on these foods and then wonder why they never achieved the results they want.
Is there a place for them on any diet? Sure, if you are losing the weight you want or have achieved the weight you desire, no one can say anything about partaking of them. You have established by your results the success of your weight loss experiment. No one can deny that. If not, then that is where align yourself more closely with what might be ideal or more assuredly bring success would better. Finally, perhaps most people just need the encouragement to work just a bit more at meal time to actually create great tasting low carb foods with items from sites Linda's Low Carb as opposed to buying already made products. There are some great manufacturers that put as much pride into their food as I do into mine, but in today's economy/marketplace, they aren't that common.
This is just my perspective. If that is labeled extreme, it won't be the only time.
Kent, you know I appreciate your perspective and I greatly admire your continued weight management success on the Atkins diet. I could not agree with you more regarding finding delicious low-carb recipes that fill the need for something besides the staples. And yet there are even those in the truly "extreme" position who would poo-poo those choices, too. They're the ones I'm referring to, not you. :)
Jimmy:
I and a few others have made the point I'm about to make a several times in the past. I do not believe you really allowed it to sink it.
It has always been my position that a person's menus are solely at that person's discretion - even yours, being a public figure in the online LC world. You can eat all the products you wish (and be whatever size you wish), but please do not attempt to slant the results of your menus to show something other than what happened.
You undoubtedly did this with sweet-free. It was a huge and overwhelming success. You raved about it at the time. Recently, you said you were miserable during those periods and declared that WOE unliveable. The undisputed TRUTH (though you and Didirina might try) is that it worked, you tired of it, and you went back to the products like to eat. Why not just acknowledge how effective sweet-free was (for whatever reasons, since Didirina will want to argue about why - though you and her and the only ones here with any doubts about why it worked), but that you did not choose to continue it? And further, let other struggling dieters know that based on your experience, it's something they might want to experiment with if they feel it's something they can live with?
Jimmy, I honestly think this is the crux of the problems you are having with some of your critics. No one, not even on the other board, would be bold enough to argue with an honest choice - that you know that sweet-free worked for you, and further, that ZC works for them - but that it's not what you're choosing to do right now. You can always do another sweet-free cycle when and if you desire to do so.
But to gain weight four months in a row and call it "statistically insignificant" invites criticism. To disavow the ONLY successful weight loss strategy you have employed over the past two years invites criticism too. To try to cloud the picture with speculation of mold does the same. All these combined weaken your position. The criticisms at the other site are really more about your attitude and perspective than what you eat.
Do whatever you wish - just don't play games.
This is no game...this is my life.
OT: OnPoint, do you have a blog? I would be interested in reading it.
The issue with any and all carbs and any and all frankenfoods is not so much about what you eat as to what your body does with what you eat to quote Jeff Volek. If a particular carb food or frankenfood causes one to go off plan or prevent one from losing desired weight or causes cravings then that is an issue and needs to be addressed if a person is to be successful. There is a continuum between no carb/no frankefood and any and all low carb food and/or frankenfood. The spectrum affects everyone in different ways. From the addicted to sweet to those who binge just because they eat green beans. I recently reread DANDR and was surprised at how many references Atkins had to cravings and the need to control them. That is the point in the spectrum that people need to find. For some they can lose all the weight they need to and eat frankenfoods and for others they must abandon frankenfoods and perhaps any carbs whatsover to control cravings and/or lose weight. That is the message that needs to get across to those who low carb who want/need to be successful IMO. If one is successful, others will find the path.
When I restarted low carb lifestyle a year or so ago I incorporated tons of sugar-free foods such as Chocolite protein bars and sugar-free chocolate bars. I could literally eat 5 or 6 of them a day and would still lose weight. But then I stalled and started gaining. Eventually my body caught up to it and would treat them unfavourably as far as my weight loss. Plus I started waking up and realizing all those additional chemicals in there werent good for my health, weight nonwithstanding. I live life on a run and it was convenient. Jimmy, on the other hand, doesnt abuse those treats. HAving a scoop of ice-cream with fresh blueberries and cream is absolutely on in my book. But it doesnt fare well in the weight loss department. And given the fact that Jimmy lost on sweet-free challenge gives him a powerful and encouraging tool for the future. I know how hard it is to not eat anything desert like. We were conditioned for years to have sweets. I dont think it is for everyone to just eat all natural low carb foods all the time. But it can certainly be done for the short while to speed up the weight loss!
For me (not speaking for JM here), the crux of the problem is that those who tout the sweet/product-free position insist that Jimmy's sweet-free experiment yielded the absolute TRUTH because he was losing weight. It was the absence of the SWEET, not any of the other factors involved at the time (and there were many, which I won't bother rehashing again). And now, if he doesn't admit that they were right, he's playing games. I totally concur with JD's assessment. There is a continuum. If a person's cravings are not under control, something should be done. But this does not necessarily translate into the notion that people only eat sweets because they crave them. When I'm deciding what to eat for dinner, I make a choice--do I want fish, chicken, beef? What kind of vegetables to I want? Do I want dessert? Looking forward to some LC chocolate or pudding does not mean I'm having cravings; desire, yes. Craving, no.
OhYeahBabe, I do not have a blog, but I'm honored that you asked!
I think you'd be a fabulous blogger, OnPoint.
Is there such a thing as video blog? I think it would be so much easier to video-blog, plus it is more personal where people can actually see you and exprience your journey in a better way. I see many video blogs except low carb ones. There was a guy but he stopped.Does anyone know such a blog or do I have to start one?
You can do a video blog easily, Vadim, by recording your videos on YouTube and then embedding them on your blog. Christine and I do that with our YouTube video series.
Cool, thanks!
"Looking forward to some LC chocolate or pudding does not mean I'm having cravings; desire, yes. Craving, no."
I completely agree with that statement. I believe the absence of carbs has all but conquered my cravings.......which is awesome! However, I still enjoy eating certain low carb, sweet treats. I associate cravings with hunger and I'm rarely hungry on this WOE. Good point, D.
Hello, Jimmy!
How are you?
Well, I'm not much of a low-carber and I've not read enough material to lay judgment but my goodness! You sure do eat a lot of cheese and drink far too many diet sodas!
Remember, "Diet Coke is a Joke"?
We've had this discussion before a few months ago when you were on the sugar-free December. I did this myself and weaned off the sodas, splenda, and other fake sweet.
Of course, you know better than I about how your body reacts to food. Yet, I would think the weight gain should give you pause and "re-think" your low-carb strategy and maybe break yourself from the sweet addiction.
THANKS Lora! The December thing wasn't a "sugar-free" thing, but rather a "sweet"-free. I haven't had much sugar to speak of in over 5 1/2 years.
Didirina:
I recall that you named several possibilities (other than the obvious ones) that sweet-free worked. But here's what we know about Jimmy's sweet-free experiment: Jimmy had no potential insulin releases from foods tasting sweet, no potential insulin reaction from sugar alcohols, no potential problems from the intake of aspartame (best avoided, according to Dr. Atkins), and no other potential problems from AS. Since Jimmy was not indulging heavily in starches, we can assume sweet-free did a really good job of keeping his insulin low. Also, Jimmy had tried just about every other option before going sweet-free.
I agree with JD and you about the continuum. In fact, I'm not so sure that Jimmy needs to go sweet-free for a long period of time to get good results. There are many possibilities: weeks on/off the taste of sweet, maybe only the taste of sweet once per day - just to name two. If he ever feels so inclined, Jimmy could do some testing to find out he lies on the continuum.
Alternatively, we can conclude that sweet-free worked because it worked. Even w/o drawing a conclusion about why, we know for sure it worked - for whatever reason(s) it worked. I felt that diminishing the impact of it was tatamount to playing games, like he was justifying his loss of interest in sweet-free by minimizing how successful it was.
Oh, and it worked each time he did it.
As I noted, I did not make a recommendation in terms of what Jimmy should do diet-wise. I was only suggesting that he acknowledge the sweet-free experiment for the success it was. He doesn't have to be doing sweet-free now to acknowledge that he got good results from it. In fact, I think it might have been Jimmy's signature contribution to the literature.
In reality, he doesn't have to go back to it at all to leave it out there for others who may find it interesting or necessary to try. Jimmy theorized a couple of months ago that sweet-free worked not b/c of the absence of sweet, but b/c it was really just a "return to the basics [sic]" of Atkins. When he decides to lose weight again, he oculd give his theory a whirl.
It's obvious (to most of us) that the sweet free experiment worked for Jimmy's weight loss. Even more undeniable in the face of weight gain once the diet drinks and low carb products came back into the diet. The effect of sweet tastes, artificial sugars, etc. is well documented in many of Jimmy's interviews with experts.
However, if one is not happy eliminating or even eating those things in moderation (MAYBE once a week), then one will either decide to be happy with whatever weight situation they are in or one will seek alternative reasons to justify the weight issue.
I, personally, refuse to give up the Splenda I put into my coffee each morning - just not ready to go there. Nor am I ready to give up the wine I have with dinner most evenings. Therefore, I am content to continue losing weight at a snail's pace.
Perhaps, one day, I will be uber motivated and do these two things that I know will accelerate the weight loss. Until then, I am happily healthy and as long as the scale continues to creep down ever so slowly.
I am also fully aware of the fact that our bodies are continually changing so that what I could get away with and continue to lose weight a few years ago is not necessarily something that will work for my body today. It is an unfortunate side effect of previous health abuse and growing older.... just as our eyesight may get a bit more fuzzy as we age. ;-)
Sweet-tasting foods do not create any more of an insulin spike than do other foods. The body releases a tiny squirt of anticipatory insulin throughout the day, even if people just smell food. It isn't enough to jack up insulin levels.
"Since Jimmy was not indulging heavily in starches, we can assume sweet-free did a really good job of keeping his insulin low."
You mean aside from his low carb diet?
"Also, Jimmy had tried just about every other option before going sweet-free."
Except for taking Metformin and eliminating dairy. And reducing his food intake.
"Alternatively, we can conclude that sweet-free worked because it worked. Even w/o drawing a conclusion about why, we know for sure it worked - for whatever reason(s) it worked."
It "worked" at the same time that other important factors were in play. That's my point--you can't say that "it" worked, that THAT was IT.
Didirina:
I can most assuredly say that sweet-free worked, "and THAT was IT." Since you are unclear as to why it worked, we'll just stick with the premise that it worked.
Jimmy's low carb diet did a marginal job of keeping his insulin levels low, as was demonstrated when he had his insulin levels tested. It seems sweet-free, for some reason, did a better job of keeping his insulin levels low.
When Jimmy transitioned from sweet-free back to his normal diet, the weight loss began to reverse itself or slowed to a crawl (both times - November 2008 and January 2009), even though he was still on Metformin. In fact, this held true in 2009 when Jimmy remained on Metformin for more than two months after ending sweet-free.
Jimmy did not eliminate dairy during sweet-free.
Why is it so hard for you to even consider that sweet-free in and of itself worked well for Jimmy? I did NOT say it should be Jimmy's permanent diet, nor did I prescribe it for anyone else. I simply said it worked, which may be good knowledge for others to know as they work with their own individual situations.
Actually, insulin levels were never measured during my "sweet"-free challenge so we don't know what was happening to them. We can assume that the small weight loss I experienced during that time was a result of lower insulin levels, but there's no verifiable evidence to say as much. That said, it's interesting information.
"The body releases a tiny squirt of anticipatory insulin throughout the day, even if people just smell food."
This is NOT true. The body releases a tiny amount of basal insulin throughout the day. Anticipatory insulin is Phase I insulin response. Also, due to previous diet history some people have hyperinsulinemia not to mention insulin resistance which drives hyperinsulinemia conditions.
SOME people secrete insulin even at the sight of food or a picture of food or smell of food or the taste of sweet. This is anticipatory insulin. See Good Calories Bad Calories for reference.
Didirina, I don't have time right now to look up the articles and interviews where the experts Jimmy has interviewed, studies he's posted, etc. validate our position that the taste of sweet and AS can be a problem for some people's systems, but it is there and well documented. The idea for the sweet free experiment wasn't just pulled out of someone's arse. ;-)
Perhaps Jimmy or someone else can point you in the right direction. If I get time I'll peck around.
That said. IF Jimmy is happy with his weight, then there is nothing for him to change or tweak. Even if he's not - it's really not our place to slam him for not doing what WE think he should be doing. :-)
I know what I could be doing differently - I just don't want to. I think the sweet free worked for Jimmy and science does back up the fact that it is an issue with some folks. Regardless, it is Jimmy's body and his decision.
"Why is it so hard for you to even consider that sweet-free in and of itself worked well for Jimmy?"
It's not hard for me to "even consider" it, it's just not conclusive, not by a long shot. IF he were to try it again and hold to eating all of the other foods that he regularly consumes AND maintains the same number of meals per day AND does the same amount of exercise, and then loses, then I'll probably believe that the "taste of sweet" has an affect on HIM.
"... the taste of sweet and AS can be a problem for some people's systems, but it is there and well documented. The idea for the sweet free experiment wasn't just pulled out of someone's arse. ;-)"
"Can be" are the operative words. Could be, might be, etc., etc. There are also lots of studies that prove no such reaction at all, especially when the AS foods are consumed with other nutritious foods (protein, fat, calories). There are studies galore that shout out headlines, then we find that the limitations are conveniently buried in the small print, such as the study was performed on rats, or that the number of participants was extremely low, or we find the "weasel" words, "might," "potential," and so on. I'm waiting for the conclusive statement, "AS (and it better state which one) causes (fill in the blank)."
Not sure what, exzctly, is NOT true, but my point was to highlight that insulin is not released only during meals and the amount that is doesn't matter much.
"Insulin is produced by cells in the pancreas, called the islets of Langerhans. These cells continuously release a small amount of insulin into the body, but they release surges of the hormone in response to a rise in the blood glucose level."
I believe this is what you mean, JD, by basal release. However, anticipatory insulin is released by smell or the sight of food, which you also claim is true (for SOME people), and it very may well go on throughout the day.
From sciencedirect.com
Cephalic phase insulin secretion in relation to food presentation in normal and overweight subjects
Abstract
The existence of a preabsorptive insulin reflex is well known in animals but remains controversial in humans. Glycemia and insulin variations following olfactive [smell] and visual presentation [sight] of a standard meal were studied in 25 subjects, 10 of them (5 men and 5 women) of normal weight and 15 overweight (7 men and 8 women), after a 15 hour fast. Blood samples were collected continuously, every minute for 16 minutes after the meal was presented. The presentation produced an early blood insulin increment, variable in magnitude and time course and occurring between the 3rd and 9th minute, in both normal and overweight subjects. Glycemia variations were not significant. Our study demonstrated a positive correlation between (1) the reflex insulin release, (2) body weight and (3) a conscious effort to maintain current body weight. However, the differences between overweight and normal subjects remained small. The physiological and psychological determinants of the cephalic phase of insulin secretion are discussed.
Bottom line is that the amount released and its effect is negligible. Meaning, as I said before, that it's not enough to jack up insulin levels. And this would be true for the small release that accompanies the taste of sweet.
Didirina, since you seem to be the expert in your opinion why is Jimmy gaining weight?
Post a Comment