Low Carb Trailblazing

I've disappeared for a few weeks now, mostly due to a very bad cold that had me hacking and coughing up "stuff" from my lungs every morning.  It started out as a sniffle and turned me into one of those Mucos Marcus Garbage Pail Kid cards (or would that be Mucos Margi?).  It was everything I could do to get out of bed and function at work, let alone my husband's employment went all screwy when his long haul truck broke down.  Available work was a four hour per day commute, so he ended up finding a new local job where he is home everyday.  I would say all's well that ends well but I haven't shaken this nasty cold yet. 

Harmed by Kimkins?  Share your story on national television

We've all repeatedly been told that in order to lose weight and keep it off, we don't need a diet but a lifestyle change.  I agree with this, but it's easy to get caught up in how fast the scale moves down instead of focusing on the healthy things you are doing for your body that don't result in just weight loss.  I often get frustrated when the scale doesn't move either, I suspect many of us do because of all the other failed weight loss attempts that turned into failures.  Wifezilla recenly posted a great blog entry that will help keep us reminded of all the other benefits low carb lifestyle has besides watching the numbers drop.  Be sure to check out the rest of her blog!

More reasons why very low calorie diets (including low carb/low fat) does not work even with exercise.  Kudos go out to anipomoni for posting these at LCF.

Thyroid Weight Research - Low Calorie Diets + Exercise = thyroid disaster

Obesity and Leptin Resistance

Effect of a high-protein, very-low-calorie diet on resting metabolism, thyroid hormones, and energy expenditure of obese middle-aged women.

Resting metabolic rate, body composition and thyroid hormones. Short term effects of very low calorie diet.

Energy-metabolism adaptation in obese adults on a very-low-calorie diet

Weight and Body Composition Management

Research on the Safety of Very Low Calorie Diets (VLCD) - A must read!!!

Warning - this post contains rantings and ravings that have been bottled up for years.  This is in no way directed at any particular media outlet - magazines, tv shows, or blogs.  This is something I just really needed to get off my chest.  Thanks for understanding.

The subject of eating disorders is a touchy on with me.  They get a lot of attention in the media, print and web, as well as in health classes from junior high to high school.  When it's brought up, almost everyone wants to get on the bandwagon and fall over themselves to show their "support" for those poor, frail, sickly girls that have starved, thrown up, and overexercised their way to the front page of prominent magazines and daytime talk shows. 

No, I don't think people starve themselves to just get on the covers of new stories but the overemphasis on anorexia/bulemia is another symptom of our cultural obsession with thinness.  The term "eating disorder" has become synonymous with someone who deprives themselves, but never with people who overfeed themselves.  Anorexic people are always absolved of their responsibility - see, they have an illness.  They've even tried to blame genetics and autism for their self inflicted plight.  Fat people are just lazy, gluttonous, and lack self control.

Nevermind that fat people have always been the subject of ridicule, bullying, and all around disdain; fat people have also been given mixed signals over the years in terms of how to solve their weight problem.  Take this pill, no take that one.  For heaven's sakes don't starve yourself (but you can watch us sob and sympathize with anorexics in magazines).  Eat a well balanced diet that contains the same foods meant to fatten cattle.  You can have certain foods, but you can only eat a little of them even though they were manufactured to make you binge.  Yes you are fat, no you aren't fat.  You would look good if you would only lose a few pounds, but you shouldn't lose weight to be attractive you should do it for your health.  I've ranted enough, but the list of contradictory "help" people dispense unprompted could really go on for a while.

Out of all this, fat people get to watch anorexics/bulemics given sympathetic limelight overall.  Fat people that are pictured in news stories are photographed from the shoulders down - and probably without the individual's consent.  A fat person is apparently just a nonperson - without feeling, needs, or rights.  Anorexics and bulemics, on the other hand are artfully photographed to sell whatever media product they are featured on.  We see sensitive glimpses of gaunt (attractive to US standards) faces, huge soulful, hungry eyes fixated on the camera.  They have a face, they have an identity.  They don't have to worry about being written off as useless basket cases.  Because they aren't too fat to not matter.

Even though obese and morbidly obese people are on the fastest rise in the nation, anorexics and bulemics are still given the limelight.  Obesity affects over 60% of American adult population, and anorexia and bulemia 10-20%.  While yes, people should be aware of anorexia and bulemia, their media coverage is startling excessive in the face of our national situation.  Shouldn't eating disorders that cause obesity be focused on, considering the staggering amount of American adults that are overweight or obese?

But they aren't.  Maybe it's because anorexics and bulemics are the best models for visual media.  It gives people something ideal to care about, on a standard that is easy to empathize with.  Fat people are not empathized with, they are often despised.  Anyone giving sympathy to fat people is accused of pandering to them.

Now, on the topic of pro-Ana, there are some people out there that want to save people from themselves.  They want to "help" anorexics by telling them to do what the anorexics fear most - eat.  Well I don't see that winning them over.  I don't know what will - considering the "eating disorder" feeds off of the attention of others.  Having people tell them to eat will give them more reason not to eat.  They see people sympathizing with them, they see the media giving them sympathetic limelight - this is a reward for them.  Most will not admit it, but it's true.  Anorexia is not about food as it is about attention - sexual, emotional, and whatever else kind you can think of.  People will do strange things for validation from others, that much I have learned in the past few days.  Self-destruction is a good way people get other people's attention.

Emosoap

The problem is, until anyone with an eating disorder, or some other self-infliction mental illness really admits that they've got a problem, the chances of "helping" them unprofessionally are slim to none.  These people are NOT the kind of lives I see worth messing around with.  These are people that logically understand that they could very well kill themselves with their actions, but don't see any other way to be a healthy person.

Some would retort that fat people are the same - and reluctantly, I would have to agree that this is sometimes the case.  I've known people who were obese that complained about their body, but when I went to take them to the gym, or suggested a change in eating habits, my ideas were shot down followed with more whining.  Clearly, I am a fat woman and this bothers even me.  I am a straight-shooter, no BS kind of person that doesn't tolerate self pity.  I have been through too much in life to allow that to be an obstacle.  But for the most part, I see fat many people desperately seeking answers to why they crave food, why they can't lose weight, and why they can't seem to find even one solution amongst thousands of diet products.  Isn't that just as important to focus on nationally as starving, vomiting, cutting people?  Or will fat people be trivialized forever?

I purchase the generic Altern brand from Wal*Mart, but essentially it's got the exact same ingredients that Splenda does.  I know, I compared the packages before buying them.  This morning I read the packets and they said "less than one gram" of carbohydrates.  Less than one carb?  What does that mean?  Does that mean .075 or .75 of a gram of carbs.  To low carbers like me, this stuff matters!

I have been haphazardly putting Splenda in everything I eat.  In my rocky road whipping cream treat, to my new gooey chocolate fudge and walnut medley.  I love white tea, so guess what's been going in my white tea?  Four packets per "cup", and I drink about five cups per day.  Plus I drink those blueberry white tea packets in my bottled water that are sweetened with guess what... Splenda!

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to see my weight stall.  So, on a hunch that my generic Splenda was the next hidden carb culprit sabotaging my diet, I went over the CalorieKing.com where I saw the entry for Splenda packets.  Half a gram of carb per serving!  This means I am putting two carbs in my white tea, and three carbs in my goey chocolately fudge.  All those carbs are adding up.

I went over to the Splenda web site to see what they had to say for themselves, and I found the question "How is Splenda handled in the body?"

"Although sucralose is made from a process that begins with sugar, the body does not recognize it as sugar or a carbohydrate. It is not metabolized by the body for energy, so it is calorie-free."

Yeah right!

Also, this would explain why a lot of Kimkins members reported stalls.  Heidi would allow "unlimited" sugar free refreshments.  But that's only one thing out of many things wrong with her diet plan! 

2big4mysize left a great comment about artificial sweeteners.  I decided to copy and paste it here so it won't be missed.  Thanks 2big!

"here is the low daoewm on splenda carbs and Atkins limits

first Atkins limits are 3 servings a day and serving means manufactureres serving size so if your soda says 8 ounces then a can is 1.5 servings

As to the labels the FDA which makes the rules says if a food contains less then .5 grams of carbs per manufacturers serving size ( that is tricky with stuff labeled low carb and no carbs) then it can say 0. if it has .5 to .9999999999 it can say less then 1. 1to 1.4999999999999 it can say 1 and so on up the numbers. Many successful low carbers round up when counting to account for those fractions.

powdered Splenda and other sweetners use dextrose as their dispersal agent and that is where the carbs come from. Products sold as liquids have liquid Splenda in them and that is way under the amount needed to say 0." 

Importance for living organisms

Vitamins A, D, E, and K are fat-soluble, meaning they can only be digested, absorbed, and transported in conjunction with fats. Fats are also sources of essential fatty acids, an important dietary requirement.

Fats play a vital role in maintaining healthy skin and hair, insulating body organs against shock, maintaining body temperature, and promoting healthy cell function. They also serve as energy stores for the body. Fats are broken down in the body to release glycerol and free fatty acids. The glycerol can be converted to glucose by the liver and thus used as a source of energy.

The fat content of a food can be analyzed by extraction. The exact method varies on what type of fat to be analyzed - for example, polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats are tested quite differently.

Fat also serves as a useful buffer towards a host of diseases. When a particular substance, whether chemical or biotic -- reaches unsafe levels in the bloodstream, the body can effectively dilute -- or at least maintain equilibrium of -- the offending substances by storing it in new fat tissue. This helps to protect vital organs, until such time as the offending substances can be metabolized and/or removed from the body by such means as excretion, urination, accidental or intentional bloodletting, sebum excretion, and hair growth.

While it is nearly impossible to remove fat completely from the diet, it would be wrong to do so. Some fatty acids are essential nutrients, meaning that they can't be produced in the body from other compounds and need to be consumed in small amounts. All other fats required by the body are non-essential and can be produced in the body from other compounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat#Importance_for_living_organisms

Speaking of Susan Powter, I remember those late night infomercials where she gave everyone in the audience a formula that would "save your life!"  She used this tool for low fat dieting but I don't see why we can't use it for high fat dieting.

It goes like this:

Total fat grams times 9 equals the total calories from fat in the food in question.  I would do this even though the package will try to tell you how many calories of fat is in the food.  I've run across wrong labels!  Then divide the total calories of fat by the total calories in the food all together. 

For example:

Chicken Soup - 60 calories per serving.

Total fat - 1 gram.

9x1=9.  9 divided by 60 is 0.15.  15% fat!

Thanks Susan!

Powter,%20susan

Her before picture was always black and white, always grainy and subjective to the eye.  Kind of remind you of someone else huh?  :)

I was posting at LCF and the topic of Susan Powter came up.  I remember her way back from the old days, when she would compare the caloric content of a slice of cheese to a thousand baked potatos.  She was also well known for her platinum blonde shaved head, bare midriff, and delicate collar bones.  Everyone wanted to look like her, and you know what?  Some people still do.  I can't blame them.

So what's my friggin problem with her?  Well, besides the fact that she promotes an extremely high carbohydrate/low fat diet I ended up gaining weight on, her success story is much like Heidi Diaz's - it's safe to assume it's based on a lie.  Her brother came forward with photos that were splashed across the tabloids for a few weeks proving she had never been 260lbs.  She's Heidi Diaz's polar opposite.  Heidi Diaz faked after pictures, Susan Powter faked before pictures.  Heidi Diaz restricted calories that even a child from a third world country would laugh at, Susan Powter encouraged people to stuff their faces full of calories (nevermind that those calories would spike blood sugar and insulin levels leading to weight gain).  Heidi Diaz helped people lose weight, Susan Powter helped them gain weight.  Heidi Diaz had fake hair at the height of her diet, and when Susan Powter got rid of her hair her popularity exploded.

The eerie similarities could go on and on but I digress.  The point of my post is the problem with Susan Powter's "after" results - she has a Barbie doll's body.  Remember, bare, toned midriff and delicate collar bones?  Ok the collar bones I can understand but the midriff bothers me.  If she was supposedly 260+lbs before she went on her diet, how in the world could she have the body of a beauty queen?  Nobody that's morbidly obese just loses a hundred pounds and gets "hot" without surgery.  That's physically impossible.

She explained in her book "Stop The Insanity!" that the only surgery she ever had was to remove the "skin around her bellybutton that was wrinkled up like a little old woman's."  In reality, after losing a hundred pounds it's more likely someone would need a full abdominoplasty plus other extensive surgery to get the athletic look she still has today.

Ditto for the rest of her body.  I know people who have had weight loss surgery and have lost over a hundred pounds.  Skin sags everywhere.  Sometimes it's bad, sometimes not.  But it does sag.  I must stress that it's not the person's fault and it's a natural byproduct of excess weight loss.  You don't pick and choose where it will sag, it just does where it wants to, especially in problem areas you have had your whole life.  Where did Susan's skin sag?  Nowhere.  And that's the problem with weight loss gurus - they perpetuate the myth that losing a ton of weight will make you look like a rock star.  It doesn't!

Yes, improving your physical attractiveness while losing weight is a great feeling when you are losing weight.  In fact, vanity may be a great motivation for some people to lose weight and get healthy.  That's perfectly fine.  It's natural to feel pride in your success and body after losing weight.  But it's a fairy tale that one will be a supple, svelt sex kitten (or tom cat, for that matter) after losing over a hundred pounds. 

I can't wait to be 30.  My twenties have by far been the most challenging years of my life.  All my friends around my age act like they are diagnosed with some terrible disease when they turn thirty, so I guess I just don't understand.  My neice through marriage is two years younger than me, and when she turned 25 she thought she was getting old.  I don't understand it, and it makes me really uncomfortable when people are so obsessed with youth.  I guess they forgot when they "grew up" (or thought they did) that being young sucked.  You couldn't do anything without asking your mom, and junior high is the most emotionally unbearable years to 99.9% of the population.  High school might have been better, but in my experience that's when my mom tightened the reigns even more.  For good reason - in an effort to feel more grown up, actions with dire consequences suddenly seem appealing to experiment with at that age.  Unplanned pregnancies, alcohol poisoning, and drug abuse is common with young people.  Why?  Because scientifically, their brains are literally not developed to consider the long term consequences of their actions.

And yet, people for some strange reason still like the idea of being young.  Or at least looking young, as if that is somehow a guarantee to preserve one's worth. 

Also, I don't think the obsession with being young is childlike and cute, it's childish and creepy.  Every time someone I know mentions to me how they dress up like a school girl for their husband, and actually giggle about how fun it is, it makes my skin crawl.  Ditto that for every other "service" they do for their man that is blurrs the age boundary.  But what do I know, I'm just a geek and they are "cool" for servicing men in forbidden, sexually charged ways.

I have considered the possibility that I am unappreciative of the time I have.  After all, it's very likely I will look back twenty years from now and consider myself an ungrateful curmudgeon that wasted her twenties on work, responsibilities, and self development.  Then again, it's very possible that I'll thank myself later.  I would have never gotten to where I am today if I had been lazy about enriching my knowledge and experience.  Maybe that's why I'm not afraid of getting older and other people are - there's a huge difference in focusing on bettering oneself and wasting a whole decade on immature partying and irresponsible drama.  The idea of growing up and being responsible is so foreign to some people that they fear it because it's still the unknown to them - even if they are of legal age.  That makes me sad, actually.