Mana's Diner

LOL, sorry guys not much for updating. I keep gaining and losing the same 3lbs over this last week. I do really well and lose it and then my husband wants to go out to eat and it's back again. But I've had enough finally and when we went out yesterday, I stuck to my guns. LOL Hopefully, I'll be seeing the last of these particular lbs.
 
Congrats for you!
It's not any one major step that is going to be the huge difference for most of us, it's just the accumulated result of all the little steps we take.
Glad to see you back! :D
 
Well, so far I've been very diligent this week with my diet and the extra lbs that I had gained last weekend are finally coming off. Went out this evening for dinner with the parents for mother's day/mom's b-day and did really well with supper. A yuummmmmy medium rare ribeye. :jump: And a (literal)couple bites of green beans to look like a "normal person". I really didn't want any of the other stuff. They had ordered onion rings for an appetizer, which normally I would be all over, but didn't want at all. And they also ordered two brownie sundaes to share for dessert and I didn't even feel a hint of a craving for it. Crazy! :eek2: That's one of the great things I've noticed about being "carb free" is that I have almost no cravings at all for that stuff. And when I do feel like having "dessert" because my family is, I just make myself some coffee with cream and I'm extremely satisfied, but most of the time I don't even need that.

I have noticed this week since I've been getting roughly 0-10 grams of carbs/day, that I'm sooo full all day. I don't really feel any need to eat in the morning, but I do because I'm afraid of getting too hungry at work and eating stuff that I don't want. The last couple of days though I've been skipping lunch, just because I'm still so full from breakfast. Today I noticed it even more so. I wasn't hungry again when I woke up. But we were going to the zoo all day and then out to supper at 5pm. So I had 3 scrambled eggs fried in tallow and 5 slices of uncured bacon. And was very satisfied. We were gone from about 11:30 until 4pm at the zoo and all I had there was a couple bottles of water and a handful of mixed nuts (more for the salt than for hunger, it was really hot today). Then we went to supper and I was still full. And I mean FULL. I could have happily not had supper at all, but you know, family stuff. So I ordered the 14 oz ribeye and ate all of that. Sooo juicy and yummy. But now I am so full.

Tomorrow I might just wait until I'm hungry to eat again. I'm not getting any of the highs and lows when I do or do not eat, like I did when I was eating carbs. You know, the feeling when you're hungry that you're going to climb the wall if you don't put food in you mouth NOW!!! Besides I think my weight loss is slowing down now because I'm eating not when I'm hungry but when I think I "should" because I "should" be eating "3 square meals a day" or now I guess they tell you "eat 6 mini meals" LOL :rotflmao: You know it's because they want you to keep your blood sugar up, so that you keep feeling good and don't have a carb crash.
So anyways, since I don't have to worry about having a sugar crash, I'm just going to eat when I'm actually hungry and not when I "should".
 
interesting reading

The World's Biggest Fad Diet
(and why you should probably avoid it)

by Dean Esmay. Please feel free to drop by Dean's World after reading this article.


The most common belief about diet in the United States today is that excessive fat in the diet is the primary cause of obesity, heart disease, and other health problems. This belief is extraordinarily widespread in both the popular imagination and in the medical community, and most especially among popular writers on diet. Consumer advocacy groups, professional medical organizations, and government health organizations almost universally endorse this concept. You can't even listen to stand-up comics talk about health or fat people without hearing a joke about fatty foods. The belief that fat is the dietary bad guy is about as close to universal as any idea in America.

And yet there has long been evidence that the danger of dietary fat may be greatly exaggerated. Unbeknownst to the general public, the theory that bad health follows high intake of fats in general or saturated fats in particular has long had its detractors--and the list of detractors has been growing noticeably in recent years.


"The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is completely wrong, but the statement has been 'published' so many times over the last three or more decades that it is very difficult to convince people otherwise unless they are willing to take the time to read and learn what...produced the anti-saturated fat agenda." (Dr. Mary Enig, Consulting Editor to the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association, and noted lipids researcher.)
"Despite abundant evidence that dietary fat bears no relation to development of cancer of the breast, the NIH intends...to try once again to prove a link that is probably not there....Why then does NIH insist on spending $10 million on a study whose hypothesis seems to be little more than wishful thinking? Is it only because of the faddish infatuation with fat as the root of all dietary evil?" (Editorial in NATURE, Vol. 359, 29 October 1992.)
"The diet-heart hypothesis [which suggests that high intake of saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease] has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century." (Dr. George V. Mann, participating researcher in the Framingham study and author of CORONARY HEART DISEASE: THE DIETARY SENSE AND NONSENSE, Janus Publishing 1993.)
"Call it the Big Fat Lie. Fat has, through no real fault of its own, become the great demon of the American dietary scene. It is no myth that one-third of Americans are overweight. It is, however, a myth that Americans are overweight due to excessive fat consumption. (Dr. Richard K. Bernstein, Type I Diabetic and noted diabetic researcher.)
Another popular view has been that the key to weight loss for the chronically overweight is to view fat as the enemy. The popular notion can be phrased in this simple formulation: "Eating fat makes you fat, eat less fat and you'll be less fat." Although this simplistic view is not embraced by most professional dieticians, a surprising number of health professionals, personal trainers, and weight-loss gurus continue to make this claim to a public eager to shed its extra pounds.
More conservative dietary authorities don't make the claim that cutting fat intake will automatically lead to weight loss (or easy weight management). The more conservative low-fat advocates restrict their claims only to saying that fat has more calories than protein or carbohydrate, and therefore cutting fat is an easy way to cut down on calories without feeling hungry. But there is a significant and growing amount of evidence to question even this more cautious view.


"There is evidence that altering the proportion of the calories in the diet from fat, carbohydrate, and protein can have a limited effect on weight loss; however the effects appear to be quite small." (Methods for Voluntary Weight loss and Control, NIH Technology Assessment Conference Panel, Annals of Internal Medicine June 1992, 116;11)
A growing number of authors, most of them medical doctors or people with doctorates in fields such as biology or biochemistry, have recently exploded onto the American diet scene with popular books offering easier weight loss and substantial health benefits from diets higher in fat, higher in protein, and significantly lower in carbohydrate than the popular low-fat diets. Time and more research will probably tell whether the likes of Dr. Robert Atkins, Dr. Barry Sears, Drs. Rachael and Richard Heller, Drs. Mary Dan and Michael R. Eades, and other diet book authors who go against the prevailing views on diet are right or wrong. Nevertheless it's astonishing how frequently and even viciously these people who question the reigning dietary dogma are dismissed, even angrily attacked, by defenders of the low-fat diet. In the meantime, evidence that low-fat diets are by and large ineffective and possibly even dangerous continues to accumulate in some of the world's most respected medical journals.
Low-fat diets are ineffective

Low-fat (30% or less total calories daily from fat) diets are generally eaten with a low intake of protein (around 15% is typical) and a very high intake of carbohydrates (60% or more is usually considered "healthy" by low-fat diet gurus).

And yet there is a good deal of evidence that such diets are ineffective for weight loss, may in fact even cause weight gain in some individuals, and that they are completely unnecessary for most individuals seeking to improve their health.


A recent study involving over 40,000 middle-aged and older American men over a period of six years found that there was no link between saturated fat intake and heart disease in men. It also supported the contention that linolenic acid (a form of fat) is preventive against heart disease. (Ascherio A et. al. Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States. British Medical Journal, 1996 Jul 13, 313:7049, 84-90.)
The average U.S. daily fat consumption is 2.52 ounces, with 10% of males obese; the average Australian daily fat consumption is much less, but 14% are obese. (LONGEVITY, May 1992)
"Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of percentage fat intake." (Leibel RL. Energy intake required to maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet composition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1992;55;350-5)
"We found no evidence of a positive association between total dietary fat intake and the risk of breast cancer. There was no reduction in risk even among women whose energy intake from fat was less than 20 percent of total energy intake. In the context of the Western lifestyle, lowering the total intake of fat in midlife is unlikely to reduce the risk of breast cancer substantially." (Hunter, DJ et. al. Cohort studies of fat intake and the risk of breast cancer - A pooled analysis. New England Journal of Medicine, 334: (6) FEB 8 1996)
"In the presence of dietary carbohydrate, the preferred fuel is glucose and the capacity to mobilize fat is limited. Factors that increase blood glucose during dieting may stimulate insulin release and all the metabolic sequelae of circulating insulin. Fatty acid synthesis is activated and lipolysis is profoundly inhibited by insulin even at very low concentrations of the hormone." (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1992;56:217S-23S) [Note: Fatty acid synthesis is the creation of body fat. Lopolysis is the burning of body fat.]
At least so far as the risk of heart disease goes, the simple fact is that there is no longer any proof that lowering fat (or cholesterol) intake offers any protection whatsoever against heart disease. This is perhaps best summed up by Drs. Laura A. Corr (Consultant Cardiologist to Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, London U.K.) and M.F. Oliver (of the National Heart and Lung Institute in London, U.K.), in the concluding paragraphs of their recently-published review of all studies to date of low-fat or low-cholesterol diets as a treatment for heart disease:


"The commonly-held belief that the best diet for prevention of coronary heart disease is a low saturated fat, low cholesterol diet is not supported by the available evidence from clinical trials. In primary preventions, such diets do not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction or coronary or all-cause mortality. Cost-benefit analyses of extensive primary prevention programmes, which are at present vigorously supported by governments, health departments, and health educationalists, are urgently required....Similarly, diets focused exclusively on reduction of saturated fats and cholesterol are relatively ineffective for secondary prevention and should be abandoned. There may be other effective diets for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease but these are not yet sufficiently well defined or adequately tested." (European Heart Journal, Volume 18, January 1997.)
Furthermore, despite more than a decade of American diet gurus recommending low-fat diets for weight loss, there remains no study which clearly shows that low-fat diets result in long-term, significant weight loss among the chronically obese. In fact, most such studies show quite marginal improvements in weight, and some actually show significant weight gain among test subjects.
 
continued

In a two-year study, 171 women on a low-fat diet achieved a maximum weight loss of only about seven and a half pounds at 6 months, and by year two some of that weight was regained. Most significantly, the standard deviation was more than twice the average weight loss, showing that a number of subjects actually gained weight on the low-fat diet, not counting the 13 that dropped out of the program. (Sheppard L et. al. Weight Loss In Women Participating in a Randomized Trial of Low-Fat Diets. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1991;54:821-8.).
As astonishing as this may sound, it's in no way surprising to those who've spent time reviewing the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The truth is that not one clinical study has ever shown that low-fat diets allow long-term reversal of obesity in most subjects, whether combined with exercise or not. Perhaps most damning of all, according to the USDA, Americans' fat consumption has consistently gone down over the last 20 or so years while the American national rates of obesity have gone up at precisely the same time. Correlation is not causation, but it is hard to jibe this fact with claims that lowering fat intake helps those who are overweight to reduce their body fat, or the widespread claim that lowering fat intake makes it possible to eat more food without gaining weight. Some explanations have been offered to continue to support the low-fat paradigm as a workable weight-loss diet, but none are very compelling and none have strong clinical support.

"In the adult US population the prevalence of overweight rose from 25.4% from 1976 to 1980 to 33.3% from 1988 to 1991, a 31% increase. During the same period, average fat intake, adjusted for total calories, dropped from 41.0% to 36.6%, an 11% decrease. Average total daily calorie intake also tended to decrease, from 1,854 kcal to 1,785 kcal (-4%). Men and women had similar trends. Concurrently, there was a dramatic rise in the percentage of the US population consuming low-calorie products, from 19% of the population in 1978 to 76% in 1991. From 1986 to 1991 the prevalence of sedentary lifestyle represented almost 60% of the US population, with no change over time...Reduced fat and calorie intake and frequent use of low-calorie food products have been associated with a paradoxical increase in the prevalence of obesity." (Heini AF; Weinsier RL. Divergent trends in obesity and fat intake patterns: the American paradox.) American Journal of Medicine, 1997 Mar, 102(3):259-64)
(Note: I'm interested in hearing about any scientific literature which DOES support the low-fat diet as an effective weight-loss diet; if you have any please email me at my first name (dean) at my deanesmay.com domain.

Low-fat diets are dangerous

Not only is there reason to question the belief that low-fat diets improve health or give significant help in weight loss efforts, but there is a growing amount of evidence that such diets are actually quite unhealthy, raising the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer, not to mention certain psychiatric disorders such as depression and schizophrenia.

A recent American study showed that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets (15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat) increase risk of heart disease in post-menopausal women over a higher fat, lower carbohydrate diet (15% protein, 40% carbohydrate, 45% fat). (Jeppeson, J., et. al. Effects of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets on risk factors for ischemic heart disease in postmenopausal women. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997;65:1027-33)
The largest and most comprehensive study on diet and breast cancer to date, studying over 5,000 women between 1991 and 1994, showed that women with the lowest intake of dietary fat had a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer than the women with the highest intake of dietary fat. It also found that women with the highest intake of starch had a significantly higher incidence of breast cancer than the women with the lowest intake of starch. The study found no evidence that saturated fat had any effect one way or the other on breast cancer, and that unsaturated fat had a significantly protective effect against breast cancer. (Franceschi S et. al. Intake of macronutrients and risk of breast cancer. Lancet; 347(9012):1351-6 1996)
A study involving tens of thousands of American women showed that diets high in carbohydrate (which almost all low-fat diets are) significantly raise women's risk of developing diabetes, although cereal fibre intake seems to have a limited protective effect. (Jorge Salmeron et. al. Dietary Fiber, Glycemic Load, and Risk of Non-insulin-dependent Diabetes Mellitus in Women. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1997;277:472-477)
High intake of fats from the Omega-3 group increase HDL cholesterol, which is considered protective against heart disease. Obviously it would be difficult to eat an Omega-3 rich diet while following a traditional fat reduced diet, especially if one were following one of the popular American diets that has one eating only 20-30 grams of fat per day. (Franceschini G. et. al. Omega-3 fatty acids selectively raise high-density lipoprotein 2 levels in healthy volunteers. Metabolism, 1991 Dec, 40:12, 1283-6. See also Journal of the American College of Nutrition 1991:10(6);593-601)
A strong correlation exists between schizophrenia and deficiencies in fats, especially in the n-3 series. Schizophrenics who naturally eat lots of Omega-3 fats tend to have less severe symptoms than those who don't. Supplementation with extra fats in the Omega-3 group significantly improves symptoms of schizophrenia in most patients. Close relatives of schizophrenics show similar deficiencies in Omega-3 fats. The possibility that diets generally low in fat might worsen schizophrenia or even bring on the condition among those already predisposed to it is hard to ignore. (Laugharne JD; Mellor JE; Peet M. Fatty acids and schizophrenia. Lipids, 1996 Mar, 31 Suppl:, S163-5. See also Peet M et. al. Essential fatty acid deficiency in erythrocyte membranes from chronic schizophrenic patients, and the clinical effects of dietary supplementation. Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids, 1996 Aug, 55:1-2, 71-5)
"Our results do not support the recommendation of an isoenergetic high carbohydrate, low fat diet for improving peripheral insulin action in adults with glucose intolerance ... the increase in insulin action that we observed previously with vigorous exercise training was negated when combined with a diet high in carbohydrates and fiber. ... The subjects in this study are at increased risk for developing NIDDM." (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1995;62:426-33) [note: NIDDM is Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus -- the most common form of diabetes.]
Low-fat high-carbohydrate diets eaten by patients with diabetes (NIDDM) have been shown to lead to higher day-long plasma glucose, insulin, triglycerides, and VLDL-TG, among other negative effects. In general, study has demonstrated that multiple risk factors for coronary heart disease are worsened for diabetics who consume the low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet so often recommended to reduce these risks. (Chen YD et. al. Why do low-fat high-carbohydrate diets accentuate postprandial lipemia in patients with NIDDM? Diabetes Care, 1995 Jan, 18:1, 10-6)
"Conventional wisdom holds that low fat diets improve insulin sensitivity. Unfortunately, this is true only after an ultra-low carbohydrate diet. No changes in glucose tolerance and substrate oxidation were measured after a high-carbohydrate low fat diet. In addition, these studies confirm a growing body of evidence that increasing dietary carbohydrate increases plasma triglycerides and decreases plasma high-density-lipoprotein (HDL), increasing the risk of cardiovascular disease." (Metabolism 1993:42:365-70)
Numerous studies have shown that high-carbohydrate low-fat diets lead to high triglycerides, elevated serum insulin levels, lower HDL cholesterol levels, and other factors known to raise the risk of coronary artery disease. (See Liu GC; Coulston AM; Reaven GM. Effect of high-carbohydrate low-fat diets on plasma glucose, insulin and lipid responses in hypertriglyceridemic humans. Metabolism, 1983 Aug, 32:8, 750-3. See also Coulston AM; Liu GC; Reaven GM. Plasma glucose, insulin and lipid responses to high-carbohydrate low-fat diets in normal humans. Metabolism, 1983 Jan, 32:1, 52-6. See also Olefsky JM; Crapo P; Reaven GM. Postprandial plasma triglyceride and cholesterol responses to a low-fat meal. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1976 May, 29:5, 535-9. See also Ginsberg H et. al. Induction of hypertriglyceridemia by a low-fat diet. Journal of Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1976 Apr, 42:4, 729-35)
Is That All?

The references given above do not represent all the evidence against the low-fat diet as a worthless, possibly dangerous, diet. They represent merely a sampling of some of the more relevent studies. Below is some recommended reading for those interested in learning more on the subject.

The simple fact of the matter is that the low-fat diet is a fad diet. Warnings about the dangers of fat in the diet are constant in the media. Fat-phobia is ubiquitous among health-conscious Americans, and a surprising number of people from all walks of life (including most health professionals) continue to recommend a low-fat diet and to preach the "dangers" of fat. Such messages often take on an almost hysterical, or even belligerant, tone. Yet a growing mound of scientific data not only suggests that this diet fad is pointless, but suggests that it may actually be dangerous to the health of millions of Americans and others worldwide.
 
ugh, continued AGAIN

Recommended Web Sites:

The Low Fat/Low Cholesterol Diet is Ineffective. This is a reprint of the Corr paper mentioned above, as originally published in the European Heart Journal.

Chuck Forsberg's Adiposity 101. This document is a wellspring of useful information. Anyone interested in understanding the current state of obesity research should read this document thoroughly. A good bit of my own work in this document was cribbed directly from Forsberg's work, which provided numerouos useful references and helpful guidance for further research.

An Interview with Mary Enig: [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]. The President of the Maryland Nutritionists Association and a bench chemist with the authorship of numerous scientific papers and many chapters of books on nutrition talks about why the fear of saturated fat is bogus and relates information about what may be the real cause of heart disease, obesity, and other health hazards.

Trans-Fat Info Page. Mary Enig and associate give valuable information refuting many myths about fat and its role in the human diet, and discuss one form of fat they do believe is dangerous: the trans-fatty acids in margarine and other hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated oils.

Low Carb and Ketogenic Diet Resources. The many web pages and other resources referenced here will provide quite a few hours of worthwhile exploration.

Recommended Books:

I recommend the following books for popular references on alternatives to the low-fat diets. I don't endorse everything in any of these books as, but they do contain ideas worth exploring for people looking for a different dietary approach, and I know individuals who have had success on all the diets described in them, although as yet there is little formal research on any of them--except, perhaps, the Bernstein book. (Diabetics especially are urged to see the Bernstein book.)

PROTEIN POWER by Drs. Michael R. and Mary Dan Eades
DIET EVOLUTION by Charles Hunt.
NEANDERTHIN by Ray Audette
THE CARBOHYDRATE ADDICT'S LIFESPAN PROGRAM by Drs. Rachael and Richard Heller.
THE ZONE by Dr. Barry Sears
THE NEW DIET REVOLUTION by Dr. Robert Atkins.
DR. BERNSTEIN'S DIABETES SOLUTION by Dr. Richard Bernstein
This document copyright 1997 by Dean Esmay. If you have any questions, comments or criticisms, or references or resources you feel should be added, please send email to me--again, it's my first name at the deanesmay.com address. By the way, please feel free to drop by my home page: Dean's World.. Thanks, and I hope to see you there!
 
I have rediscovered a very yummy spice. Thyme. mmmmmm :D
Just dusted my chuck steak with a blend of garlic powder, onion powder, thyme, cracked black pepper, & a light sprinkle of cayenne (not enough to overwhelm the rest of the flavors) Grilled it medium rare and mmmmmmmmm, so good.
 
I love thyme - its unique - kind of lemony but adds a nice fresh flavor to foods -- discovering herbs is such a fun adventure :)
 
I've heard the parsley, sage, and rosemary are good too. :rotflmao:


...ok so it was kindof a lame joke...

I hope everythings going well manaloa, and that your spice rack gets more use than mine!

I use adobo.....and......um.....yeah that's about it. :)
 
Meat & Egg Two Week Challange

with the exception of a teeny bit of cream for my morning coffee, can't give up my coffee :eek:


OK, so I need to get back to basics. For the next two weeks it's only gonna be:
Unlimited:
meat
eggs

Limited:
coffee & very little cream (morning only, limited to two cups)
spices
hot sauce

And that's it. And if I fall off the wagon (which I refuse to do) I have to start all over. If anyone wants to join me, you're welcome!

Today's going to start day 1.
Breakfast: two softly scrambled eggs with cayenne and cracked black pepper. Two cups of coffee with a total of 2 tbsp cream
Lunch: 7.5 oz grilled chuck steak (medium rare) with a light dusting of garlic powder, onion powder, pepper, cayenne & thyme.

Edit:
Supper: 5 oz grilled chuck steak, same as above.
And lots of water aaallllll day.
 
Last edited:
Day 2

Yay! I made it through the first day!!

Breakfast: 5 oz of steak, but I don't think I can finish it. I'll just take what's left and have it for lunch with my deviled eggs.
Lunch: deviled eggs (3 whole eggs)
 
Oh, yeah, with all the cheating over mom's day weekend my weight had gone up to 223 and today is back down to 220.5
 
Yay! So I'm home now and I did really well so far today. I'm making up another batch of deviled eggs since my daughter ate the rest of last batch. I'm making tacos for supper tonight, so I might have some taco meat and some more deviled eggs. I'm really not hungry at all, but that's ok, since supper's 3 hrs away. :rotflmao:
 
Just decided to have some deviled eggs for supper. I'm sooo full. Even the cheesecake dessert I made didn't sound good. But the hubby and daughter said it was.
 
Day 3

I like my deviled eggs really spicy so I dust them with cayenne over the top. mmmmm

So I did really well today. Didn't have any appetite, though. That's one of the things I love about this WOE.

Had a couple fried eggs this morning with my coffee and cream. That filled me up completely. I only ate my steak this afternoon because I was bored (7.5oz) I got home and had a couple more deviled eggs for early supper/late snack. I'm still comfortably full even though it's been about 5 hours since I last ate. Last couple days I've only managed about 1200 cals. But I feel really good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top