New Low-Carb Plan Gets Dieters Back on Weight-Loss Track

[Demi]

The 7-Day Low-Carb Rescue and Recovery Plan on Sale April 27


NEW YORK, April 26 /PRNewswire/ -- For all low-carb dieters -- on all programs -- who need real help, right now, authors Drs. Rachael and Richard Heller introduce a plan that eases them back onto their low-carb eating program in just one week.
For the more than 50 million dieters on low-carb programs, including the AtkinsDiet® and the South Beach Diet®, who will fall off the wagon (or who have already fallen off), Drs. Hellers' new book, The 7-Day Low-Carb Rescue and Recovery Plan (Dutton; $23.95) is the answer. Holidays, vacations, stress, boredom, and the wear and tear of never-ending daily deprivation chip away at the most sincere commitment. "What starts out as a simple 'cheat' inevitably leads to bona fide failure," says Dr. Rachael Heller, who with her husband, Dr. Richard Heller, have had three of their books in the #1 spot on the New York Times bestseller list. "In the end, most low-carb dieters are left to watch helplessly as their eating spirals out of control and the pounds creep (or rush) back," she adds. See www.7daylowcarb.com.

The 7-Day Low-Carb Rescue and Recovery Plan is a day-by-day, scientifically-based motivation program that will immediately reduce cravings, satisfy the body's need for carbohydrates, and help low-carb dieters regain control over their eating and their weight-in seven days or less. Never has there been a greater demand for a Rescue and Recovery Plan designed exclusively for the low-carb dieter.

The 7-Day Low-Carb Rescue and Recovery Plan includes:

* The 7-Day Jump-Start Plan:
One step each day-for one week-eliminates cravings, balances blood
sugar and insulin levels, and puts the low-carb dieter back in
control-without deprivation.

* Troubleshooting:
Simple (but unexpected!) solutions to Plateaus, Time Crunches, the
Breakfast Dilemma, Constipation, Holiday, Party and Vacation Mine
Fields, Will-Power Hijackers, Spousal Sabotage, and more.

* Hidden Carbs ... Waiting to Pounce
Two medium stalks of broccoli are equal in carbohydrates to a
chocolate covered ice cream bar! The Drs. Heller explain how to
find these shocking hidden carbs and how to avoid them.

* Taming The Hunger Hormone
Spotting the slip-up before it happens-get back self-control
immediately.

* Five Vital Clues that Low-Carb Diet Doctors Miss
(That Might Be Making You Fail)
What you don't know could kill your diet. Astounding revelations
that will make readers ask, "Hey! Why didn't anyone ever mention
that?"

* Restaurant Tactics
Surprising tips for eating out, enjoying the foods you love, dealing
with dining companions and going home feeling good.
A guide to getting what you want, when you want it, without feeling
guilty!

* Rescue Recipes
When you're facing temptation, the Drs. Heller share their own
tried-and-true, simple, and satisfying low-carb food at your
fingertips. Meals, snacks, and side dishes included.


Drs. Rachael and Richard Heller are the #1 New York Times bestselling authors of The Carbohydrate Addict's diet books, that combined, have more than seven million copies in print.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040426/nyfnsj09_1.html

[MyJourney]

* Hidden Carbs ... Waiting to Pounce
Two medium stalks of broccoli are equal in carbohydrates to a
chocolate covered ice cream bar! The Drs. Heller explain how to
find these shocking hidden carbs and how to avoid them.

I wanna know what kind of ice cream shes eating!

[Dianee]

thanks for posting this. I saw where they had a new book out but all I could find was what Amazon said about it, which wasn't a whole lot.

I think I am going to order it. Might come in handy.

[adkpam]

* Hidden Carbs ... Waiting to Pounce
Two medium stalks of broccoli are equal in carbohydrates to a
chocolate covered ice cream bar! The Drs. Heller explain how to
find these shocking hidden carbs and how to avoid them.

I wanna know what kind of broccoli she's eating!

[arc]

I wanna know what kind of broccoli she's eating!

When they say stalks, do they mean the whole "head"? Who eats that much broccoli at a time?

[gotbeer]

Based on this:

http://www.carb-counter.org/veg/search/Broccoli/1100

...two medium stalks would have 25.8 gm Total Carb and about 14 gm Net Carb.

[Skyangel]

I'm sure the broccoli has more fiber than the ice cream. Not to mention nutrition ...

[gotbeer]

Dove Bar®: 350 calories, 43% from carbohydrates and 51% from fat. That makes about 150 calories from carbohydrates, or roughly 37-38 gm net carbs for the Dove Bar vs the 14 gm net carbs from the 2 medium broccoli stalks.

[gotbeer]

I just checked the labels of the 3 different brands of chocolate-covered ice cream bars sold in the snack shop of my office building (Haagen-Daz, Snickers, and Nestle Crunch). They ranged from 29 gm net carbs to 22 gm net carbs. The carbs were 90% sugar or higher.

I suppose that if you dipped your broccoli in table sugar repeatedly, you might be able to drive the carb count up to the standards of these snacks.

[adukart]

The Helllers don't count Net carbs, just total carbs. So the broccoli would have 25.8 and the ice cream bar would have 29.

[CindyG]

And I want to know who's gonna eat a 10" stalk of broccoli??? I usually cut off the flowerettes and toss the stalk (probably losing all the nutrients... but I don't like em) or I just by broc crowns :p

Anywhoo.... This book seems like it would be a valuable addition.

[Angeline]

Anyone who warns people from eating brocoli loose all respect in my book.

What is this backward system of including fiber in the carb count ? That makes zero sense.

[adukart]

CAD = Carbohydrate Addicts Diet

Here's a good explanation for you:

Carbohydrate addicts (CAs) are insulin reactive to all carbs, even fiber and sugar alcohols. We're even reactive to artificial sugar (AS). Therefore net carb theory doesn't work for us. That's why some of the foods allowed on Atkins are not allowed at CMs. That being said, some CAs are less sensitive than others and can tolerate more carbs/AS at CMs than others. The place a lot of CAs trip on these products is that many just think they aren't sensitive because they're not aware of cravings. But insulin levels can still be affected and stall weight loss even if cravings don't result. That insulin affect can also affect hunger and the balance of RMs.

[liz175]

I have problems with anyone who is suggesting that broccoli is the equivalent of ice cream. They are aiming at people who are having trouble staying on their plan. I can very easily imagine a lot of those people saying, "If the ice cream is just as bad for me as the broccoli, I may as well go ahead and eat ice cream." In my opinion, this would be a very unfortunate outcome. I do believe in the theory of net carbs and I also know that eating broccoli has lots of nutritional benefits while eating ice cream has none. Also, in terms of blood sugar, broccoli is low on the glycemic index and ice cream is high. I consider it highly irresponsible for them to put forth information in this way targeted at people who are already off their plan.

[Angeline]

How can you have a craving and yet not be aware of it, isn't that a contradiction in terms ?

[Dianee]

I think we need to read the book that the Heller's wrote to find out exactly what they are talking about. We might all be jumping to conclusion.

I am ordering the book tonight and unless someone else gets the book and posts what they meant about the broccoli issue, then I will come back and let you know what the book said.

[LilaCotton]

Maybe the Hellers just really, really hate broccoli?????

wear and tear of never-ending daily deprivation

Huh?? I've never felt deprived even one time on Atkins. Sure, there are foods I miss, but deprivation? Hardly!

[ItsTheWooo]

I know this is bound to offend someone, but I think it needs to be said... this is just too much.

A lot of the science that the CAD plan is based on seems suspect to me. Furthermore, it seems that the diet works mainly because food choices are so restricted in the majority of the day, that one is left free to enjoy any food they should want to eat -- and in satisfying meal sized quantities -- at night. Also, this diet seems to have no regard for good nutrition and health... it’s a “weight loss plan” mostly. How can a diet set limits on fibrous, very low sugar, very high nutrition carbs equal to those found in ice cream, especially when absolutely no meaningful science is offered in support of such radical claims (such as fiber causing an insulin reaction in "carbohydrate addicts").

I'm going to be frank. I don't believe the Heller's claim that some people have a physiological problem which makes them unable to stick with other LC plans. Keep in mind I am not talking about being IR in response to eating too many carbs - that's a real condition. Too much insulin can cause food obsession and hunger. I am talking about someone who has their IRS under control yet still can't control themselves on a LC (such as someone doing Atkins that is "powerless" but to cheat). The Hellers want us to believe some people have a physical addiction that is responsible for their frequent cheating, and CAD is the only diet that can work for them, but they don't ever give any evidence to support this belief.

I think people who do have carbohydrate problems, yet fail on LC, do so entirely for psychological/environmental/emotional reasons, and the reason CAD may work for them is because it helps them work around these problems. It allows them to eat whatever they want at a meal, just as long as they eat very little during the rest of the day. Of course this diet will work. However, anorexia works too… is it an optimal way to lose weight though?
Let’s think about this. Assuming some people can be physically addicted to carbohydrate as defined by the Hellers, how is possible for an addiction to get worse with increased abstinence? It is simply physically impossible. How would eating more junky type carbs help a physical addiction to them? (hero sandwiches and other low carb "no no" foods are lavishly praised in the book - another problem I have with the diet, as they make no distinction between making healthy higher carb choices vs eating a sack of bread)
Sure, it would help an emotional addiction to carbs, a psychological need for them, but a physical one? No. It would only make physical carb dependency worse.

Also, about the net carb issue. I have a really hard time believing that bulk - a substance which has no energy content, no sugar - has to be counted and limited for any reason other than for the fact that by counting it you are psychologically limiting food consumption by limiting choices. I also have a hard time embracing a plan that sells a specious claim that carbohydrate addicts have some unique wacky physiology which makes them different from everyone else.

The reason I feel as strongly about this as I do, is because I was very physically destroyed by my “carb addiction”. I was about as insulin resistant as you can get without actually being diabetic. I had PCOS, messed up hormones and moods, chronic weight gain, out of control hunger, and frequent hypoglycemia. When starting Atkins I had *no idea* how I would live without my glucose drip (fruit juice) or my faithful bag of starch (white rice). I was so emotionally and physically addicted to these foods that I would crave them incessantly, even three months into the plan. But you know what? I just resisted the (primary emotional) temptation and my body is totally clean today. I can't lie and say I never crave carbs. Sometimes I do, it's rare but sometimes it happens. Especially when I'm depressed... I will think back to how that mouthful of starch felt and how it elevated my moods and it's nostalgic. I can literally remember the "feeling" of fake happiness carbs would give me, just like a junky. But you know what? I almost NEVER act on any desire to cheat (in a rational state anyway). I’ve fell off only once (I forced-ate about 3 cups of fried rice and force-fed myself ribs), and that one time I didn’t even want to (I was emotional eating in defiance… long story). The taste of the starch after being away from it so long was not pleasant, and I had healed my body so well that eating that large quantity of food was ridiculously painful (before it was “uncomfortable” but not that big of a deal).
Under normal circumstances, if I do have to have a taste of a carb treat, I have one bite, that is it. This way of eating and life has given me so much, how ridiculous would it be to throw that away?

Personally, as someone who has been there and has pretty much made the journey to the other side, I look at CAD as a self-destructive enabler for people who are overwhelmed by the seemingly monumental task converting to a LC way of life. It's so hard to say no in the beginning, you don't know how to cook any LC recipes, you are confused and overwhelmed and have so far to go. In the beginning you are eating eggs, bland meat and bland salad every day every meal. I remember how that felt. I ate runny egg salad and cucumber slices every day. Yuck. On top of everything, the dramatic hormonal balancing act going on inside me resulted in a pervasive state of nausea that made it impossible to eat. Plus there is the emotional issue, if you feel bad about yourself and have other emotional problems (which many very overweight people do) making it through without blowing it seems practically impossible. The feeling like you are going to fail becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. These are all reasons people who need something like a PP diet or an Atkins diet fail.

Then someone comes along to these disheartened failed dieters and says "hey, you don't HAVE to say no... it's not your fault if you falter off your plan, even though you are getting so much healthier on it. Follow my diet instead, you can have hero sandwiches for dinner and lose weight!" Naturally people will want to embrace this message. It tells them everything they want to hear. It tells them they can never be hungry and eat everything they want irregardless of nutritional/long term impact.

Maybe I am being closed minded. Maybe I am hypocritically bashing CAD because I don’t understand it, just like many of the Atkins bashers. However, I have read the book and I can’t help but come to the conclusions I have. It doesn’t seem to be a plan that has total metabolic wellness in mind… it seems mostly a quick plan for IRS people to lose weight, without suffering the unpleasant (but necessary) emotional/mental/physical transition into complete carb restriction lifestyle.

[Nancy LC]

Can't say as I disagree, I had absolutely no luck with CAD. Was on the diet many years ago, followed it religiously and didn't lose any weight. Didn't gain, but didn't lose.

It reminds me of a guy I used to work with. His weight loss method was to just eat one meal a day. He did away with breakfast and lunch and ate whatever he wanted for dinner. It worked. He lost a lot of weight.

Anyway, why do diet doctors publish so many books? Do they ever say a books worth of new stuff in the new book? No, they usually just rehash, tell more testimonials, throw in some new recipes. I guess its a good way to make a lot of money.

[mcsblues]

Its the Woooo - just wanted to say what a great post.

I couldn't agree more.

Cheers,

Malcolm

[Zuleikaa]

Originally posted by Angeline
How can you have a craving and yet not be aware of it, isn't that a contradiction in terms ?
It's the level the difference between a whisper and a scream. While you might or might not be able to hear a whisper, they both produce sound. It's a matter of intensity.

The Hellers aren't saying don't eat broccoli. What they ARE saying is that a carbohydrate addict (CA), while thinking they are being nutritionally astute, is putting something in their system (outside of RM of course) that has the equivilent reaction on their body chemistry of an ice cream bar.

Orignally posted by Liz175
I do believe in the theory of net carbs and I also know that eating broccoli has lots of nutritional benefits while eating ice cream has none. Also, in terms of blood sugar, broccoli is low on the glycemic index and ice cream is high. I consider it highly irresponsible for them to put forth information in this way targeted at people who are already off their plan.

The net carb theory works for many people, probably a great majority of them. It does NOT work for CAs, however. Therefore, for CAs broccoli is just as high in carbs and glycemic impact as icecream. The body, in this state, doesn't care whether the carbs come from broccoli or ice cream, the body reacts the same, with an insulin surge. I don't feel that the Hellers are being irresponsible at all. In fact, IMHO, many people are off plan or binge cycle because they are CAs. The Hellers are addressing these people and telling them how to treat a physiological imbalance.

Originally posted by ItstheWoo
How can a diet set limits on fibrous, very low sugar, very high nutrition carbs equal to those found in ice cream, especially when absolutely no meaningful science is offered in support of such radical claims (such as fiber causing an insulin reaction in "carbohydrate addicts").

Actually the Hellers talk a lot about nutrition, the importance of nutrition, fiber and a healthy diet. They have also done a lot of original research, the Hellers are research scientists, and quote other research on the subject. So there have been studies on the subject, a lot on this subject has been done in Germany also.

An important point to note in the tests on glycemic impact and insulin surges. In general testers of insulin reaction take a sample from the general population and say look there's no reaction here or no statistically significant reaction which is a very different thing.

The Hellers say only 10% or less of the general population are CA's. Therefore they generally look for a population that self identifies as CA or who answer some basic questions that identify them as CAs (the Hellers, too, have been studying this since the 60s) They then take a sample of this population and run tests of insulin reactions. They've found reactions in about 87% of this population. Now that's statistically significant.

Human beings are a unique species with a wide range of physical and physiological atttributes. Just because a situation doesn't apply directly to you or only affects a small or even infintestimal proportion of the population doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If anything the fact that it does exist can be found no more clearly than on this board. Over 85% of Triple Digit members that have taken the carbohydrate addict test passed. Further many members of this board, Triple Digiters and others, admit to CA systems and loss of control. You might think it's psychological, the Hellers have proved it's physiological.

I really believe this is not a one size fits all diet world. As I've said people come in a wide range of types, outside and inside.

[Elihnig]

I totally agree with ItsTheWooo!


Beth

[mcsblues]

The Hellers aren't saying don't eat broccoli. What they ARE saying is that a carbohydrate addict (CA), while thinking they are being nutritionally astute, is putting something in their system (outside of RM of course) that has the equivilent reaction on their body chemistry of an ice cream bar.


The net carb theory works for many people, probably a great majority of them. It does NOT work for CAs, however. Therefore, for CAs broccoli is just as high in carbs and glycemic impact as icecream.

You say that the Hellers can quote studies that support this? Could you please give me some references?

Cheers,

Malcolm

[Quinadal]

I glanced through the book at Walmart (I read VERY fast) and put it back down like the trash it is.
They still tell people to stay away from saturated fats because they're unhealthy and raise cholesterol and allow way too many carbs.
I also tried CA for a few weeks, and all I have to say is that I felt like CRAP.

[liz175]

Over 85% of Triple Digit members that have taken the carbohydrate addict test passed. Further many members of this board, Triple Digiters and others, admit to CA systems and loss of control. You might think it's psychological, the Hellers have proved it's physiological.

While over 85 percent of TDC members have passed the Heller's test, that doesn't necessarily translate into them being carb addicts. To make that jump, you need to have proof that the Heller's test measures something called carb addiction. Otherwise, you're just reasoning in circles by saying that the Heller's define carb addiction as a set of symproms, these people have those symptoms, therefore they are carb addicts.

According to the Heller's test, I was a carb addict when I started low carbing in July 2002. I did have serious insulin resistance problems when I started low carbing and I also had serious cravings for carbs. However, I had absolutely no problem giving up carbs -- the cravings went away within a week -- and I have successfully followed Atkins ongoing weightloss for almost two years and lost 115 pounds. I am still losing weight. According to the Heller's theory, if I am/was a carbohydrate addict (which I was if we go by their test), I should not have been able to be successful on Atkins. Of the 85 percent of TDC members who answered the questionnaire and were classified as carbohydrate addicts, many have been successful on Atkins and other lowcarb plans.

I'm not saying that CAD doesn't work; clearly it does for some people on the board. I have occasionally looked at what those people are eating, because I find the plan attractive in certain ways, and the people who are successful seem to be eating relatively balanced, low calorie diets with very limited sweets and starches. It makes sense to me that they have been successful. I am sure that I would also successfully lose weight eating that way. However, their success does not prove that they were or are carb addicts.

Human beings become addicted to carbs on some level, just like they become addicted to caffeine. That's why all the lowcarb plans have some sort of induction period -- to help people clean out their systems of the carbs and stabilize their blood sugars. However, if I understand what they wrote correctly (and I have read CALP) what the Heller's are claiming is that there is a subgroup of people who are addicted on a different level and for these people a simple induction period won't get rid of their cravings, but following CAD/CALP would. Given that, according to their test, I should have fallen into that category, but I have been vey successful on Atkins, I am somewhat skeptical of that claim. I am willing to be convinced, but I haven't yet seen the proof. Everything in their book was anecdotal and as a trained statistician I prefer evidence that goes beyond case studies.

As I said, I am keeping an open mind and I am willing to be convinced otherwise. However, the fact that 85 percent of TDCers could be classified as carb addicts does not convince me because of the circular reasoning problem I described above.

[debmeg]

Interesting discussion. You know, I have mixed feelings about this. I started out on CAD, and lost 50 pounds over about eight or nine months, in 3 big surges, with lots of stalls in between. A lot of that time I was not having the balanced reward meal that the Hellers advise, but was eating way too much within my RM. Even so, I lost, and even so, the cravings were really under control. I know that if I'd eaten the same foods I ate within that hour outside of the hour, I'd have been craving and eating and craving and eating constantly.

I switched to Atkins about a year ago because I'd been in a stall for 8 months - and I knew that the stall was because I found it incredibly hard to control my RM. So I do agree with ItstheWoo in some respects that actually a severe CA like myself is in danger when eating starch/sugar even within a restricted time, because it is very hard to stop.

I was pleasantly surprised by how easy it was to do Atkins - before I'd known that I could still eat my favourite foods, that I wasn't depriving myself. Of course emotional eating is a component in our lives and I don't think I would have ever been able to make the radical switch to Atkins and go 'cold turkey' - food has too many emotional implications to me, particularly restricting myself totally. Going to CAD did allow a 'gentler' entry to LC for me - and it also worked, for a time.

I find that I'm 'happier' on Atkins. The cravings are really under control, and I'm fine with the food choices. I don't miss pasta, or bread, even though pasta was my favourite food. I do have LC treats, but they don't start cravings and yet give me a 'taste' of the foods we all like and would miss.

I am glad I started on CAD because it's given me an understanding of the way my body works. I know that if I do, for some reason, have to eat something I shouldn't, then if I eat it within an hour I'll be ok. I know that going off plan for an evening *won't* cause a total break in the WOE and end up in me gaining everything back. So it's given me the freedom to really know I can do this for life. I've actually lost less weight with Atkins than I did with CAD, but then I'm also further on in my weight loss, so it's hard to judge why that is. And the last 2 times I've broken a stall has been with a week or so of CAD eating.

Ultimately I'm not sure about the science. I instinctively tend to eat most of my carbs (the 20g I eat) in one meal, a la Heller philosophy, rather than spread them out. I know there are people who are very successful with CAD, and follow it properly. And following it properly is very healthy - 2 very low carb meals a day, still emphasizing vegetables, just restricting some that are allowed on Atkins, and one meal a day which is supposed to start with a salad, and then follow with equal amounts of protein, starch, and lc veg. That is going to be a very balanced and still very LC WOE. I stopped doing it because I found I couldn't stick to that balancing of the RM; it inevitably became a binge.

I plan to stick to Atkins 'regularly' but to allow myself a CAD day or week once in a while, either to shake up weight loss, or to allow for special occasions, etc. To make it totally liveable, for the rest of my life.

The science I did read in the Heller's books made sense to me, but then I'm not a major scientist. I didn't think, from what I read, that they thought Atkins wouldn't work because of the science behind it, but because it was too difficult to stick to long term. There I disagree with them, now, obviously, because I'm finding it better for me and more liveable than CAD.

Deborah

[gotbeer]

And I want to know who's gonna eat a 10" stalk of broccoli??? I usually cut off the flowerettes and toss the stalk (probably losing all the nutrients... but I don't like em) or I just by broc crowns

I love the stalk better than the crowns. True, it is occasionally necessary to peel the thicker stalks when they get too fibrous - peeled, sliced thin and lightly steamed or stir-fried, the stalk is a bit like a water chestnut. Yum. I had 2 of those 10-inch stalks for dinner last night, steamed and covered with a spicy cheese sauce. It was heavenly.

[adkpam]

Gotbeer, I'm sure we all appreciate that research you did with the ice cream bars :)

Years ago, when the Hellers book first came out, I bought it for a friend of mine. We both scored 100% on the CA test. At the time I was keeping my weight under control with low fat and lots of exercise.

Now I"m a successful loser with Atkins, and I love eating this way. I definitely have problems with carbs, there's diabetes in my family, and now that I'm maintaining I find some foods make me ravenously hungry and I must avoid them.

That's why I don't think CAD would work for me, since there's no particular reason for a reward meal...I love the food I eat on Atkins, and the freedom to eat (and drink) whenever and however I want.

I have recommended CAD to people who feel that they can't live without bread or pasta or whatever...and if it works for them, great!

To paraphrase Tolstoy: normal metabolisms are all alike. Each disordered metabolism might be disordered in its own way.

I think the reason I did so well on Atkins is that I didn't have emotional eating issues anymore, I was coming off of ten years of vigorous exercise, which helped my metabolism, and my transition to Atkins was a smooth road, without any binging or serious tripups that would have messed up my metabolism again.

Perhaps there are people for whom the Heller's plan will heal their particular metabolism disorder. I find it intriguing that my body seems to work the opposite of what they describe as a CA's typical pattern...if I clump all my carbs into one meal I would fall asleep at my desk. Yet I did score 100% on their test.

[judyr]

I tried CAD and had a very difficult time with it. My cravings came back BIG time. I ended up gaining back 5 pounds. I am probably still going to look at the book. There could be some helpful hints.

[Samuel]

I have read this book partially and it seems to be interesting. It ought to be respected since the authors are both medical professors, both have lost considerable weight on low carb dieting and kept it for 20 years! This makes them almost as experienced as Dr. Atkins himself!

If you believe in what they say, you'll have to cook at home, no low carb food or drink available at the stores can work. Here are some examples:

(1) They believe that our bodies assume that any thing that tastes sweet is sugar. So splenda and all other sweeteners trigger the same insulin rush as sugar. This should mean that Diet Rite, lo carb bars, lo carb ice creams and shakes are all illegal to eat even if they contain no carbs, no sugar alcohols and no calories.

(2) Any food which contains glutamates among its ingredients also causes insulin rush and should be avoided. The ingredients we should watch for are:

Broth, Bouillon, flavouring, gelatin, malt extract, maltodextrin, soy protein, soy sauce, textured protein, whey protein, yeast extract,... and some others.

I dont remember that I have seen any low carb food or any other ready to eat food which does not contain at least one of these items. Most cold cut meats, tuna and other canned meates contain some of them.

They also recommend cutting on saturated fats since they also cause insulin imbalance.

I have not finished reading the book and will let you know if I find something else interesting.

[Nancy LC]

There are quite a few clinical studies out there that showed sweet tastes, at least aspartame, does not cause insulin release. Even a few made it to the popular media.

[Samuel]

Thanks. I have been drinking large amounts of diet coke during all my past diets. They have never been causing any problem.

Since I started this diet I have been drinking Diet Rite as a replacement for water. I know this violates the rules of Atkins diet, however it did not stop me from losing the weight I lost.

After I stopped losing weight, I tried drinking water instead of Dite Rite for a while but it didn't change a thing.

I still believe that I gained by reading this book. I have started to reduce my sugar alcohol intake, watch for glutamates and do some of the other tricks listed in the book and I'm actually starting to see results.

[VALEWIS]

"They also recommend cutting on saturated fats since they also cause insulin imbalance."

?? How? What evidence for this?

Val

[addictmeHM]

Ive drank around 7 cans of soda today, 5 being diet rite. The other caffeine free diet pepsi. This is the first day i've done this since discovering crystal light has carbs in each glass due to the aspartame in the powder mix. I hope this doesn't stall me.

[Samuel]

"They also recommend cutting on saturated fats since they also cause insulin imbalance."

?? How? What evidence for this?

Val
Here is what they said:

"Either a diet high in carbs or one high in saturated fats (and/or trans fats) is likely to increase your insulin levels which translates into more cravings and less weight loss...

From Dr. A. R. Folsom's study of over 4000 healthy middle-aged adults, to Dr. K. D. Wards research in Normative Aging Study; from Dt. J. A. Marshall's study of over a 1000 men and women from 20-74 years of age to Dr. E. J. Mayer's study of nondiabetic women, the findings are the same: saturated fats increase insulin levels while unsaturated fats do not."

[ItsTheWooo]

I have read this book partially and it seems to be interesting. It ought to be respected since the authors are both medical professors, both have lost considerable weight on low carb dieting and kept it for 20 years! This makes them almost as experienced as Dr. Atkins himself!

If you believe in what they say, you'll have to cook at home, no low carb food or drink available at the stores can work. Here are some examples:

(1) They believe that our bodies assume that any thing that tastes sweet is sugar. So splenda and all other sweeteners trigger the same insulin rush as sugar. This should mean that Diet Rite, lo carb bars, lo carb ice creams and shakes are all illegal to eat even if they contain no carbs, no sugar alcohols and no calories.

(2) Any food which contains glutamates among its ingredients also causes insulin rush and should be avoided. The ingredients we should watch for are:

Broth, Bouillon, flavouring, gelatin, malt extract, maltodextrin, soy protein, soy sauce, textured protein, whey protein, yeast extract,... and some others.

I dont remember that I have seen any low carb food or any other ready to eat food which does not contain at least one of these items. Most cold cut meats, tuna and other canned meates contain some of them.

They also recommend cutting on saturated fats since they also cause insulin imbalance.

I have not finished reading the book and will let you know if I find something else interesting.
IMO limiting sweet tastes and MSG has a lot less to do with controlling physiological reasons for binging than it does controlling habitual/environmental/emotional triggers.

It has been shown in studies that a new "taste" will entice one to eat, even if they are not hungry. If a person tastes sweet (when they haven't eaten sweets) they will want to eat. If a person tastes salty (when they haven't eaten salty) they also want to eat. MSG is a flavor enhancer and again also encourages eating. Restricting sweet tastes and MSG on the flimsy pretense that they "stimulate insulin" is a justification for structuring the plan in such a way that it limits opportunity to over eat.

[Samuel]

This makes sense, however Dr. Heller's believe that it is because sugar has been the only sweet substance man knows for thousands of years. They also think that insulin comes in waves. The first wave comes when we taste, smell or just think of a high carb food!

They also said that after drinking diet soda, when insulin is produced, it will find no sugar to couple with, so it may pull much of the blood sugar out of the bloodstream, signaling the liver to store it away as fat.

[VALEWIS]

Well, there is potentially a classically conditioned insulin response to the sweet taste of sugar which could generalize to other sweet tastes, but it seems to be this would need to be tested out experimentally. In any case, there certainly is, as we can all attest, a desire to overeat sweet things...the beauty of the LC WOE to me is that it keeps me feeling less hungry and so tends to curb this. Not perfect, but it sure helps.

Val

[dannysk]

From the USDA website.
2 stalks of broccoli (large) 40 grams carbs 18 grams fiber. (22 net)
Ice cream bar (weight 50 grams, vanilla covered by chocolate) 12.25 grams of carbs.

danny

[Zuleikaa]

The only thing I disagree with the Hellers about is saturated fat, even then I will take that with a caveat. I believe that suet and lard are better than corn and soy oil and that coconut, olive, palm and shea oils are better than suet and lard.