The Cost of the Honey Tree

[Mitra]

Dr Mike's latest blog (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archives/2006/04/lowcarb_caveat.html) is a fascinating explanation of what happens when we fall into a carb-fest. It's not pretty :(.

The gist of it is that if you're used to eating low-carb, your body doesn't have lots of carb-digesting enzymes available (that's why, when you increase carbs either at maintenance or because of pregnancy or illness, it's a good idea to do it gradually). Because you don't have the carb-digesting enzymes all ready to go, the carbs cause an even higher blood sugar spike than in someone who eats carbs all the time. And it turns out that spiky blood sugar is even more dangerous than high but stable.

Those visits to the honey tree don't come free!

[mcsblues]

Its an interesting point because I must admit I have a hard time imagining why people (and this is especially true for the Eades) have so many planned 'holidays' from low carb. First of all, it generates the belief that for the rest of the time we are somehow depriving ourselves (which is hardly true), which in itself may lead to issues of long term compliance. Second of course is the damage that you are knowingly (and in my view pointlessly) doing to yourself - as shown by this paper - although I'm sure this is not news, especially to Mike.

The funny thing is, about the only time we do hear exactly what the Eades are eating - it is during one of these holidays! Now I know they obviously don't eat like this all the time, but maybe it would be a good idea if they posted a 'normal' weekly menu from time to time with carb counts so at least 'we' can see what this looks like.

I don't want to appear holier than all you sinners!:p - but I just don't do this at all. Yes there are times during social occasions where I might eat a bit of bread or a small potato or something just because making a big fuss isn't warranted (I normally adjust for this at the next meal), and yes, during the fruit season my carb intake rises a little ... but I'm just not tempted to have a day or a week eating as if I had never heard of low carb before - that just doesn't make sense to me ... but perhaps that is just me!:cool:

[Mitra]

I sort of agree, but I think that whatever nutritional approach you adopt, unless you're extremely active, there are likely to be certain foods that you enjoy but only eat occasionally. I don't think that having certain foods as occasional treats means that you have to feel deprived the rest of the time. I only eat Christmas pudding at Christmas, and on that occasion I look forward to it and enjoy it, but I don't feel the least bit deprived because I don't eat it every day.

This article did make me wonder if it's worth it, but then I looked back through my journal from last year. It sometimes feels to me as if I consume vast amounts of carbs on festive occasions, though when I actually add up the numbers it just about reaches 100g on those "honey tree" days. It sounds high when we're used to intervention levels of 30-40, but it's not exactly what most people think of as a high carb diet! And when my average is about 60g per day, I don't suppose 100g would be too much of a stretch for my system.

I don't know that I'm all that interested in seeing what the Drs E eat. One of the things I like about PP is that they present the science, and outline the numbers to aim for, but don't actually tell you what to eat. As long as the science is sound, I'm not bothered whether they "walk the talk" or not.

[Gaelen]

Nope, Malcolm...it's not just you that doesn't regularly schedule 'honey tree visits.' ;)

And Mitra, I agree...eating this way and allowing myself one or two small portions of a treat on a special occasion seems to work for me. I never refer to those meals as 'cheating' -- I don't think you can cheat on an eating preference. ;)

I also don't really care about the Eadeses' daily menus...in fact, I don't often read anybody's daily menus any more. My food preferences on treatment are pretty finicky anyway, so menus don't really reinforce me at this point, and I'm well past the stage where figuring out what I want to eat will be inspired by someone else's choices. Now, the menus at Bolo or Mesa Grill by Bobby Flay, or one of Mario Batali's restaurants, or for one of Giada DiLaurentiis or Paula Deen's family gatherings...THAT's inspiring. ;) I only post my own menus now and then when someone asks "what does a low carbing vegetarian eat, anyway?" and I like the process of creating those kinds of menus. But do I eat that way at this moment? No, I can't. I've returned to 2/3rds meatless plus fish and poultry, but that works for me right now--I don't expect it to work for anyone else.

When the doctors told me two years ago that I wasn't to try to lose weight while on treatment, I didn't immediately jump to maintenance carb levels (around 100g ECC per day, a bit more than double my weight loss intake of <45g ECC). First, because onn that first treatment, food was NOT my friend. I had to work really hard to get in my daily protein, and of carbs, only fresh fruit, steamed or buttered vegetables, oat flakes cereal in a bit of milk, parmesan chicken wings, calamari, cheese and scrambled eggs really looked appetizing for awhile. At the amounts I could bear to eat, that still kept my carbs under 50g ECC. As I got stronger, I added more fruit. Nuts started looking appealing again, and on the worst of my three day treatment, I bought a meatball/fresh tomato/sweet onion/basil or chicken/sweet onion/mushroom 4 slice pizza, and ate one slice a day until it was gone. Melba toast and whole wheat shells in cheese and baked or mashed sweet potato seemed to help out on treatment days, but my weekly averages still only came up to about 60g ECC/per day. I still wasn't gaining, and when my appetite came back on non-treatment days, I indulged in one or two pieces of chocolate or taffy a few times a week--but I was still avoiding large scale portions of sweets and desserts and most processed carbs every day. For me, two years of forming the habit of eating protein first were ingrained enough that I wanted protein, and I knew that I had to add the carbs back into just to the point where I wasn't gaining again. Figuring that number out took awhile...120g ECC was too much, and 100g ECC/day ended up being about right. As soon as my liver started functioning properly again, I worked to figure out what average daily/weekly ECC level would keep my weight in stasis (and that WAS work--just as tough to figure out as maintenance for anyone else!)

It got harder, a lot harder, when the docs upped my steroid doses for the second treatment plan. On that plan, I craved protein, and it was much easier to stay closer to 60g ECC, but even that wasn't enough to fight steroid weight gain. However, as soon as I came off the treatment that infused high dose steroids for 15 days out of every 28, the weight began to come off--so I don't think diet alone was the answer in that situation. I weigh more than I did a year ago, but less than I did five months ago...and with no lasting cravings or need for the honey tree.

There's a big difference, IMO, permitting myself any food that looks appealing one day out of every 14 (when I couldn't eat much anyway) and trying to normalize ECC levels the rest of that period, and eating 40g ECC per day for months at a time, and then taking a week off and eating anything and everything in sight. I didn't really do 'honey tree-ing" when I was trying to lose weight except, as you describe, a small portion of one special thing that made a single meal higher but for which I'd compensate by lowering ECCs at other meals on the same day. It just wasn't an approach that worked for me, in either health or sickness. I'll have to go check out Mike's latest blog entry... ;)

[mcsblues]

Yes, my point about what the Eades eat the other 300+ (?) days of the year is that I think some people get the wrong impression when all we hear about is the holiday and off plan excursions, and I would imagine that might lead people to believe that more than occasional visits to the 'honey tree' are perfectly healthy and won't have other consequences such as prolonging carb cravings.

I also don't pay a lot of attention to other people's menus - apart from anything else they almost invariably start off with some sort of eggy breakfast ... and they have already lost my interest!:p

[Mitra]

Yes, my point about what the Eades eat the other 300+ (?) days of the year is that I think some people get the wrong impression when all we hear about is the holiday and off plan excursions, and I would imagine that might lead people to believe that more than occasional visits to the 'honey tree' are perfectly healthy and won't have other consequences such as prolonging carb cravings.

Either that, or it gives the impression that only off-plan foods are interesting.

[Gabriel Guzman]

If you'd met them in person you would realize that what they do every day is actually what they wrote about it. And when they have too many visits to the honey tree, they get back on the horse right away.:)

[Ottawa]

Dr Mike's latest blog (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archives/2006/04/lowcarb_caveat.html) is a fascinating explanation of what happens when we fall into a carb-fest. It's not pretty :(.
...
Those visits to the honey tree don't come free!

Not meant to offend but after the Easter weekend someone asked me how I could pass up some of the Easter treats, since one or two treats wouldn't hurt me. My usual response is "It has worked so well I hate to play with it and I often fear that I would just have more than a taste or two." I did mention that I missed the Easter Creme Egg but would now find them much to sweet now anyway.

He kept on about it, "Why not try one just to see?" and I had just been sent the link below so forwarded it on.

This is somewhat gross but an interesting video if you ever get a craving for one ... or even 50 of those sweet, chocolate coated, gooey centered Easter Creme Eggs.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5582184356096475353&pl=true

[Thedabara]

Randy, I'm notsaying that eating a chocolate or any carb is neccesarily an addicitiion (although sometimes it feels that way to me). But would this gentleman have said to an alcoholic,"just try one drink and see?" That's just what popped into my head when i read your post...

I found Dr. Mike's blog really interesting, and a bit thought provoking. I am someone who does go to the honey tree every now and again. Not for a week at a time, but i have done a weekend blow out here or there. I always end up end up asking myself..."why on earth did i do that??" That article gives me yet another reason, NOT to do that! And, Malcolm, I never actually feel deprived. Sometimes, a carby offering looks really good, and I just eat it. It has nothing to do with deprivation for me, just taste and maybe even an emotional issue or two, who knows. I don't really consider myself an emotional eater.
jenny

[Inez]

I love to cook and bake and I think this really, really helps me stay on plan. In the 3 1/2 years I've been low-carbing, I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've gone off-plan because I can come up with good substitutes for most things. In fact, the thing I missed most was pecan pie, and someone at another site came up with a fantastic low-carb pecan pie that was every bit as good as the real thing -- but then I found that I didn't really care for it that much anymore because my tastes had changed so much since starting low-carb!

[LisaS]

I would have liked to see Dr. Mike comment what the role of insulin and insulin resistance might have been in not moderating these BG spikes. He comments only on the enzyme regulation (up and down) that lc vs. hc diets will have. The article left me wondering if there would be a difference of persons on lc diets - one with normal insulin response and one still insulin resistant.

[Ottawa]

Randy, I'm notsaying that eating a chocolate or any carb is neccesarily an addicitiion (although sometimes it feels that way to me). But would this gentleman have said to an alcoholic,"just try one drink and see?" That's just what popped into my head when i read your post...

Jenny,
I have noticed a few people like this and it almost seems to be a control issue, and they consider they know better and are "just trying to set us straight":rolleyes: .

I have not had a "binge" since starting, and any visit to a honey tree would be quite limited since there is definitely a cost to it and a reminder of old habits. To actually work on getting healthy and building a new body took quite a while and I view most carb laden foods as possible derailers.

I wish there was a way around it but I think that most of us who have ever been grossly obese, remain very susceptible to fast weight gain with carb increases much above early maintanance values. Even though we must be less insulin resistant there seems to be some sort of carry over effect even after attaining healthy weight/fitness levels again.

[Mitra]

It's tempting, isn't it, when you look and feel so much better, to forget that you stay that way by continuing to eat well?

And don't be fooled into believing that because you weigh less or have lowered your blood pressure, you've somehow received a metabolism transplant. If your inherent tendency toward insulin resistance resulted in weight gain or elevated blood pressure or higher lab values in the past, that tendency remains.

from Staying Power

[Ottawa]

It's tempting, isn't it, when you look and feel so much better, to forget that you stay that way by continuing to eat well?

Yes it is.
Although I often wonder why it is still sometimes a challenge, my brother and sisters are all extremely overweight so we all have that same tendancy.

[Billie]

In my line of work I deal with alot of people who are on anti-depressants. Typically and many times, once a person on medication is feeling fine one of their first inclinations is to think "I don't need the meds anymore". I believe like Randy that some people maybe wired that way, and visiting the honey tree really can cause me more problems in the long run. That said, the difficulty once I hit maintenance will be tranfering my thinking and doing some work on realizing the reason I feel good is the way I eat, it sounds so simple!

[Thedabara]

I had no problem until maintainence. But, the things that got me, were stuff that I missed, like fruit.... Sometimes one or two pieces would send me back for many more! of course, that has nothing to do with all those brownies I ate last summer!;) I can't really blame that on the fruit! :D When I do get back to maintainence I think I will just have to journal for a year or so to find out what triggers those cravings, and how many carbs I actually eat etc... I am glad the Eades wrote Staying Power. I'll have to reopen it in about a year (after nursing is all done since that uses up more calories etc..)
jenny

[DJK]

A'm I missing something or were the subjects of this study limited to patients with type II diabetes.

DJK

[DJK]

This is the quote thats troubling to the analytical side of my brain and suggests this may not be as big a deal to us meat eaters as the doctor was making:

"These data were in diabetic patients but I suspect the situation holds true in non-diabetic patients as well. And, unfortunately, especially in followers of the low-carb diet. Why so?"

DJK

[gitfiddle]

Randy, I'm notsaying that eating a chocolate or any carb is neccesarily an addicitiion (although sometimes it feels that way to me). But would this gentleman have said to an alcoholic,"just try one drink and see?" That's just what popped into my head when i read your post...
I think it's a power trip for them, because they know you're tempted.

I get really tired of people who don't take no thanks for an answer. It's almost a relief to be able to say "I'm diabetic". That doesn't always work though, because a grossly overweight diabetic friend said "So am I, but I just take more pills and I can eat anything I want!" :rolleyes: I weigh 235 and a very thin co-worker told me to day that I didn't need to be on a diet (because I turned down an apple fritter the size of a catcher's mitt). People are nuts!

I also don't know if you could call it an addiction, but my brain is trained to want carbs for comfort and it's like steering a dump truck to get it going in another direction.:(

[laughingW]

I'm perfectly comfortable calling it addiction because then I get to take advantage of all the treatment and brain research that's been done. Sugar and whites really do activate the addiction pathways, so why not take advantage of everything our addicted brothers and sisters have learned over the last 50 years (and the brave doctors and researchers who looked for physical reasons instead of looking down their noses morally)

It'll be a while before people take addiction to junk food chemicals seriously. Many people still think addiction is for toothless skanks on street drugs. Not our comforting Starbucks coffee and family foods.

So that's how I turn down food pushers, with that kind of thinking. Sometimes I tell them why and sometimes not. I just say it's really bad for me and that's about it.

Just for amusement: here's the addiction criteria. Those of us who have "had it" with whites and sugars will know how many "yeses" we had.

--------------
1. Taking whites/sugars more often or in larger amounts than intended.
2. Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving.
3. Excessive time spent in seeking whites/sugars.
4. Feeling high on sugars/whites at inappropriate times, or feeling withdrawal symptoms from whites/sugars at such times.
5. Giving up other things for it.
6. Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others.
7. Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy increases at first before leveling off.
8. Characteristic withdrawal symptoms if none has been had in while.
9. Taking whites/sugars to relieve or avoid withdrawal.

[SherryJ]

Whew! I am not a "toothless skank on street drugs", but I DO check YES to EVERY one of those nine!!!

Sherry
**putting my dentures back into place, LOL!** :D
(Not!)

[Ottawa]

Don't believe her. She often forgets to put her teeth back in.:D :p :D

LaughingW,
That list was interesting and I would have ticked of at least 6 of them prior to going LC.

1. Taking whites/sugars more often or in larger amounts than intended.
2. Unsuccessful attempts to quit; persistent desire, craving.
3. Excessive time spent in seeking whites/sugars.
4. Feeling high on sugars/whites at inappropriate times, or feeling withdrawal symptoms from whites/sugars at such times.
5. Giving up other things for it.
6. Continued use, despite knowledge of harm to oneself and others.
7. Marked tolerance in which the amount needed to satisfy increases at first before leveling off.
8. Characteristic withdrawal symptoms if none has been had in while.
9. Taking whites/sugars to relieve or avoid withdrawal.

In fact most kids I know seem to crave sweet taste unbelievably. On our recent winter camp I had brought a bottle of SweetZfree (concentrated liquid Sucralose) to use in my hot drinks. We had the various pre-sweetened drinks that the scouts generally have. One of the kids found the hot chocolate not sweet enough and asked if we had any extra sugar. We didn't, but he saw me use the sweetener and asked if he could use it. I explained how 1 drop = the sweetness of approximately 1.5 teaspoons of sugar.
He used some and while I and another leader got more wood, they all tried it. When I returned they were going on about how sweet it was and where could they get more ...:eek:
They had pretty well finished it and I asked to taste one of their drinks and it was way too sweet to drink, yet they loved it.
It's interesting since they would not have had the sugar-buzz associated with sweet drinks but like their candy/drinks/cereal really sweet.

[laughingW]

That's interesting about the kids. Specially when you consider that a 20 ounce soda for a 60 pound kid is like what, 50 ounces for a 150 pound adult?

I'm old enough where we didn't have soda growing up - but my sadly impoverished parents bought soooooo many squished pies from the Hostess outlet! the old calories-per-dollar effect. eeeek. No wonder my tolerance was cranked up to whoopee.

[SherryJ]

Ohhhhhhhhhh, RANDY!!! You're tellin' ALL my secrets!!! :D

[Ottawa]

Ohhhhhhhhhh, RANDY!!! You're tellin' ALL my secrets!!! :D

Sherry ... I still don't know them all.:o

When I got home yesterday there was a notice in the mailbox that we have been included in with 15 other families for a Roving Dinner Party (walking with 3 other couples at a time to other nearby houses for the next course) and all 16 couples meeting at one home for dessert. The dessert would definitely be a Honey Tree visit, yet it can be controlled somewhat with a smaller portion. Our assignment from will be appetizers or soup/salad and it will be interesting to do since I am assuming we will be the only LC people attending and although they all live within a few blocks I do not recognize any of the names though I must see them in the neighborhood.

I was so dilligent in my first two years that other than Christmas or a few planned outings I never varied from the 10 ECC/meal, and it is only in moving to maintanance that I have included more fruits and a few other whole foods that I normally would have left out.
I'm sure that this "Roving Meal" will be well beyond that, especially since you do not know where/what you will be eating until a few minutes before the first course, other than the organizers.

With the Honey Tree "visits" I do believe that the cost is more than the single meal, yet our bodies are still amazing things, and for many of us have come close to a full recovery from years of indulgences but I know that the cost of this meal will be. An Insulin Spike to a body that is likely never going to be the Insulin reacting body of my teens/early 20's, yet the healthiest it has been in many years.

[SherryJ]

Oh, my friend, you know ENOUGH of them! And, I'm afraid to admit, you probably know more than you think you do! ;) Thanks for the grace, though...

"Roving dinner"... with 16 couples you do NOT know?!?!?! Wow... even for a extrovert like me, that would be a tad out of my comfort zone... and, Mr. Wonderful would (inwardly!) freak! :D I'm curious as to how it will turn out... do tell?

I, too, think that the cost of the Honey Tree is more than one meal... for me, it would send me over the edge into CRAVE CITY!!! :eek:

Sherry

[mcsblues]

Randy I am intrigued as to why you approach something like your 'roving dinner' with resignation that you have to eat completely off plan - even if it is 'just one meal'. I'm sure you and the other couples who are preparing one course will be thinking of catering for the various dietary requirements of your guests be they medical (allergies, intolerances or diabetes), religious/ethical (eg vegetarians or kosher eaters) or simple likes and dislikes in the food line. Making allowances for 16 couples you have never met sounds like a nightmare ... but why do you see your own requirements as not worthy of consideration along with everyone else?

I have spent my life with an allergy to eggs and a few nuts - I simply cannot eat eggs or anything that contain eggs. Now while this is a right royal pain at times for me and those who have to cater for me - I'm sure that they don't even contemplate the idea that I am being intentionally difficult (and if they do, too bad!) - and personally I think that 'we' shouldn't be embarrassed to expect the same consideration from others when it comes to eating healthily, whether that means not taking offence when we say "no" or when we skip parts of the meal like the bread and potatoes, or we choose cheese over dessert. But just like the egg allergy, you do need to tell people that is what you are doing and why.

[Ottawa]

Malcolm,
You have a point. I do not have any allergies and usually do voice preferences in what I prefer. The email response from this person today asked for any dietary restrictions so without going into a lot of detail will mention in some manner our eating preferences since there will be 4 locations for the main course (only coffee/dessert is all at the same location).

I have been to last minute dinners before or unknown benefit dinners where the meal has been a simple pasta meal like spaghetti and I've ended up leaving most of the noodles on the plate and pick up something else on the way home or when I get home. As well I usually keep nuts or a few bars in the car but this will be different.

In my 3 years on PP I have only missed my protein target twice although I have exceeded my carb allowance more often.

[stilt]

I love to cook and bake and I think this really, really helps me stay on plan. In the 3 1/2 years I've been low-carbing, I could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've gone off-plan because I can come up with good substitutes for most things. In fact, the thing I missed most was pecan pie, and someone at another site came up with a fantastic low-carb pecan pie that was every bit as good as the real thing -- but then I found that I didn't really care for it that much anymore because my tastes had changed so much since starting low-carb!

That pretty well sums it up for me. We don't eat at restaurants anymore because I just can't enjoy the sensation of even occasionally paying for metabolically unhealthy food. There are just so many other satisfying ways to be indulgent. And when we dine with friends or family we usually take a low carb dessert, (I really enjoy seeing peoples' amazement at how delicious even very low carb can be) and discreetly avoid all the carby parts of the main. I'm continually amazed by people saying they have to miss out on anything on low carb. That's why nature invented erythritol, and man developed wheat protein isolate.;) I'm lucky enough to never have had to worry about portion size, before or after low carb ( although I think if I went back to high carb food now I think I probably would start to gain unwanted bodyfat - my body just deals with food so much more efficiently and less problematically on very low carb). But because I don't deny myself any low carb food, 'treats' or otherwise, and yet I ad lib consume probably less than half the calories I used to NEED in my high (good) carb (I mean no junk, ever) days just to satisfy my hunger, low carb is a walk in the gastronomic and metabolic park. I'm going to get to keep all my teeth, and however long my life is, every moment will be a celebration of discovering how the human body was designed to be nourished:p. So I've never been even remotely tempted to indulge in carbs. The notion intrigues me. Humans are SO self destructive, and SO good at rationalizing it :confused:. This latest study just makes even occasional carb 'indulgences' by humans who have come to understand the benefits of low carbing, even sillier. I take a bar of sugar free, erythritol/sucralose sweetened dark chocolate with me anywhere I think I might be even tempted to indulge. It's a non issue. Even Gaelen, who's got a harder path to travel, with respect, I just don't think you were trying hard enough to make very low carb irresistible. But I can't even begin to imagine how difficult a time it must have been.

Stuart.

[laughingW]

I just don't think you were trying hard enough to make very low carb irresistible.
Well to totally jump in on this thread - the very idea! This is what people who can do sweets in moderation, always say.

For more sensitive people, nasty things like sucralose trigger nasty physical addiction pathyways that moderation people, not having the physical machinery, can never feel. That square of fake sweetened chocolate is the beginning of the lost weekend. It is not a matter of trying harder.

and now, back to stilz and Gaelen, sorry!

[Gaelen]

So I've never been even remotely tempted to indulge in carbs. The notion intrigues me. Humans are SO self destructive, and SO good at rationalizing it :confused:. This latest study just makes even occasional carb 'indulgences' by humans who have come to understand the benefits of low carbing, even sillier. I take a bar of sugar free, erythritol/sucralose sweetened dark chocolate with me anywhere I think I might be even tempted to indulge. It's a non issue. Even Gaelen, who's got a harder path to travel, with respect, I just don't think you were trying hard enough to make very low carb irresistible. But I can't even begin to imagine how difficult a time it must have been. Stuart.

Um...what?
Seriously, Stuart, I'm not sure what you're talking about. ;) "Trying hard enough to make low carb irresistible" isn't something I've ever tried to do, sick or healthy, so you're right...I guess I don't try very hard at that aspect. I'm not sure what difference it would make to my eating habits to try to make low carb irresistible. It makes a difference to me, a measureable difference, to make protein irresistible and to control carbs...but make 'very low carb irresistible?' Why would I do that knowing:

the Eadeses' have said that going very low carb (less than 30g ECC/day) isn't proven to be any more effective than eating at Phase I 40g ECC/day levels
I was successfully able to lose weight at transitiion levels (45-55g ECC/day)
in the Eadeses' own words, most people can gain 80% of the benefit of Protein Power simply by paying careful attention to the HEDONIST level of the plan (the original Protein Power)

then why would I expend too much extra effort in trying to make 'very low carb irresistible' if the basic principles of the plan were/are working for me?

After the first one-month trial period four years ago, I choose to focus on protein and control my carbs according to Protein Power's recommendations. I didn't have any particular insulin resistance health issues after about the first 8 months, although I had excess weight to lose, so I happily went along on plan, eating whatever taste I wanted that fit within my daily protein and ECC goals. It really wasn't very 'hard' at all, and I didn't then nor do I now think in terms of food 'temptations.' Food is food, and it's all pretty wonderful. But there are some foods that aren't very good for me, and I don't indulge in them at all, or if their effects can be controlled, then I limit the extent to which I eat them.

For instance, because my cancer diagnosis affects my liver, I avoid high fructose corn syrup, or anything with added fructose, which would be too taxing to my already over-taxed liver. I can be self-destructive, but I'm not going to walk myself into a flame-out. ;) I avoid transfats 99% of the time, as part of PP, but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy the two or three times a year when a friend of mine who still bakes with Crisco makes awesome cookies--instead, I enjoy her cookie(s) on the days she makes them for a dog show, and I make sure that I limit my carb intake in other areas of my menu.

I do avoid artificial sweeteners as much as possible, preferring to cook with minute amounts of dark or unrefined sugars...my system can't process artificial sweeteners at all, but it can handle a teaspoon of real sugar in a serving of anything, so that's the route I go. No artificially sweetened low carb treats for me, thanks--I'd prefer to eat a small portion of something that has actual sugar in it, since my body's reaction to actual sugar is better than its reaction to artificially sweetened anything. Other people can't handle any quantity of real sugar at all. I also happen to be able to handle the occasional small bowl of steel cut oatmeal, oat bran, and soy. Others can't, just as they may have egg or dairy or beef sensitivities. Where indiividual foods go, YMMV; we each have to choose our own road to hell. ;) The options available to me are more varied than to others in some areas, and more limited in others.

I've never approached controlling carbs using Protein Power ias something at which you can 'cheat.' In fact, I recall we had a pretty spirited discussion about this when I first joined the boards four years ago. But my approach to dietary 'cheating' is probably one of the healthier things I learned from Weight Watchers. Cheating would be denying yourself something, and you don't have to deny yourself anything on Protein Power (or any other plan), if you get a handle on things like food triggers and cravings (those are a different issue.) If you don't have a handle on triggers and cravings, on the things that affect emotional eating, you have to figure those out, or you'll be fighting with your menus for the rest of your life. I fought that fight a long time ago (at $7/week ;) ), and now I don't fight with my menus at all...or with my self-control. I don't consider having a square of Lindt 70% chocolate 'cheating,' because I'm enough in control of my eating that I'm no longer inclined to eat the whole bar and then get in the car and go get another, as I would have been a few years ago. Others have to handle things differently; where individual foods are concerned, YMMV.

However, IMO, the concept of 'dietary cheating' isn't really compatible with choosing a way that you're going to eat for the rest of your life, which is what I did with Protein Power. There's relaxing standards for a meal or a special recipe...and there's just walking away from how you prefer to eat for an extended period of time, say a week or more. Over the course of a day, you eat what you choose to eat...and if some of it is higher carb or poorer quality protein at one meal or one type of food than it should be, you work to do better at the next meal and you average your numbers out during the day or week. OTOH, if you go for days at a time just eating whatever you want to eat, without regard to how much protein or carbs you're taking in or whether you're eating transfats, HFCS, lots of additives, processed foods, whatever crosses your path and looks appealing and isn't moving faster than you are, whether it's any good for you or not--well, then that's not 'cheating' either. You're just not on plan. IMO, outside of the boundaries of a meal or a day, you're either doing this, or you're not...

YMMV. ;)

I may have misunderstood what you were trying to say...but that's how I approach foods that are higher carb than I would normally include in my daily meals. It's not about cheating...it's about planning.

[Missy]

Great explanation Gaelen!

You mentioned "poorer quality protein"...could you do me a favor and give me examples of what that would be? As I get the hang of this plan and what I'm choosing...I'd like to fine tune it as best as possible. Perhaps not in this thread, but another if you'd like?

Lynn

[stilt]

Sorry Gaelen, I apologize for any offence. I thought we were talking about the amazing health benefits of 30 - 40g carbs as a lifestyle (irrespective of any weight loss factor), not the weight loss benefits of reduction in carb intake. In my experience anyway those health benefits are far more impressive when that 30 -40 g was not some rubbery figure I tried to approach most of the time. I thought the point of this thread was to recognize and comment on this new study which seems to show that even occasional cheating (let's define 'cheating' as; occasionally letting your carb intake be 100g rather than 30 -40g) is more unhealthy than just sticking to a higher carb diet. Put another way, the real health prize of very low carb is reserved for those who don't cheat, ever. I just wanted to point out that if it was gastronomically resrictive to never cheat (as many low carb detractors and 'too harders' claim), I'd probably be the first be the first to occasionally sample the many high carb examples of human culinary ingenuity. But I just don't find it so.

However I can understand someone who would rather eat sugar than any artificial sweetener would find it difficult. A huge part of my very low carb experience is based around regular consumption of intense sweeteners and erythritol. All the other sugar alcohols seem to cause human digestion problems in all but infinitesimal amounts. My own personal experience, and the credible research I have read so far are that the possible risks from intense sweeteners (including stevia) pale in comparison with the known risks of consumption of any amount of sugar. Btw. when you say you can't tolerate any form of artificial sweetener are you talking about intense sweeteners or sugar alcohols?. Have you tried erythritol? Are the reactive symptoms you refer to different for each different intense sweetener and sugar alcohol?. Did I ask you wether you had tried erythritol.;) There's a small amount coursing through the veins of every human on the planet as I write, and yet it has no glycemic effect whatsoever!. I'd really love to hear you describe your problems with each non sugar sweetener, but I fully understand if you couldn't be bothered.

The whole 'YMMV' thing is I think a bit of a furphy when it comes to ideal macronutrient ratios for the healthy human animal. It probably varies between individuals fractions of a percent, not the many percent some claim. What certainly varies phenomenally is individuals comfort zones in breaking away from dietary paradigms, but I think it's useful to distinguish between metabolic ideals and personality. There are certain physiological similarites between humans we try to separate from dietary imperatives at our peril.

Stuart.

[LisaS]

I thought the point of this thread was to recognize and comment on this new study which seems to show that even occasional cheating (let's define 'cheating' as; occasionally letting your carb intake be 100g rather than 30 -40g) is more unhealthy than just sticking to a higher carb diet. Put another way, the real health prize of very low carb is reserved for those who don't cheat, ever.
.
actually that's not how I read the blog to explain this study at all. My understanding was that if you were going to have an average abnormally high BG (180) - WRT free radical damage, steady 180 was better than swings from 100-250 with 180 as average. That doesn't translate to anything like saying occasional higher carb meals is more unhealthy. *Occasional* higher carb meals aren't going to raise you to an average of 180 over a long enough period to effect your H1Ac - or if it does, then it isn't occasional.

see here from the blog:
Now that you know what all the tests are and what they mean, the paper is a pretty straightforward affair. It is well known that elevated blood sugar levels cause oxidative stress and free radical damage, which is probably the primary reason diabetic patients have increased risk for atherosclerosis and accelerated aging. The authors of this paper wanted to see if a steadily elevated blood sugar caused the production of more 8-iso PGF, i.e., more free radical damage, than wildly erratic blood sugars that averaged out to about the same as the steady state ones. In other words would a blood sugar level that stayed at around 180 (definitely diabetic) most of the time cause the same, more, or less free radical damage than a blood sugar that fluctuated between 100 (upper end of normal) and 250 (pretty high), but averaged by Hgb AiC measurement at about 180?

--
now, Dr. Mike goes on to extrapolate this that since we don't want free radical damage at all - we should limit our BG swings - and not be "horrid" - not fall face first in the donuts.

[Gaelen]

Sorry Gaelen, I apologize for any offence.

No offense taken. I'm merely mystified, not offended.

I thought we were talking about the amazing health benefits of 30 - 40g carbs as a lifestyle (irrespective of any weight loss factor), not the weight loss benefits of reduction in carb intake. In my experience anyway those health benefits are far more impressive when that 30 -40 g was not some rubbery figure I tried to approach most of the time. I thought the point of this thread was to recognize and comment on this new study which seems to show that even occasional cheating (let's define 'cheating' as; occasionally letting your carb intake be 100g rather than 30 -40g) is more unhealthy than just sticking to a higher carb diet.

Hmm. Stuart, please don't take this the wrong way but...what 'study' are you reading? Mitra linked an entry from Mike Eades' blog entry from April 19 (http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archives/2006/04/lowcarb_caveat.html) which discussed "A paper in this week's JAMA present[ing] data confirming what I've long suspected: carb bingeing now and then could actually cause worse free radical damage than regularly eating more carbs on an ongoing basis."

The study was done on diabetic subjects, and for argument's sake, Dr. Eades defined 'carb bingeing' as 'going face down in the doughnuts.' No idea what an Australian doughnut is like--but I promise you than an episode of 'face down in the doughnuts' in these parts, be they Krispy Kremes or Jack Hortons or Dunkin' Donuts or Little Debbie cakes or even the little man making fried cakes in cinnamon sugar at the farmer's market is going to take your day's ECC way over 100g for a day! Like I said, there's eating an occasional food item that might be 5-20g ECC higher than you would normally choose, and then there's bingeing--adding hundreds of extra carbs to your day, maybe for days at a time. See the difference? ;)

You might also notice the last half of Dr. Eades' hypothesis...that binges might 'cause more free radical damage than regularly eating more carbs on an on-going basis.' Where, from that, did you get "the amazing health benefits of 30-40g as a lifestyle?"

Sure, some people don't ever leave Phase I of Protein Power, which was designed as a corrective phase. There are a lot of Atkins plan followers who stay forever in Induction at 20g per day, too. People who choose to stay in PP's Phase I may need to stay there because they are metabolically too sensitive to add additional ECCs, or they may choose to stay there because it's where they're comfortable. They may even, if they have long-standing issues with food, be afraid to 'rock the boat' and experiment beyond the corrective phase eating levels. That's fine and good as long as those eating levels continue to work for them...but that doesn't always happen. Our bodies change as we age, as our hormone levels fluctuate--and what worked for us correctively when we were 30 or 40 may no longer work for us under aging conditions. Then what? If you're already AT 30g ECC and haven't changed your eating habits in any way, what's your fallback position? Eating even fewer ECCs? Living at the gym? Just giving up?

The Drs. Eades designed PP with three phases...Phase I for correction, Phase II (up to 55g ECC) for continued but gradual weight loss and transition to Maintenance, and Maintenance, where ECC levels vary from person to person. They might stay close to 55g ECC, or, as I found, they might ultimately equal daily protein grams (for me, as much as 100g ECC per day.) I don't think the Drs. Eades ever suggested in any of their books that people stay in the 30-40g ECC phase of PP forever without medical need...unless they want to. I don't have any particular medical need to keep carbs that low, and I don't particularly want to, so I don't choose to stay at that level. Other people may choose differently, but I'm a hedonist. ;)

I just wanted to point out that if it was gastronomically resrictive to never cheat (as many low carb detractors and 'too harders' claim), I'd probably be the first be the first to occasionally sample the many high carb examples of human culinary ingenuity. But I just don't find it so.

Stuart, what you find 'gastronomically restrictive' doesn't define that state for everyone. :) Allergies, food sensitivities, and some health conditions are non-negotiable and also 'gastronomically restrictive.' Personal tastes and some religious conditions are also restrictive--someone who doesn't like the mouth feel of eggs, or the taste of dairy products, or who simply can't properly digest leafy green vegetables or stomach the smell of cooking fish or meat. You may not feel gastronomically restricted by the menu choices available to you, but I suspect you' might feel pretty restricted by the menu choices available to someone else who has to operate under different tastes, medical or religious conditions, allergies, food sensitivities, budgets, etc. ;)

However I can understand someone who would rather eat sugar than any artificial sweetener would find it difficult. A huge part of my very low carb experience is based around regular consumption of intense sweeteners and erythritol. .

Stuart, again...don't take this the wrong way, but ...why?
I am a foodie, through and through. I love the tastes and smells and textures of individual foods and the combinations of those tastes and textures in preparation and presentation. Food is both a stimulant and an relaxation to my senses. Why on earth would I want to dull, blunt, mask or contaminate the natural tastes of something I find so fascinating, by regularly consuming quantities of intense sweeteners that change the things I enjoy? I like bitter, sour, salty, fiery and (yes, sometimes) bland tastes...why would I want to let sweetness over-balance any of that? Flavors should blend and contrast, not overpower.

All the other sugar alcohols seem to cause human digestion problems in all but infinitesimal amounts. My own personal experience, and the credible research I have read so far are that the possible risks from intense sweeteners (including stevia) pale in comparison with the known risks of consumption of any amount of sugar.

Stuart, there are 'known risks' in consuming just about everything...and I wouldn't rule anything man-created in the sweetener category as 'safe' just because that's where current research stands as I type. However, stevia is an herb; it's a natural sweetener. I grow it in my garden. Honey is not created in a lab; it can be natural-source harvested with minimal intervention from man. Sugar cane grows naturally sweet...then again, so do nuts and strawberries. Naturally occuring sugars, and the normal level of sweetness at which they occur, are not IMO in the same danger-danger class of chemicals as intense sweeteners that are created in a lab. Doesn't it strike you as just the tiniest bit odd that artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols are compared in their functioning and sweetness to...sugar? If a trace of naturally occuring sugar is sweet enough, why on earth would I want to use something that is tens to hundreds of times sweeter, in minute quantities, than an equal amount of sugar?

Btw. when you say you can't tolerate any form of artificial sweetener are you talking about intense sweeteners or sugar alcohols?. Have you tried erythritol? Are the reactive symptoms you refer to different for each different intense sweetener and sugar alcohol?. Did I ask you wether you had tried erythritol.;) There's a small amount coursing through the veins of every human on the planet as I write, and yet it has no glycemic effect whatsoever!. I'd really love to hear you describe your problems with each non sugar sweetener, but I fully understand if you couldn't be bothered..

So glad that you'll understand if I don't bother to give you a full-on, compound by compound description of my gastrointestinal experiences with individual forms of artificial sweeteners (and BTW, sugar alcohols, which are created, are artificial sweeteners in my book.) Suffice it to say that I intensely dislike the over-sweet taste of aspartame and saccharin, and any form of pre-packaged, manufactured artificial sugar alcohol sweetener, in any more than trace amounts, makes me ill to varying degrees. I had migraines for years, and learned which foods could trigger them and which foods I should avoid. My experience with artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols was similar, and I don't choose to subject my system to trying to digest things it obviously can't handle.

Glad you like erythritol and other sugar alcohols and artificial sweeteners...they don't work for me; they don't work for many others. That doesn't mean that my low carbing experience or options are compromised...it just means that I prefer a less processed or additive-dependent way of eating. ;)

Oh geez...this doesn't mean I'm turning into a purist, does it? :rolleyes:

[Gaelen]

Great explanation Gaelen!

You mentioned "poorer quality protein"...could you do me a favor and give me examples of what that would be? As I get the hang of this plan and what I'm choosing...I'd like to fine tune it as best as possible. Perhaps not in this thread, but another if you'd like?

Lynn

Missy, I'm re-working a piece for the Vegetarian forum on protein sources that sort of speaks to this...it should be up in a few days.

[Missy]

Thank you Gaelen! I will wait with baited breath!:D

[stilt]

Glad you didn't take offence! Gaelen I hadn't realized you belong to the 'natural must be better' brigade about sweeteners. We have a very powerful sugar lobby here in Australia who just love that argument, and use it in their advertising constantly. The natural sweet you refer to in fruit is the result of thousands of years of selective breeding for fructose content. Fructose in anything but infinitesimal amounts is a potent metabolic poison, natural or not, and in the fruit we evolved to eat was only in negligible amounts. It constantly amazes me that intelligent people (I certainly don't mean to patronize you, it is a very commonly held fallacy- IMHO;) ) argue that sufficient natural sugar to please the modern western palate (eg modern fruit) is healthier than the equivalent sweetening amount of non caloric, non glycemic ,non (sorry, can't remember what the insidious metabolic chaos fructose is responsible for is called - you probably know the one) intense sweetener. You also lump all sugar alcohols with artificial intense sweeteners. Why I can't imagine. They are completely unrelated in the way they are dealt with in the human body. Besides, erythritol is certainly as natural as either fructose or glucose as well as having none of the metabolic consequences of either. ( Gaelen, have you tried erythritol?;) )

Also I get the distinct impression that you think the major benefit of low carb is weight loss. But that's simply the icing on the health cake. Plenty of people who stumble on low carb while they are looking for a way to lose weight discover the extraordinary health benefits of avoiding starch and sugar, suddenly feel a million times healthier and may not even manage to lose a lot of bodyfat, but are so happy to discover what good health really means that the weight loss seems less important.

But the main issue here is definitely this all too common glib negativity about intense artificial sweeteners, because they aren't 'natural'. Gaelen making your last breath just that little bit closer by choosing 'natural' glycemic sweet over intense artificial sweet is really sad. Simplistic nonsense about 'natural' or 'Artificial' in the context of human nutrition (for the purposes of this discussion, as regards the taste 'sweet') when humans essentially kissed 'natural' goodbye with the advent of agriculture ten thousand years ago continues to cause unimaginable suffering. (As you well know cancer is perfectly natural too. But that certainly doesn't make it a good thing). We've been allowing Sugar and starch to 'naturally' engineer our metabolic demise ever since.

I think Mike Eades was just using the 'face down in a plate of donuts' binge extreme to merely illustrate the point that the metabolic effect of straying however marginally and however occasionally is not good. And as I said, if there was any need to abandon you very low carb ways to get the higher carb taste hit, then I'd be first in line. But as I tried to point out, there's not.
But admittedly not if you cling to the 'natural is best' mentality. With human health I'm afraid it's not that simple.

Trrrryyyy the Eryyythritohhhhl. If natural does it for you erythritol just might be the way for you to have your sugar free cake and eat it (without the heeby jeebies 'unnatural' gives you;) .

It's probably worth reiterating that you seem to be more concerned with the weight loss aspects of low carb. For me any way, weight gain or loss has always been a sideshow. For me it's about celebrating every moment of this all too short life in optimum health. IMHO. superficial judgement calls about small amounts of sugar being healthier than equivalent amounts of artificial intense sweeteners just keep the human body in a mild state of unhealthiness. Which would be acceptable if there was no alternative. But there is.

I was also a bit dismayed by you implying that a person couldn't be a serious 'foodie' if they duplicated the full spectrum of gastronomic possibilities with low carb alternatives. As if they would be somehow 'cheating'. Cheating the health consequences maybe, never cheating on taste;)


Stuart.

[Ottawa]

For me any way, weight gain or loss has always been a sideshow. For me it's about celebrating every moment of this all too short life in optimum health. IMHO. superficial judgement calls about small amounts of sugar being healthier than equivalent amounts of artificial intense sweeteners just keep the human body in a mild state of unhealthiness.

Stuart,
Your comments put you into the Hedonist Band Camp, which most of us are in,:o and it has been a major sustainment in my staying LC.
Maximizing taste, while following the numbers allows almost every taste to be exercised with a few exceptions like the "mouth feel" of fresh bread, or the texture of a baked or fried potato. Although there are LC alternatives in both fake and real foods, they do not measure up.

I think most of us here that do not have an aversion or reaction to the various LC sweeteners, use them accordingly to fill that sweet craving that spiked most of us into the overwight camp we were in when we started PP.

I have never been a fan of the term cheating, we make those choices knowing the consequences. Most of us would extend our ECC linit during a major holiday but very few would return to previous eating habits. Although I started PP for weight loss, the other results have been just as amazing and the images of days past or the "'face down in a plate of donuts" have hopefully been held in place by the effort required to regain our health. I look back every once in a while and wonder how I could have eaten that way but it was relatively easy. Sweeteners such as liquid Splenda, Xylitol, and so on give me a flashback to those sensations while still keeping me on plan and within my ECC target. I will keep an eye out for erythritol here in Canada to try it as well.

[Gaelen]

Stuart, I think you are missing my point in the intensity of trumpeting your own--and by the way, do you sell erythritol? Sorry, just had to ask... ;)

My point, jsut to be sure it's clear...
After eating low carb for four years, without using much in the way of sweeteners (natural or manufactured) at all, I do not often crave sweets, nor do I like food to taste 'sweet' out of proportion to the other elements/foods I'm eating.

In short, I have no desire to 'have my sugar free cake and eat it too.' Ricotta pie, sweetened with nothing more than sweet spices like cinnamon and ginger, fresh berries and lemon zest, or a small piece of really high quality 70% or 85% dark chocolate, hits enough of a sweet spot for me that I don't need to go looking for more. My tastes have changed dramatically while low carbing, probably because I chose to rely on only minimal amounts of added sweeteners. I stopped taking sugar in my coffee within a month of beginning to low carb (never took it in my tea) and now find most sweetened drinks too sweet to drink, much less enjoy. I don't even put much sweetener in lemonade; one or two small stevia leaves in a quart is pretty low-rent in the sweetening department. I always preferred dark and bittersweet chocolates; now I find most sweetened chocolates are 'too sweet.' I never added any sweetener to raspberries (which, btw, I pick from a wild patch behind my house or buy from the organic growers down the road.) They're not hybridized; they're wild. I don't sweetene other berries either, or melons, or fruits...and I do try to buy in season and heirloom (non-hybridized) varieties from local growers. The fresh ones in the grocery store tend to taste flat and out of season all year long unless they're local, IMO.

Did I used to like really sweet things, candy and cakes and hot glazed doughnuts? Yep. Do I really enjoy them now? No...not usually. Pecan Pie used to be my favorite thing in the world...now I'm trying to find a way to make it less sweet (heresy to a southern cook, but there it is...)

That doesn't mean it's wrong (or right) for people to prefer to use some sort of sweetening agents while low carbing. If using sweetening agents keep you on plan, by all means go for it. It's a personal choice. I don't happen to like the (manufactured) tastes available, so I don't use them. YMMV. ;)

Yes, I've tried erythritol--I was a food writer for a low carb magazine from the beginning of 2003 through mid-2004, and I still write an occasional food piece here or there. It was part of my job to taste and review all kinds of stuff coming into the low carb foods market at that time, and frankly, as Ottawa points out, a LOT of products just didn't measure up to the things they were trying to replace for one reason or many. I always knew I didn't like saccharin and aspartame; during that time, I learned that I don't really like the way erythritol, sorbitol, manitol, lactitol, etc. taste either. I have a sensitive enough palate that most manufactured sweeteners leave a metallic aftertaste (to me.) Then I went on chemo, where MANY things leave a metallic aftertaste--so any tendency I may have had to try things sweetened with manufactured sweeteners pretty much evaporated from lack of positive reinforcement. There are other tastes I don't like, too--in fact, when experimenting with stevia, I had to get used to how to incorporate it because I don't like its natural anise/licorice taste, and haven't since I was a kid (no black jellybeans for this kid!) I don't even really like fennel, beautiful vegetable that it is, unless it's roasted/carmelized, or in a sauce that moderates the slight background anise taste, which turns me off in even minute amounts. So I don't use stevia often, and never in foods that are lightly flavored. Surely it's okay to simply not LIKE a given taste? ;)

As for whether I eat low carb primarily for health or weight loss, you don't seem to know me very well, Stuart. I've been doing this since the beginning of 2002, and yes, started it (as many people do) to try a different method of losing weight. However, if the health benefits of eating this way weren't clear to me pretty quickly and reinforced over time, I wouldn't have kept it up, even if I did lose weight. Among other things, eating according to Protein Power made me migraine free for the first time in 30 years--not something that's easy to miss in the improved health category. I've been low carbing in sickness and in health for long enough to recognize what benefits eating this way gives me.

As for preferring naturally occuring foods to manufactured ones--well, that's the beauty of Protein Power. We can be hedonists, dillettantes, or purists, or combine some points from each approach or move between them in the course of our days. We are each free to choose our own roads to heaven and hell...and we don't have to justify those choices to anyone else. ;)

[Thedabara]

I use Erythritol in baked goods, but i certainly would never push a sweetener of ANY kind on someone. My tastes have changed in the 3 years I have been doing this. Not all of them, I'm still a sucker for a bagel. however, i don't like things as sweet as I did. I think some here on the board don't really enjoy anything sweeter than a "natural" strawberry. What is wrong with that? I use liquid Splenda in my coffee, and Erythritol in my pumkin pie, but I cannot see pushing sweeteners on other people just becuase I like them. Now, I also like Lindt 70%, and have found it amazing that lately I like the 85% even better. 2 years ago I would have (and did) open a whole bag of chocolate chips just to devour them mindlessly. Now I can have 1 or 2 squares of a Lindt bar and that does it for me. I've tried the "fake" chocolate, and although they were okay, they all still had a different taste...I'll stick with the 85 % cocoa. But I would never dream of telling someone here that they just had to try it.

as for Dr. Mike's blog, being about going over 40 or so ecc. I don't think face down in the donuts was an exaggeration. The whole poem he quotes from longfellow, about when she was good she was very very good but when she was bad she was horrid... Horrid doesn't say 100 ecc to me....it says a binge! I have never been face down in the donuts, but have been face down in the cheesecake or bagels...we are talking 300+ ecc, not 100. and that for more than 1 day. Now, I am not diabetic, and have no idea how high or low my blodd glucose reaches...I assume for the most part it is pretty low. I started this plan to lose a little weight, and stayed because the science made sense to me. There are so many different reasons for people to choose PP, or PPLP that I cannot comprehend thinking there is only one reason..or that my one is the best reason. Okay, now I am just rambling...so I'll get going.

Randy, I get Erythritol at Netrition.com. It's the only place I can find it around here. Plus, at least in New England, the companies that made SF chocolate with it, are no longer selling ( or making)them around here.
jenn

[Thedabara]

okay, Gaelen you must have been posting at about the same time I was....everything I said ,you said much more eloquintley.
jenny

[stilt]

Oh dear. Gaelen first of all, I can get you some erythritol at cost in Australia, if you like. But you live in the States, dont you?. What would be the point. I'm sure you can get it cheaper there.;) Okay, you've tried it. That's great, and you still lump it with all the other sugar alcohols. And all the intense sweeteners as well. Fair enough. That means if you need to add sweetness to anything you're stuck with sugar. Which you think is perfectly allright in small amounts occasionally and I think is a potent metabolic poison in any amount. I think we'll just have to differ on that. But it's pretty silly to take some kind of higher nutritional moral ground on the basis of sugar being 'natural' and say sucralose being 'artificial'. The sugar industry continues to try very hard to find something wrong with intense artificial sweeteners. As it stands currently aspartame is pretty dangerous, and the only other intense sweetener which has been placed under some kind of health cloud is stevia, which I seem to remember you think is okay because it is a 'herb'. As I think I've already pointed out, even modern sweet fruit is a selective breeding metabolic nightmare of fructose. All the calorific sweeteners (for that matter all carbohydrate) has no place in maximizing human health. Evolutionary biology is quite clear about this (notwithstanding the writing of the likes of Cordain:rolleyes: , who still seem to need to get over their sat fat phobia). It certainly had some survival advantages to be able to derive nourishment from carbohydrate on the rare occasions when it was available, but that shouldn't blind us to the damage it does.

Gaelen throughout my contributions to this thread, I've been at pains to concede that if there wasn't any alternative to calorific sugars (including all the sugar alcohols, except, and it is a VERY big exception, erythritol- can you tell I think it is a pretty remarkable low carb accessory:D ) then you'd have to either wean yourself gradually off intense sweet (which you and plenty of other low carbers do successfully, but hopefully resist the temptation to think doing so is somehow 'better') or succumb to the temptations of the white death occasionally. You have from the outset suggested that this second option is somehow healthier than either occasionally indulging your sweet receptors with artificial intense sweeteners (and/or erythritol) or 'shock horror', doing so often and enthusiastically, while still enjoying the extraordinary health benefits of very low carb. Running through your various posts (on this thread) I get the distinct impression that because you rightly observe that everyone has to find their own way, then that by definition makes that personal choice the healthiest. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'll defend anyone's right to choose their own way, but enthusiastically point out percieved flaws in their rationale, and particularly this arrant nonsense that 'natural' is necessarily healthier than 'artificial'.

I think the most telling comment you made is that you don't like the aftertaste of any of the non caloric sweeteners. That's fair enough. But then you go on to muddy that simple personal taste perspective with all the stuff about occasional natural sugars being somehow healthier than occasional non caloric sweeteners. You even higher moral tone about FREQUENT use of non caloric sweeteners is doubly regrettable.

Somebody commented that my attitudes put me in the 'hedonist' camp. I must say these PP categories are as restrictive and inflexible as most taxonomy, and just about as useless. I think I'm probably more of a hedonistic purist:p .

[Gaelen]

Somebody commented that my attitudes put me in the 'hedonist' camp. I must say these PP categories are as restrictive and inflexible as most taxonomy, and just about as useless. I think I'm probably more of a hedonistic purist:p .

Well, hedonistic purism would certainly be an interesting set of gastronomic restrictions, Stuart. I just have to ask...morbidly curious, I guess...but your posts make me wonder, have you actually read any of the Eadeses' books -- Protein Power, or The Protein Power Lifeplan, or Staying Power or The 30-Day Low Carb Diet Solution? Have you maybe listened to the abridged and condensed audiobook version of PP which is widely available?

[Belfrybat]

I'm chiming in here to say the Eades certainly do not demonize sugar or white flour. They advocate the sparing use of both as evidenced by the recipes in their Comfort Foods recipe book. I think it's important to remember these recipes are for those on maintenance, or for occasional special use. The beauty of Protein Power, unlike other low carb "diets" out there, is there are no demonized foods at all. All is allowed as long as it is within one's ECC limit. If I use a couple of teaspoons of cane sugar in a recipe that is perfectly allowable as long as the portions stay within my ECC limit. It seems to me that every food under heaven and earth has it's use in our lives, but all in moderation. And that last is difficult for so many of us: moderation.

There's nothing particular evil about sugar -- the over use of it causes problems, but let's face it, the over use of anything food or otherwise, causes problems. There's even a condition of water poisoning if one consumes a great amount of water, and we all know that water is good for us. All in moderation.

[stilt]

Well, hedonistic purism would certainly be an interesting set of gastronomic restrictions, Stuart. I just have to ask...morbidly curious, I guess...but your posts make me wonder, have you actually read any of the Eadeses' books -- Protein Power, or The Protein Power Lifeplan, or Staying Power or The 30-Day Low Carb Diet Solution? Have you maybe listened to the abridged and condensed audiobook version of PP which is widely available?

MORBIDLY curious? . Good heavens Gaelen, what an odd comment. You're not about to drop dead because I take you to task about the natural/ artificial nonsense are you?.
The gastronomic restrictions of being a hedonistic low carb purist?. Well let's see...? But that's the point, there are none. Avoiding more than 30 - 40g carbs without ever straying (let alone 'going face down in the donuts'!) isn't a gastronomic restriction last time I checked. It's an ingredient restriction, and as long as you don't mind using plenty of intense sweeteners and erythritol, it's very easy.
I haven't even heard of 'Staying Power' or the '30 day Low Carb Diet Solution'. The titles sound a bit bodyfat loss oriented. As I pointed out earlier I'm more interested in the metabolic theory of low carb for optimum health. Weight loss is incidental. I have both PP and PPLP and still refer to PPLP constantly. I'm afraid PP has dated a bit in comparison, although it was one of the first low carb books that I read when I first ditched the carbs nearly four years ago. The Eades have both done so much for low carb awareness. Oh, and I think abridged and condensed versions of anything are a bit of a waste of time. In the case of gaining a low carb perspective on the mechanisms of human metabolism, make that a COMPLETE waste of time. But I have to admit that as a weight loss manual it might be handy. Gee it might even pique a listener's interest in really getting informed about low carb.

One thing I neglected to point out in my earlier posts in response to you tarring all non 'ose sugars (those 'ose sugars being: sucrose lactose glucose maltose galactose etc.) with the same brush was that erythritol is surely just as 'natural' as any conventional sugar. You actually have about 15g of erythritol in you this very minute, and it occurs, wait for it, 'naturally' (such a dangerous, abused and misused word:rolleyes: ) in many fruits and vegetables.

That it has NONE of the dangerous properties of all the 'oses and all the other sugar alcohols, might make it 'unnatural' simply because it is so remarkable, but I'm at a complete loss how you could consider it the kind of unnatural I'm reasonably sure you were referring to. In fact the argument that even things like saccharin and sucralose are unnatural is a bit of a stretch. Bread doesn't occur in nature. Salt is surely natural, but then sucralose is also a chlorinated molecule, and that molecule is, you guessed it, sugar. As I've mentioned a few times already, modern sweet fruit is hardly natural either. Human interference with food has been going on for a VERY long time!. And it's not always a bad thing either. But it helps to keep things in low carb perspective. Depending on just how healthy you want to be, of course.

I'm afraid you've been conned about the "'natural' being automatically healthier" business Gaelen. It's not uncommon. And it's your business. But please refrain from judging those who understand (pretty well;) ) the science of very low carb optimum human health and recognize that it can include frequent enjoyment of various intense sweeteners and erythritol, without ever feeling even remotely tempted by more carby food. I'm glad you're a foodie Gaelen. Because I am too, I think we would agree that being so is one of the great joys of being human. I just choose to be so without EVER bumping the 30- 40 g carbs. And using intense sweeteners and erythritol (and actually a few other 'unnatural's like wheat protein isolate and calcium caseinate for instance) makes it so easy to do this that I'll be delighting my tastebuds till the day I day I die, without ever feeling the need to, how did you describe it 'use an occasional teaspoon of sugar'. If you go back and read my posts you'll notice that I've never denigrated your choice to go for the occasional teaspoon of sugar over using any of those awful artificial sweeteners. You should perhaps extend the same courtesy to those who choose to never stray from the very low carb path, but do it with A.S's after considering the health implications of both approaches, and most importantly do it in gastronomic style.

Stuart.

[laughingW]

All in moderation.
The Eades also say the white powder foods are addictive and moderation is not an option for some people. I'm just sayin. And, I'm one of them, and it's the refinement of natural things into the "hit" that starts the cascade. All the best drugs started out as plants. It's when we clever humans discovered that refining and processing increases the hit that those of us who are sensitive to that, get in trouble.

So, I know it's hard to believe if you're not me, but I feel a zilliion times better without drug food than I ever did while having it. Including the fake "gastronomic pleasure" or "comforts" of alcohol and intense sweet. I realize that the Eades recipes don't go that far and if I used their recipes I would feel bad because I would constantly be "priming" the addiction pathways.

Paleo is what feels really great. Every single change I made in my food, including leaving crap behind, I did because I like the new way better.

[gitfiddle]

... moderation is not an option for some people.
I totally agree with that. Me, for instance. Give me an inch and I'll take a mile. I'm working on it, though, and I take encouragement in hearing that others have made progress on that front. For now, I use whatever crutches I need to keep my insulin and blood sugar down. When I have cravings, I don't panic, but look around to see what I've been eating that might be contributing to them.

[DJK]

Folks,

I also agree with Belfrybat. I think that fear of eating a piece of cake at a birthday party (loaded with trans fats, corn suryp, sugar, flour......) is not productive to the PP lifestyle. Maybe a diabetic should make sure he/she doesn't partake but I'm not diabetic. To me if I indulge I don't beat myself up thinking of all the possible health issues related to that simple indulgance. I fall back on my PP lifestyle (maybe reread a chapter or two) and stop at that one piece. I live in a hosehold where I'm the only one on a PP diet so temptation is always around and so is a good steak and eggs snack! However, and this happened to me yesterday, I almost became sick from a little piece of cake and a cookie (~100g carbs). So short term my health suffered but how will this affect my long-term health (ret)? When I make choices in my diet I always choose protien rich low carb knowing that is what will satisfy my appitite and if a cookie is forced upon me I know how I'll feel afterwards! Negative reinforcement (getting sick) can make us stronger sometimes. But fear, who wants to live in fear? I find the 4/19 article posted on Dr. Eades blog along with the comments to only instill fear not a reasonable approch to a PP lifestyle.

I'm not as experienced with all this as many of you (~ 3 mo on PP) but is this a reasonable additude or am I setting my self up for a big surprise with this logic?

DJK

[Ottawa]

Carol and DJK,
I find that teh longer you are on plan the more you find ways to accomodate your changing palate.

Although I tend to overdo it when baking, even with LC, there are a few things that are sweet yet safe foods, since it would be hard to overdo it.

The Zucchinni Muffins origionally done by Relief and redone a few times on this board come out to 1.4 ECC yet are very filling. There have been times where I need a sweet and have used them for my whole meal since three of them give me teh requirted protein along with a sweet taste.

Total Carbohydrate 5.8g 2% Dietary Fiber 4.4g 18% Protein 13g


I know that I definitely eat less "sweet" than before but still have the taste sated in some form, even a hot drink with a sweetener.
On the weekend I did a once around the kitchen to clear up "all the partially used leftovers" or things that I have bought and were close to shelf life, that annoy my wife.

I rarely use tofu but there is a firm brand that goes great in these Zucchinni muffins that gives a body and taste very similar to Mrs. Fields cookies. It was not a regular recipe but 2 LC pancake mixes, 3 shredded Zukes, a blended brick of firm tofu along with eggs, sunflower seeds, chocolate chips, spices, 0 carb Whey protein (non-flavored-cheapest whey protein available), Golden flaxseed, etc., and a sweet 3" cookie still came out under 3 ECC. For sweeteners I used some Xylitol and liquid Sucralose, although the cinnamon adds a nice edge as well.

For some, this type of food leads to a binge, the same as holiday treats might, but I would think for most of us, it is just appeasing the Hedonist portion of how we eat while still fitting in the numbers.

[stilt]

Since I ditched the carbs and discovered how easy it was to go on enjoying the tastes that I've always enjoyed by using artificial intense sweeteners and erythritol I am constantly surprised by the ongoing spectacular health benefits of very low carb even nearly four years down the track, I've never 'craved carby food'. I never eat food with ordinary sugar alcohols in it either. They all (maltitol, sorbitol, lactitol, isomalt, mannitol etc.) have some adverse side effects which are easy to understand when you look at how they are processed by the human body. Erythritol is the only way of enjoying all the texturizing properties of sugar in food, without the downside of sugar(calories, cariogenic, glycemic, glycative, immune system depressant....etc.). So many people are responding that it doesn't matter if you squeeze in just a 'reasonable', 'moderate' 'don't beat yourself up' or perhaps the classic 'sensible', amount of sugar or other glycemic carbohydrate. But why would you bother, when it's so easy to do without it completely, and lo and behold, STILL be a foodie?:D.

Now let's be clear, I've got no problem with anybody choosing to include the 'occasional teaspoon of sugar or cake' in their low carb lifestyle. They're still streets ahead of the high/moderate carb battlers in the health stakes. But it's just sad when somebody, anybody, EVEN the moderator of a low carb forum, takes some kind of high moral ground over the notion that you can actually make low carb (a) at least marginally healthier by never straying above 30 - 40 g cho; or (b) that it is easy and safe to do it with AI's and erythritol. I also want to reiterate that if somebody chooses not to take advantage of this approach because they just don't like the TASTE (or even aftertaste;) ) of the healthier alternatives to sugar, that's their choice. It's probably also worth stressing that I'm certainly not including aspartame in the 'healthier alternatives to sugar category'.

I'm also intrigued (but definitely not 'morbidly':p ) by the negative emotional colour so many poster's give to regular use of AS's and erythritol . 'Crutches' ,'may lead to cravings', 'fear of eating a piece of (sugared) cake', 'when a cookie is forced on me' (seriously, how can anyone 'force' someone to eat a cookie. Even if you can't think of a polite way to refuse it, and there are SO many, you don't have to actually EAT it), 'not a reasonable approach' and the prizewinner - 'who wants to live in fear?' Honestly, I can't believe so much fuss is being made about doing something that is so physiologically obvious and so easy. Nobody would think not crossing the road until there was a gap in the traffic was being fearful, just sensible;) Intense sweeteners and erythritol don't have any metabolic negatives. I think part of the reason some people seem to find so called sugar free foods make them crave real carbs is that (a) they contain other sugar alcohols which all have a pronounced glycemic effect, and/or people have this ridiculous misapprehension that because 'sugar is a natural' they have an almost subconcious guilt reaction to eating something 'artificial'. Every time I take a satisfying mouthful of erythritol/sucralosed almond meal choc mud cake I marvel at how easy it is to NEVER feel even remotely tempted by the 'real' thing. The only 'real' thing about carbs is that they are metabolically unnecessary.

Stuart

[DJK]

Stuart,

I think fear is not always a good motivating tool. And that is what I think this coment in Dr. Eades 4/19 blog creates in non-diabetics:

"These data were in diabetic patients but I suspect the situation holds true in non-diabetic patients as well. And, unfortunately, especially in followers of the low-carb diet."

Just look at the size of this thread. The problem, fear is not going to create real long term changes in behavior. Humas respond to fear not by reasoning , logical deduction, or sensibility such as your anology to crossing the road, but by either flight or fight a short term solution. Also I agree you can not be forced to eat a cookie any more then you can be made to fear the cookie. (never thought I would write "fear a cookie")

Dr. Eades has blasted many reasearch papers for making this exact kind of conclusion and to me rightly so. Thats why I'm here. I feel for a PP or any LC lifestyle to work the choice to follow must be made for sensible and locical reasons not because you fear some long term concequence.

Again I'm a newbie and have only 3 mo experience with PP but it seems to be working. Always love a good debate.

Fear the cookie,

DJK

[realruth]

Hey Stuart can I take you up on the offer of the Erythritol at cost??? Sitting pretty here on Norfolk Island.... ;) Have tried a couple of SA...Malitol and xylitol and use mostly a saccharine based stuff from NZ (better after taste than the Aussie ones ;) ) when I want to sweeten berries etc. I have been following LC WOL for almost 3 yrs now for my health...the weightloss was a bonus. I have been following a more purist LC style and do not go over @30ecc because I feel sick/tired if I do. Never eat sugar..diabetic...never eat most grains and legumes because of allergies (found this out doing PP purist). How did you come to begin LC?

[stilt]

Stuart,

I think fear is not always a good motivating tool. And that is what I think this coment in Dr. Eades 4/19 blog creates in non-diabetics:

"These data were in diabetic patients but I suspect the situation holds true in non-diabetic patients as well. And, unfortunately, especially in followers of the low-carb diet."

hi DJK, Um, I agree. Speaking of which, correct me if I'm wrong but I get the impression from your post that you think I was arguing the contrary . Besides, fear probably IS a good motivator in some life and death situations. But in choosing unwavering very low carb for the easy spectacular good health of it, fear is worse than useless. Perhaps you might agree with this update on the cookie thing:

No need to fear the carby cookie. You don't even have to notice it. You'll be too busy enjoying the intense A.S/erythritol sweetened wheat protein isolate VLC cookie. Foodies note. A smidge of orange zest and some fresh nutmeg - heaven;) .

[stilt]

Hey Stuart can I take you up on the offer of the Erythritol at cost??? Sitting pretty here on Norfolk Island.... ;) Have tried a couple of SA...Malitol and xylitol and use mostly a saccharine based stuff from NZ (better after taste than the Aussie ones ;) ) when I want to sweeten berries etc. I have been following LC WOL for almost 3 yrs now for my health...the weightloss was a bonus. I have been following a more purist LC style and do not go over @30ecc because I feel sick/tired if I do. Never eat sugar..diabetic...never eat most grains and legumes because of allergies (found this out doing PP purist). How did you come to begin LC?

hi Ruth. I'm not even sure I'm supposed to offer ANYTHING (even advice)here (whether at cost or not:p ) I only mentioned the erythritol smuggling at all because Gaelen chose to make a snide remark about my motives for singing its praises . I think it's best if you approach her to check wether it's OK if you approach me on this forum:rolleyes: . For whatever reason, she dug the hole for herself, it might be safer if we let her dig herself out. Alternatively, you could mosey on over to the Empower Board where erythritol may or may not be found. Gad, mentioning another forum! Active Low Carber moderators have shot people for less. Let's hope the administrators of PP forums are more civilized:cool: .

Moving right along. I also am intrigued by the many ways peope happen onto low carb.It's not exactly fertile ground for it in the world of nutritional opinion. Most people seem to discover it by accident. Nearly four years ago, I was getting the Joe Mercola newsletter and rapidly coming to the conclusion that he was pretty confused about human nutrition. His heart was definitely in the right place, but the metabolic typing nonsense (according to which, I was a 'carb' type!) made me wonder wether I should curtail my subsription. Anyway there was some gold amongst all the dross, because I read one of his most raved about links, by Ron Rosedale: 'Insulin and its Metabolic Effects'. I stayed up late and savoured every word, almost weeping with relief that finally I had discovered how to properly nourish the human body. I was so transfixed. If you haven't read it I'd recommend it even over the Eades Books, for the short sharp thunderbolt of low carb understanding it conveys. I pretty well ditched the carbs the next day, felt like shit for two weeks, but understood perfectly why, so my enthusiasm never wavered. Over the next few months, I read everything I could get my hands on about low carb: Life Without Bread', 'PP', 'DANDR', ' Homo Optimus', Barry Groves stuff,... increasingly amazed that I could have missed out for so long, but relieved that I hadn't discovered it after I'd perhaps developed 2 diabetes or heart disease. And I'd always been interested in following the healthiest diet. I'd tried them all, not fitfully either, with dedication and discipline. I used to notice the blood sugar problems I'd suffered my whole life not really improving as I worked my way through the sad cavalcade of wanna be healthy diets: Low fat, vegetarian, macrobiotic, raw food.... I tell you Ruth I was about ready to just eat burgers and fries for the rest of my life in sheer frustration at the uselessness of them all in promoting more than moderate health. But low carb is different. Having read a lot more about evolutionary biology now, I can but marvel that nutritional science didn't have low carb squared away as the only way to eat decades ago. But the often breathtaking human capacity for logical abstraction, sadly, just hasn't come up with the goods yet, despite the isolated signs of hope , God bless 'em!.
Over the ensuing nearly four years of 30- 40 g cho/day I've enjoyed the most amazing exhilarating rollercoaster of steadily improving good health: sleep, mood, energy, skin, immune system, hair, eyesight, teeth, aerobic and anaerobic endurance, strength... Which all sounds strangely piecemeal. It's probably more appropriate to say I feel much younger today than I did 15 years ago. This must all sound almost religious. Coming from the least religious person I know, that's a big call!

Stuart.

[realruth]

Stuart I feel much younger than I did 25 years ago LOL BTW Good article that Rosedale one!

[laughingW]

For whatever reason, she dug the hole for herself, it might be safer if we let her dig herself out.
Stuart, I'm just a lowly member here, but I found it offensive for you to refer to Gaelen in the 3d person as if she weren't here, serving us as a volunteer by the way.

Singing the praises of the tricks you've found that help you, is cool. The other behavior is not, just because it degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of this nice place which is otherwise wunderbar.

[stilt]

Stuart, I'm just a lowly member here, but I found it offensive for you to refer to Gaelen in the 3d person as if she weren't here, serving us as a volunteer by the way.

Singing the praises of the tricks you've found that help you, is cool. The other behavior is not, just because it degrades the signal-to-noise ratio of this nice place which is otherwise wunderbar.

Good heavens, we're all volunteers, and being an administrator doesn't give you the right to be rude to contributors who take part in this forum in low good low carb faith. For the love of low carb, get off your bended knee! This is about decent behaviour. When you accept office bearing duties, of course it's admirable, but I'm afraid it comes with responsibilities. It's indeed unfortunate that Gaelen chose to be snide, but acting all high and mighty (Gaelen,you or anyone else) just because she is an administrator? Of course we should all mind our P's and Q's. But I think it's clear the forum will be immeasurably improved by not excusing slip ups by participants just because they are office bearers. And singing the praises of low carb tricks is not just 'cool' either. It's what gives this forum life. Correct me if I'm wrong, but low carb is PP's raison d'etre, isn't it? Doing so against the personal bias of Gaelen shouldn't be a problem (particularly because that bias is not particularly low carb!). And I couldn't give a flying flip wether she just chose to disagree with me. But the 'you wouldn't sell erythritol?' question went far beyond healthy disagreement, however spirited, and dragged us all down. IMHO, she ought to know better, volunteer or not;)

Stuart.

[stilt]

Stuart I feel much younger than I did 25 years ago LOL BTW Good article that Rosedale one!

Ruth, you're a breath of fresh air:D . I always downgrade the figures a bit for public consumption credibility. Just stating the honest truth about the youthfulness benefits of low carb seems to sound too much like hyperbole:)

Stuart.

[Belfrybat]

Good heavens, we're all volunteers, and being an administrator doesn't give you the right to be rude to contributors who take part in this forum in low good low carb faith. For the love of low carb, get off your bended knee! This is about decent behaviour.

So when are you going to begin behaving decently and quit being so rude and pushy? Your attitude and "in-your'face" confrontation does not engender discussion but conflict.

And I couldn't give a flying flip wether she just chose to disagree with me. But the 'you wouldn't sell erythritol?' question went far beyond healthy disagreement, however spirited, and dragged us all down. IMHO, she ought to know better, volunteer or not

Stuart.

I certainly can't and won't speak for Gaelen, but I read her comment as tongue in cheek -- a bit of humour thrown into what you were pushing as confrontation. It's not Gaelen who has dragged this down. Why don't you get off your high horse? This WOE is for those on Protein Power and although this particular forum may look new in it's current incarnation, it's been around for many years and so have the current administrators. It's interesting to me you haven't participated in other discussions on this Board nor joined in the various conversations -- just this one trying to push your opinions and refusing to politely consider the opinions and wisdom of others.

[stilt]

So when are you going to begin behaving decently and quit being so rude and pushy? Your attitude and "in-your'face" confrontation does not engender discussion but conflict.



I certainly can't and won't speak for Gaelen, but I read her comment as tongue in cheek -- a bit of humour thrown into what you were pushing as confrontation. It's not Gaelen who has dragged this down. Why don't you get off your high horse? This WOE is for those on Protein Power and although this particular forum may look new in it's current incarnation, it's been around for many years and so have the current administrators. It's interesting to me you haven't participated in other discussions on this Board nor joined in the various conversations -- just this one trying to push your opinions and refusing to politely consider the opinions and wisdom of others.

Fair enough;) Can we please get back to the original topic of conversation now. Just to reiterate. The research I have done and my own personal experience is that never straying from the low carb path (30- 40 g) is far healthier short, medium, and particularly long term than occasionally dipping into the honey pot (let alone going face down in the donuts). Because erythritol and stevia are completely natural substances, those who object to AI's can easily achieve these health benefits too. I pride myself on being a foodie and have never had a problem with not using sugar, flour or any other carby food to prepare any dish a conventional cook would. And I've never seen any credible evidence that even the AS's (with the notable exception of aspartame) have any risks whatsoever. Making that call according to how you read the evidence is an entirely personal descision. One is not 'better' than the other. And anyone (me included, but particularly the moderator of a low carb forum) who suggests otherwise is abusing their position) Using the 'natural' is not necessarily better than 'artificial' line is IMHO misguided and dangerous. If someone doesn't like the taste of the (again IMHO) healthier alternatives to sugar, that's their call too.

Oh dear, was I too pushy?
I'm also a bit curious, this forum is for those who are interested in low carb isn't it? Not just those who want to stick slavishly to PP?
Stuart.

[Ottawa]

"was I too pushy"

I didn't think so and found the thread interesting and insightful. You definitely have a different style and it rubs some people. We have two people with strong, but differing views, both supported under the various options/paths within Protein Power. You can go with any safe sweetener you want as long as you are within your ECC range/target.

"this forum is for those who are interested in low carb isn't it? Not just those who want to stick slavishly to PP?"

It definitely is a Protein Power Forum. ... Slavish???
Slavish \Slav"ish\, a. Of oraining to slaves; such as becomes or befits a slave; servile; excessively laborious; as, a slavish life; a slavish dependance on the great.

I've never thought of it that way, since eating like this has so many possibilities I see it as quite open. The LC recipes here would fit any LC program. I have never seen much of a restriction and find many of the other programs very close to Protein Power's message, but like the emphasis on the science. Also it was my "winner" in getting me fit again although I have read a few others.

[stilt]

"this forum is for those who are interested in low carb isn't it? Not just those who want to stick slavishly to PP?"

It definitely is a Protein Power Forum. ... Slavish???
Slavish \Slav"ish\, a. Of oraining to slaves; such as becomes or befits a slave; servile; excessively laborious; as, a slavish life; a slavish dependance on the great.

I've never thought of it that way, since eating like this has so many possibilities I see it as quite open. The LC recipes here would fit any LC program. I have never seen much of a restriction and find many of the other programs very close to Protein Power's message, but like the emphasis on the science. Also it was my "winner" in getting me fit again although I have read a few others.

Yes I'm sorry, I do appreciate that the principles of PP are just good low carb ideas. There's nothing I disagree with in PPLP . PP can be a bit out of date. And I have no doubt one of the strong points of reading PPLP and sticking to the guidelines without ever reading another low carb book is that it is so flexible. Which makes it even stranger that Gaelen reacted so judgementally to my suggestion that never straying from 30- 40 g with the assistance of natural sweeteners like stevia and erythritol (or even horror, Artificial intense sweeteners if you weren't convinced by the natural is better argument.) might actually confer distinct health benefits. The Eades imply it often. They just realize that most people think it's too hard or restrictive.
I'll try to rephrase my question. Is it Ok to just talk about the health benefits of low carb?. I've read PPLP and PP, but I don't follow the Eades Plan, or any other Plan. I low carb, getting inspiration and insight from many writers. Is that enough to be welcome here? It's quite likely that erythritol will get a positive mention again. Is that a problem?

Stuart.

[stilt]

I just recieved a private message from Gaelen to the effect that the only people who can contribute on this forum were those who defined themselves as following one of the Drs. Eades' 'plans'. Since I'm clearly not, I was wondering if that means I can't participate. It's particularly relevant to throw this open to wider scrutiny because this particular forum within PP Forums is called the science behind protein power. That's what we've been discussing isn't it?. I've heard of brand loyalty, but this is ridiculous.

Stuart.

[SherryJ]

Actually, Stuart, what she said was:


Everyone is welcome to partcipate here, regardless of their dietary bent, as long as they comply with the registration agreement and respect other posters' reasonable expressions of opinion. This forum was built for the Drs. Eades to provide support and information, consistent with their dietary recommendations, to people who are already using one of the Drs. Eades' plans, or trying to decide if this way of eating is right for them.

I believe we're done with this conversation...

Sherry