If you want to lose weight then try to avoid sugar. Even if the sugar comes from fruit.
Fruit is candy from nature.
Fruit is candy
More
90
The biggest health blog in Scandinavia, with over 25 000 daily visitors, now has an English version: DietDoctor.com.
This is the blog of Andreas Eenfeldt, MD. The goal is to spread new knowledge, dispel old myths and to inspire you on the road to impressive health.
Learn more
More Diet Doctor
151 Comments
I, on the other hand, have become much healthier thanks to my low carb diet and lost almost 60kg. My doctor is impressed and supportive because he has seen the results himself.
Your obviously a victim of wishful thinking.
If you dont now the differens betwen diabetes T2 and fat induced insulin resistence, then you ned to read moore.
Fat induced insulin resistence, is a normal reaktion, its a part of body homeostasis, that regulate the energi consumtion in your cell, whithoutit your brain could be damaged.
When you eat little carbohydrates or when you are fasting then your body will free fat from the fatcells and the amount of FFA is signaling to muscle cells to minimise the glukos consumption to earmark the glukos för the brain and red blood cells.
If you then eats more carbohydrates then your blodsugar will rise, the lypolys will decline and the signaling is reversed to take upp as much sugar as posibel.
On the other hand diabetc insulin resistance is because of dameged signaling patways in the cell that was suposed to react on the insulin, and its not reversible.
The major reasons to diabetic insulin resistance is multipupose, and is proposed to heredety, high glykemic load, long time low grade inflamation induced of high amount of interleukons, and others.
"After 5 months of no sugar, no grain, no starch she has lost 23 pounds and her last blood work showed that both triglycerides and cholesterol and improved to healthy values with a marked improvement in the HDL/LDL ratio"
For healthy weight-loss, low blood-sugars & low blood-fat just put your wife on a whole-food, "carbs only" diet.
"Man eats potatoes only for 60days"
http://www.aolhealth.com/2010/10/21/man-eats-potatoes-60-days/
Doc has no studies to back his bizarre views. The fact that you even compare my stance to Doc's stance just proves how misinformed you are. Sadly. All he does is babble about weight-loss. Yes, low-carb-diet is very effective for weight-loss. The side-effects? The Atkins patients among others reported everything from hair-loss to impotence. It's all documented. I frankly don't know which is more healthfull regime for weight-loss. LCHF or starting a a brief heroin-addiction/chemotheraphy. All the methods get you rapidly loosing weight and for a brief period of time gives you a nice blood-test. However, the idea that you could a heal a patients with these gimmicks is irresponsible. You simply solve just problem just cause myriads of other problem. Not very holistic approach.
For those misinformed that actually thinks that "sugar-disease" aka diabetes 2 is onset due to carbs need to come off from their caves.
MD Neal barnard explaining diabetes shortly and explaining what's the best treatment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxFai4iVOtk
The good thing is that after couple of years people will laught at the lchf- charlatans.
the research is here. Check out these to be affirmed in what kind of a diet-regime you are putting your wife in.
In addition remember few basic rules, the skinniest and healthiest people on the globe consume the most (whole-food)carbs. Diabetes is unknown in Cambodia, rural Thailand, rural China, rural Japan, rural Philippines, etc. Only the wealthy urban people in these regions who eat Western-style animal-based diets are the ones that are plagued by diseases. To loose weight and to regain health like the rural Asians. That is, high-carb, low-fat (15-5%), low-protein (under 10%)
Foster GD, et al. A randomized trial of a low-carb diet for obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2082-90.
Stern L, Iqbal N, Seshadri P, et al. The effects of low-carbohdrate versus conventional weight loss diets in severely obese adults: one-year follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Int Med 2004;140:778-85.
Bravata DM, Sanders L, Huang J, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-carbohydrate diets: a systematic review. JAMA 2003;289:1837-1850.
Kennedy ET, Bowman SA, Spence JT, Freedman M, King J. Popular diets: correlation to health, nutrition, and obesity. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001;101:411-20.
Brehm BJ, Seeley RJ, Daniels SR, D’Alessio DA. A randomized trial comparing a very low carbohydrate diet and a calorie-restricted low fat diet on body weight and cardiovascular risk factors in healthy women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617-1623.
Crowe TC. Safety of low-carbohydrate diets. Obesity reviews. 2005;6:235–245
Willett WC, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Rosner BA, Speizer FE. Relation of meat, fat, and fiber intake to the risk of colon cancer in a prospective study among women. N Engl J Med 1990;323:1664-72.
LaRosa JC, Fry AG, Muesing R, Rosing DR. Effects of high-protein, low-carbohydrate dieting on plasma lipoproteins and body weight. J Am Dietetic Asso 1980;77:264-70.
Westman EC, Yancy WS, Edman JS, Tomlin KF, Perkins CE. Effect of 6-month adherence to a very low carbohydrate diet program. Am J Med 2002;113:30-6.
Yancy WS, Olsen MK, Guyton JR, Bakst RP, Westman EC. A low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-fat diet to treat obesity and hyperlipidemia. Ann Int Med 2004;140:769-777.
Reddy ST, Wang CY, Sakhaee K, Brinkley L, Pak CY. Effect of low-carbohydrate high-protein diets on acid-base balance, stone-forming propensity, and calcium metabolism. Am J Kidney Dis 2002;40:265-74.
I hate to break it to you, but not only does low carb diets work well in modern studies, they work well on my patients all the time. It's not just the excess weight that is coming off, the improvements in health (blood sugar, blood pressure, cholesterol profile, bloating, aches and pains etc. etc.) is often even more impressive.
Sorry if reality does not fit your preconceived opinions.
"Sorry if reality does not fit your preconceived opinions".
I believe in your clinical experince. As all the studies, (everyone of them) that has studied the issue, the weight-loss induced by LCHF is due to severe calory restriction. People who used to ate Big-Mac meal are doing better when they skip the coke and fries and eat just the burger. Less toxic calories. In addition low-amount of calories for brief period of time give the body the chance to rejuvenate itself (especially if it has been systematically abused 24/7). Are we talking about sustainable method for real healing? Hardly!
The rural Chinese, f.e are perfect health and typically comsume over 3000cals per day. That's over 30% more than typical American. Yet, these people half of the weight of a typical American. Genetics? No, the Chinese immigrants in US are equally sick than the mainstream folk.
We get fantastic results with low-fat, plant-based diets, with no calory limits. In addition, none of the people who have gone through these (low-fat, plants only)-trials have experinced hair-loss, severe calcium inbalance, bad breath, impotence, constipation, regained-obesity, liver and cholestrol abnormalities, cardiac disease, arrhytmias, contradile function impairment, impairment of physical activity, etc... These are all symptoms that have been reported by people having gone through LCHF-trials.
You have a bullet-proof (low-fat plant-based diet) method for doing all the nice stuff, with no risks. This diet has long established clinical and observational background. Only badly misinformed Doc (or irresponsible) would even consider other means to cure symptoms such as obesity.
I am sure you are nice guy, I only hate what you preach. However, I most say I am a bit satisfied knowing that after few years (maybe a decade), you end up as laughing stock, or at worst, sued by your patients. The info has been presented to you. For a public it will take couple more years, but we will get there. The document Forks Over Knives has already made it to movie-theatres in US. That's a nice start.
again, I got a bit nasty at the end of my post. Sorry! I sincerely hope all the good and enduring health for you & your patients.
Caloric restriction? Sure, if you mean spontaneous caloric restriction. That's exactly the point. Lose the sugar and the starches and obese people start to feel full once they have eaten a reasonable amount of food. The hunger goes away. That's why low carb high fat diets work so well.
However that does not mean a plant-based diet can't work too, for those who can stay on it. It's pretty clear that the modern western diet with lots of pure sugar, easily digestible starches and industrial food-like products is about the worst diet possible for your health and weight.
So: if you get rid of the western industrial diet and go vegetarian that can certainly be an improvement.
finally you are starting to sound reasonable, well atleast, remotely reasonable. However I beg to differ with you on the calory-restriction part.
1) The (unfortunate) ones who have been put to LCHF-trials are usually (if not always) told not to eat above 1000-kalories. In the latest study-entry you did (NYC article) the unfornates were told not to eat more than 750-kals/per day. That's not sustainable by any means. In a state of ketosis you loose you appetite very rapidly. I know this personally since I put myself on ketosis through water-fasting. People can be not-eating, water-only-fasting ketosis-mode even for 100-days without starving nor feeling hunger. (That is if you have proper nutritional-reserves). Most people face the wall after 40-days of fasting). Is this sustainable, ofcourse not. People cannot sustain themselves long-term on these 500-1000kals/day modes. They can do that for months, some even for year or two. But, not longer.
In addition, as part of the LCHF-crew you over prioritize the effects of industrious hazards. Yes, that's an issue, but we know that meat and fish themselves are cancer/disease inducing foods. The toxicity of meat gets even more worse its cooked and the compounds known to be carcinogenic heterocyclic amines are formed.
2) Anyways, since you are know familiar with this info. I expect your next patient-doctor dialogue going something along these lines.
-Hey, Doc. I hear that I perfectly okay to be in high-fat diet, something which is now scientifically proven by several clinical trials conducted the Harvard university.
-No, not really. What has been proven is that people consuming most of their diets from animal sources and dropping their fat-intake from the standard 40% to 30% do not face any significant benefits. Assuming otherwise would be naive. 3-pac/per day smoker won't see his health improving significantly after becoming 2-pac/per day smoker. However, there are some minor benefits being on a the "low"-30%-fat group as the women studied showed 9% reduction in breast-cancer rates compared to the 40%-group.
So, no, as the authors of these trials concluded, it would grotesque to advice to you go high on butter and sausages. There's absolutely no evidence to rule out our low-fat-hypothesis.
Okay, but isn't this LCHF a convinient and easy way to loose weight rapidly?
-Yes, however, I am in a healing profession. I do not care much about weight-loss per se. There's multiple ways to achieve rapid weight-loss, most of which give hazardous consequenses for your long-term health. We would simply supress one symptom (obesity) to evoke plethora of risk associated with these high in animal product, calory-restriction, weight-loss fads. As a responsible practioner of my profession I cannot advice to go through such a fad-diet loss scheme. Besides, most of the rapid weight-loss associated with such fad-diets are due to loss of fluids, not the loss of fat itself.
Okay, I see. But, what about about the notions of carbs being behind all evil.
-Well, in fact I do not have even basic education in nutrition. I cannot remember that I would have gone through a single course on nutrition in the med school. We might have had one, but course dealth mostly with the chemical reaction of certain vitamins or about infant-nutrion formulas, I cannot remember. However, I could say that such a notion would be most likely fallacious since if carbs as such would be bad per se it wouldn't make sense why the people eating most carbs make up the most healthiest and skinniest population on the planet. These people are, contrary to the common belief, also quite high in calories. So, definitely we would have to pay more emphasize on the fat-side of the equation. But, it's better that you ask someone else about these nutritional issues.
-Okay, but these observational studies does not necessarly give us the reason to assume that sugars=bad notion cannot be ruled out.
-You are right. In science we can rarely be certain about something. We don't know for 100% accuracy that smoking causes lung-cancer, since non-smokers also have lung-cancer. We can only go by the odds. We can get good overall picture when use observational studies with clinical trials. I remember that heaps of clinical-trials would highly indicate that by making most of the diet from grains (complex sugars) you could not only prevent but even reverse diseases such as type- 2 diabetes or coronary heart disease.
"However that does not mean a plant-based diet can't work too, for those who can stay on it"
People actually find quite easy stay on it, since there's no calory-restriction. People can eat all they want and still put off the weight. There's no feeling of starving. The most difficult part is that the taste-bads for Westerners are not used the plant-based foods. But that's is just an issue of few weeks. Taste buds change very quickly once the junkies stay away from the addictive junk-food (which can be literally painfull) and excess dietary salts which skewes our ability to taste stuff.
However, whether plant-based only is easy to adopt lifestyle is not a matter for you to decide. Your only obligation is to inform your patients that this kind of disease-preventing and reversing, side-effectless alternative exist next to chemical pills that comes with 70-100 different side-effects and does not even address the cause of the disease, merely just suppressing the symptom.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43141690/ns/health-health_care/t/average-...
I could also add that your "industrial"-food being behind the sickness of Western people is rather bizarre and naive. Just another LCHF-fantasy. What's behind the disease is actually LCHF. No doubt industrial-food has its share in the epidemic as well. However, to raise industrial food to pedestal would be highly misleading.
Besies, there's nothing which would back-up your claim. Already the upper-class of ancient Egypt had health problems in abundance thanks to the consumption of diet rich in animal foods. (Their diet of them is known thanks to a molecyle make-up of hair-samples, the ancient Hieroglyphic inscriptions tells the same). They did not comsume food made in fabrics, just plenty of meat & dairy (unlike lower classes of ancient Egypt who ate mostly starches and fruits)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1692445/?tool=pubmed
The same kind of hair analysis of the Ice Man, preserved in a glacier of the Oetztaler Alps 5200 years ago, reveals that he was essentially "vegan".
During the middle-ages only upper-class Europeans had diseases such as diabetes 2. The diet of upper-class Europeans at the time was, again, significantly more richer in animal food (a sign of wealth) as opposed to peasants who endured mostly on starches and veggies. Again, this occurred much before the industrial revolution.
Wow. You really have a lot of time to spare! Unfortunately I don't have time to comment on all of that. Maybe it´s time to start a blog of your own?
Like I've said before, LCHF works well in modern scientific studies and it works well in reality for my patients with metabolic problems. That's all I'm interested in, finding something that works well.
Have you watched sugar the bitter truth? (Youtube)
Easting diet rich in animal products is very LCHF, as these product (with few exceptions) are not low-fat nor high carb.
@Doc
Thanks, for the encouragement. I consider putting up a blog. But it's just that I don't have any ideas of my own, I am just a messanger. It's all very basic stuff actually, although it may not appeal to our intuition. But that's how things sometimes are.
The western diet on the other hand is full of sugar and starch. The two things LCHF eater avoid. Take a McDonald's meal as an example. White bread, French fries and Coca cola. That's not LCHF.
I'm beginning to think that Jon just is a troll in disguise. He obviously don't have a idea what he's talking about and just want to spread his vegan propaganda. Ignore him please, he's not worth your time.
There's nothing wrong with that, you seem willing to read and do research. But you are doing what you have accused others of doing; you read and accept that which confirms what you already believe, and dismiss or ignore the confounding research and data. The fact is that data regarding the "dangers" of fat is all over the place, and none of the hypothesis regarding the dangers of fat or toxicity of meat can be reliably tested. I don't think that there are definitive and reliably repeated data for any approach to eating, aside from the excessive consumption of sugar perhaps.
Thus, when you claim that the dangers of fat or toxicity of meat are obvious and not in argument, it is only because you ignore the confounding research results. You dismiss the black swans and continue to provide long lists of white swans that you have spotted. Ignoring the confounding data does not make it go away. It just makes it difficult to take you seriously. I agree with JAUS, it seems as if you're posting simply to get a rise out of people, not out of a desire to educate or convince anyone.
As for the "iceman was a vegan" line, that's been debunked. They found traces of goat and red deer in his colon.
Any more vegan propaganda you'd like for me to debunk?
" Taiga, the vast northern boreal zone, has always been sparsely populated. There is a purely nutritional explanation for this, namely the lack of fat and carbohydrates, however, is there protein in the game more than well. You need to eat a couple of kilos of pure elk meat a day (unless it happens to be Autumn obese animals) to get enough energy. "
"It's just food tables and basic knowledge of the taiga flora and fauna to mathematically calculate the difficulties. Anyone who believes that one can survive by eating wild plants in taiga may possibly food for thought. What one needs is a meat mountains and the war-cry is likely to kill everything you can kill and eat. Probably was the Stone Age hunters more likely - or forced - to ravage and plunder"
http://translate.google.se/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv...
Älg = Moose, not elk, bad translation!
"Whenever and wherever it was ecologically possible, huntergatherers
would have consumed high amounts (45–65% of total
energy) of animal food. Most (73%) hunter-gatherer societies
worldwide derived > 50% (³56–65%) of their subsistence from
animal foods, whereas only 13.5% of these societies derived
more than half (³56–65%) of their subsistence from gathered
plant foods. In turn, this high reliance on animal-based foods
coupled with the relatively low carbohydrate content of wild
plant foods produces universally characteristic macronutrient
consumption ratios in which protein intakes are greater at the
expense of carbohydrate. "
http://www.ajcn.org/content/71/3/682.full.pdf
"There's nothing wrong with that, you seem willing to read and do research. But you are doing what you have accused others of doing; you read and accept that which confirms what you already believe, and dismiss or ignore the confounding research and data".
Milton, I hate to break it to you, but there's no any other data which I'd ignore. The message from the science have been staggering clear for about 70 year. Animal based foods promote disease. Its true today as it was true in ancient Egypt. This is just information that we do not get to the public. The industry-sponsored pharmacologic "research" further creates unawareness and just confuses people, as intented. Furthermore, the media is more interested reporting "eat bacon and eggs, loose weight". But things are changing.
LCHF is not a good died for human. Every single study confirms this. It leads to premature death among many other things.
"A major study was just published in the Annals of Internal Medicine from Harvard. In approximately 85,000 women who were followed for 26 years and 45,000 men who were followed for 20 years, researchers found that all-cause mortality rates were increased in both men and women who were eating a low-carbohydrate Atkins diet based on animal protein".
"The message that many studies -- including one in the Annals last month -- have been giving the public and health professionals is that the Atkins diet is no worse for your heart than a plant-based diet, but all these studies examined only risk factors such as HDL, not measures of disease or mortality. That's why this new study is so important. (The Annals recently published my letter to the editor that expressed these concerns, which I appreciate.)"
NOW HERE's THE MONEY LINE. READ CAREFULLY!
"A recent study reviewed in The New England Journal of Medicine found that an Atkins-type diet 'promotes atherosclerosis (heart disease) through mechanisms that do not modify the classic cardiovascular risk factors' such as HDL. Other studies also showed this".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-dean-ornish/an-atkins-diet-increases...
Dr. Dean Ornish
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/116/16_Meeti...
Only a completely short-sighted doctor with very fragmented view on medicine could possibly recommend LCHF-diet to patient. Dietdoctor disclosed that he is only interested in things that 'works'. That was very illustrating. Heroin addicts may have excellent cholestrol profiles, and alcoholics typically have the leanest arteries imaginable. The truth is often more complicated.
LCHF-crew love their meaty meals. Let's keep it at that. There's no amount of science that could change the mindset of these hucksters. This is about idelology and identity, not the science. That's what I've recently learned!
No, excuse me, here's the latest "vegan propaganda" from my "vegan friends". From last week.
"The most comprehensive and authoritative report on colorectal cancer risk ever published has concluded that red and processed meat increase risk of the disease and found that the evidence that foods containing fiber offer protection against colorectal cancer has become stronger".
"This reaffirms AICR's (American Institute of Cancer Research) recommendation for people to eat a plant–based diet, including foods containing fiber, such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables and beans".
http://www.aicr.org/site/News2?abbr=pr_&page=NewsArticle&id...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9895396
Conclusions: The overall cancer incidence rates of both the vegetarians and the nonvegetarians in this study are low compared with national rates. Within the study, the incidence of all cancers combined was lower among vegetarians than among meat eaters, but the incidence of colorectal cancer was higher in vegetarians than in meat eaters.
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/03/11/ajcn.2009.26736M.abstrac...
Keep it simple. The empirical fact is that colorectal-, breast nor prostate cancer do not exist among the starch eaters in rural Asia. It exist immeadiately when these people migrate to West and cut their (whole)Carb intake.
And one have to deny thats there is a lot of populations that never ever lived on a hole carb diet amoung our ancestors.
See, that is a perfect example of what I was saying. Ornish is linking to COHORT studies. In other words, observational studies, in this case based on biannual questionnaires sent to people. Observational studies are good for discovering links, which then must be tested to make sure that they are causal links and not simply symptomatic of another cause. Studies based on questionnaires mailed to people, who must then try to accurately recall how they have eaten for the previous two years (!!!) are highly unreliable for reaching the kind of conclusion that they claimed.
As for the "meat causes cancer" link, Tom Naughton handily dissected that bit of "research" and found it wanting, for the same reason the Ornish link is unreliable:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2011/05/26/the-lastest-meat-ca...
In other words, researchers are desperately trying to reach a specific, preordained conclusion, and if their data does not fit, they will simply lie about it. Or they will use highly unreliable observational studies and treat the results as reliable... but ONLY if it supports their pet theory. And when they report it, you accept it as truth for the same reason-- it is what you believe to be true, and thus no further investigation is required!
There are still no studies that show a definite causal link between fat and disease, between fat and poor heart health, or between meat and ill health. All that you have, for "70 years" now, is bad behavior from researchers in order to keep grant money coming to them. They'll do whatever they have to do to continue to receive the money that keeps them employed as researchers. Lie to people? Lead them down a dangerous path? Advocate policies that will endanger our health and well-being? Not a problem for them, apparently.
I'm not sure why, but I've read through all 3 pages of comments, and all I'm seeing is insulting everyone in sight without making any coherent arguments whatsoever.
Adult-onset diabetes is a disorder of carbohydrate metabolism, like the entirety of the cluster of symptoms described under the heading of the "metabolic syndrome". I'm not exactly sure how the notion of restricting carbohydrates as a treatment modality can be so "irresponsible" when it directly addresses the fundamental features of the disorder itself.
We can split hairs all day long misconstruing the results of observational epidemiology or parroting studies with dubious methodology, but the reality that no one can responsibly escape is that far too many people have lost weight and improved their health by adopting a well-formulated, carbohydrate-restricted diet composed predominantly of real foods.
The only reason not to eat meat, and this comes across strongly, is that Vegan's don't like to eat animals because they are alive, which is their choice.
One question: What would have happened to the ape like creatures we evolved from if we had never began to eat meat? Didn't the fact that we started eating meat increase our brain size and therefore, our intelligence?
mmmm, so many wonderful questions and all seemingly answered by an LCHF diet.
Michelle
I don't mind giving up sugars and starches, but i have a hard time accepting I should reduce my consumption of fruit and root vegetables (carrot mostly)
Also, I am an almost vegetarian and I don't eat a lot of dairy (i do eat fish and eggs) . So far I must say I do not find it that difficult at all to come up with LCHF vegetarian, and even vegan ideas. Olives, fish, coconut and nuts go a long way to give flavour and make LCHF exciting without a lot of meat.
I find it difficult to accept that I should give up fruit, but I am willing to try eating it more moderately. Any more insight on the subject?
what do you think you get from fruit that you dont find more in vegetables?
Fruit contains most water and sugar. If you want fibre an vitamine C I suggest broccoli.
I just get pleasure out of it. I am a big pleasure eater, and fruit and veggies are my favourite foods! They really are like candy for me. Plus: I look much much younger than my age and I think part of it is due to the large amounts of raw fruit and veggies that I eat. It works for me!!!
I am not obsessed at all with my diet. I like the natural taste of produce and I prefer food that has not been altered.
I prefer to live with a little bit more weight on me than giving up fruit and veg and eating tons of meat; eggs and dairy: it fills me up but it really does not appeal to me that much.
Having said that I am trying LCHF because grains don't agree with me that much (I get very tired and sick after I eat a lot of it) and I am willing to make a few ajustments. For now, the theory behind LCHF appeals to me and I am willing to give it a try.
good for you if you still find pleasure in eating. The only downside to LCHF i have experienansed is that eating is no longer more fun than fuling the car with bensine
i eat at least one apple every day, and I just finished a bowl of raspberries with coconut milk on it! It was delicious!
Noooo!!! you still have to enjoy your food!!!
LCHF doesnt sound very restrictive: there HAS to be a way that you could enjoy it, no?
no acctually I don´t. Food does not mean anything anymore - luckily I have other things in my life that still gets me going ;.)
Oh, dear! How do you think LCHF did that?
I don't think that will happen to me (I hope!) partly because I refuse to eat food that tastes nasty - I don't care how "good" it's supposed to be for me (flax seed meal).
I won't make Muffin in a Minute without that pinch of sweetener because without it, it tastes like cardboard (it's not that you can taste the sweet, but that the sweet brings out the salt - it's a cooking thing).
People convincing themselves that Quorn Bolognese is really delicious because they think it's healthy forget how good the food they really want tastes.
(Not you Maggan - just a random rant about a vegan friend.)
Do you think the sacrifice is worth it? I love eating and I don't have a weight problem at all, and I am very healthy... Did this work for you? Are you happy you made that choice?
I could do this if I focused, but I am not 100% committed nor motivated. But I am willing to give it a go and leave my love for food aside for a bit.
Some Vegan food is very boring, but some of it is very delicious. Of course if what you like is steak and sausage, no vegan fare will satisfy you! I am not a vegan, but I really prefer vegan food (but still enjoy meat!)
i used to think like you: that when you give up on meat, you give up on the taste of meat, so no vegan food should be made to taste like meat. But I recently ate at a vegan deli and I was surprised at how good all the meat substitutes were. Having said that, they were all breaded and fried, full of oil, salt and fat; so no wonder it tasted so good!
Vegans are not evil! They are sometimes judgemental (maybe your friend tries to impose his/her beliefs on you) but we should not judge them - or their food!!!
Let us all eat REAL food that agrees with our beliefs and preferences, and accept the diversity of our tastes.
PS: I have a friend too who can't decide what she likes, she only knows what she thinks is healthy or not: irritating! I cooked a soup for her and she didn't want to eat it because she thought it tasted like butter. She never judges food by its taste, only by how healthy she thinks it is.
Im a little bit surpriced of your reaction that food does not mean very much to me anymore - maybe you shoud think about WHY food still mean so much for you (if it does).
It is simply my expreiance - and I used to love food - I just dont care about it anymore. Thats how it is - cant explaine it but LCHF have a way of putting food in the perspective i thik... not very important to be honest.... you eat to live - you dont live to eat...
and eccuses for my bad english in writing...
I might also add that I lost my 24 daughter to cancer due to GMO Soy that was in the infant formula she was prescribed as and infant due to allergies. Which stops the body from absorbing protein and fats........so I guess we need animal product...huh!
Jon I can only pray for you and hope that you come to your senses and that you don't lose your life because of your ego. Jon if you do some simple research you will see that we have been eating meat since the ice ages and that mankind would have become extinct if we did not hunt and gather our food which was primarily fatty meats, nuts, seeds and berries.
I screw up with eating fruit about as often as I screw up with drinking a beer: once every few weeks/months. Overall I don't miss eating fruit, but I do very much enjoy strawberries! I had 6-7 a few weeks ago. What fruit I consume almost daily is a slice of lemon in my tea, lemon juice on my fish, and/or a slice of lime in my Perrier (sometimes turned vodka tonic).
I figure it's not the end of the world as on most days my gross carbohydrate intake is under 20g (subtracting fiber is too much work for me).
Now I eat berries only and it is ok. I drink more sparkling water and I am starting to see some results so it makes it worth it.
I have only been on the diet since August but have met people online that have been doing this for over ten years.
I cycle and run and am experimenting with what to eat. I am interested to see how I will fare now that I will not be eating loads of energy bars, energy drinks etc. Anyone have thoughts on the efficacy of endurance activities and eating LCHF.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Science-Low-Carbohydrate-Performance/dp/098...
Double cream is heavyer I think.. must be fantastic?
Strained youghurt like the Greek one is natural fatty, so its good if one eats youghurt for breakfast.