hlat said:What is occurring to me is that the attitude towards food is wrong. If food was treated only as fuel and nothing else, I think it would be easier for people to eat the high fat some protein no carb diet. But people think of food as pleasure, leading to eating all sorts of bad things for the taste good and momentary feel good.
It belongs to the 'deadly nightshade' family (along with potatoes) - see earlier in this thread, or do a search on 'tomato'.Inga said:I planted tomatoes in a pot on the balcony. What's the problem with tomato please?
Inga said:I planted tomatoes in a pot on the balcony. What's the problem with tomato please?
Brenda86 said:So I'm 8 days in. I've lost 7.5lbs so almost 3.5kg already and am feeling really good. For me, I think it was much easier cutting out all grains at once like I did.
Megan said:Brenda86 said:So I'm 8 days in. I've lost 7.5lbs so almost 3.5kg already and am feeling really good. For me, I think it was much easier cutting out all grains at once like I did.
It can work out OK, and you are young enough that you may not run into complications, but many of us here had problems of one sort or another after going down into the ketogenic range, which is where you are now. The initial weight loss is normal when dropping your carb intake that low; it's mostly water.
At that carb intake level you need to be consuming extra salt.
Personally I would add some more starch back in -- which could include avocado, sweet potatoes, and root vegetables -- and give your body a chance to thoroughly detox from the grains before you go ketogenic, but if you want to stay down there at least read and have on hand the New Atkins book. Some of its food recommendations are pretty bad, but if you know what to include and exclude then it will provide the basic information you need to successfully initiate a ketogenic diet.
Brenda86 said:...I have made sure to get extra salt in, as I did remember reading that. I should be able to get the New Atkins book immediately on kindle. It looks fairly cheap. I am leery about going back up on carbs some because I do not want to re-trigger food cravings. Food cravings are what have always held me back from eating healthier and I'm afraid of them coming back. :( I am spending almost all of my free time right now catching up on these threads to get up to speed because after I cut out all of those other things, I really am not WANTING most carbs. The ones I have been eating have been pretty much smothered in fat from the meat I cook. I do love sweet potatoes, but I have not really had the desire to eat it.
Do you think without any negative symptoms so far I should still go ahead and try upping the carbs again? Or would it be better to just keep working extra hard to get up to speed on all the info?
Megan said:Brenda86 said:...I have made sure to get extra salt in, as I did remember reading that. I should be able to get the New Atkins book immediately on kindle. It looks fairly cheap. I am leery about going back up on carbs some because I do not want to re-trigger food cravings. Food cravings are what have always held me back from eating healthier and I'm afraid of them coming back. :( I am spending almost all of my free time right now catching up on these threads to get up to speed because after I cut out all of those other things, I really am not WANTING most carbs. The ones I have been eating have been pretty much smothered in fat from the meat I cook. I do love sweet potatoes, but I have not really had the desire to eat it.
Do you think without any negative symptoms so far I should still go ahead and try upping the carbs again? Or would it be better to just keep working extra hard to get up to speed on all the info?
The two things that bother me the most about the New Atkins book are the food recommendations, as I mentioned, and the idea that very low carb is for weight loss. They (Westman, Phinney, & Volek) recommend that as you reach your weight goal, you increase your carb intake until it is just low enough to avoid cravings and such. Not only does that not make sense to me, but Phinney & Volek, the co-authors, later came out with a follow-up book, The Art and Science of Low Carb Performance, that recommends staying down at induction levels.
It's been a long time since I have read the LWB topic, but I seem to recall that we had people at the time that just dropped down to a low (or extremely low, below 20 g/d) level and stayed there without problems, other than perhaps a bit of fatigue during adaptation. I know from other reading and listening outside the forum that some people do this without any trouble at all. For that matter, I don't have any trouble with it now myself, going on 2 years of KD. I can do near-zero, or 20 g/d, or 50 g/d, without cravings or the need to eat frequently. These numbers are all in the ketogenic range. But it wasn't always that way for me; hence the cautions.
I think you have to make your own call, but pay close attention to what's going on in your body. What concerns me is that there are people that read this forum and go off and do what they think "we" said to do and run into problems, and just keep doing what they are doing anyway, so I tend to make conservative recommendations, in line with what worked for me. My first, second, and third recommendations are read, read, and read. Learn all you can.
One thing I am aware of now that I didn't know about 2 years ago is that if your gut flora are healthy, you are probably pretty healthy. If they aren't, you aren't either and you'd better be very careful with sudden shifts in what you eat -- and a sudden shift is one way to find out how healthy they are! Mine weren't and aren't, though they seem to healthier than they were. If you develop GI symptoms, eczema, or anything that is unusual for you, you'd better pay attention.
Megan said:Inga said:I planted tomatoes in a pot on the balcony. What's the problem with tomato please?
It belongs to the nightshade family (Solanaceae), the edible members of which contain anti-nutrients that can cause some people a lot of trouble. (I understand "Deadly Nightshade" to refer to one particular non-edible plant in the family -- belladonna.) Another concern that I have is that ordinary tomatoes have been messed with genetically (through breeding) to the point where they have lost their flavor. (See, for example, this newspaper article.)
While it's not something that the mass media are likely to pick up on, lost of flavor should tell us something. Our sense of taste evolved to detect foods that are nutritious, and while it can be fooled by industrial manipulation of food, I don't think the loss of flavor in tomato breeds should be ignored. It might be possible to locate and grow "heirloom" varieties of tomatoes at home, but they are still nightshades and if you are sensitive to their poisons then you will pay a price. You might be able to detect sensitivity through food testing, or you might not (especially if you are already dealing with multiple other sensitivities).
I don't know what role genetic manipulation may have played in the development of the anti-nutrient properties of nightshades, or if specific cultures can be more or less sensitive to heirloom (traditional) varieties. My personal rule is, if you have arthritis then avoid them, and I do.
hlat said:My father has type 2 diabetes. What is the first book he needs to read for his diet? I may only have one shot at getting him to turn around his diet, so I want to get the best one to address his diabetes.
I was thinking Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution: The Complete Guide to Achieving Normal Blood Sugars. I think this was aimed at type 1 though. I am on page 38 of this thread, so I am asking this question in case a better book has surfaced since then.
Or would he be better served with Life Without Bread, or Vegetarian Myth, or Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Performance? I know these are all must reads; this question is what should he read first, potentially if he never reads any other one.
It is not easy to undo all the false information, learn the correct knowledge and state of the art information, and change lifestyles to conform to new knowledge.