ElfiePoo

Christine, I did get my band removed. I'm one of the people the band didn't help (other than that it make me take a serious look at my eating habits and just try harder...that's worth a lot), so no I wouldn't get it again. My surgeon still feels like I would be a good candidate for the sleeve since I did follow the rules and would most likely be successful, but I'm just not at the point of reconciling myself to being that drastic. Now, if in the next 6 months I see my weight climbing and problems once again with needing meds for my diabetes...yeah, I'll do it in a heartbeat. There are all sorts of possible problems with every WLS...some they don't even think to tell you. You just have to weigh those issues against what you're dealing with as far as weight gain and possible health problems and then decide which takes precedence *for you*. .

Rev, yes, that is one of the ways to do IF. I'm pretty excited about this but never thought it was possible for a diabetic since you're slamming your body with all your calories in that short time frame (which logically would mean a huge insulin response and a problem for diabetics). That's why they prefer I do the 24/24 but from 6pm to 6 pm. It's a bit closer to still spreading your calories out through a 24 hour period...just with your sleep break in the middle of it instead of at the end. I'll keep you all updated. One bit of advice was to make sure that my meal before the fast was sufficiently high in fats so I didn't binge at the end of the fast. I shouldn't wake up hungry in the morning. So I had wings for dinner last night, figuring the fat was high enough to ensure getting through my first day of fasting. I'm not hungry this morning, but my stomach is certainly asking, "Where the heck is the food?" .

B: Nothing L: Nothing Dinner: 4-6 oz burger with cheese, salad with blue cheese dressing

I'm not going to get into the whole argument that all calories are created equal or aren't. Perhaps they aren't when there is a metabolic problem and not if you're 'normal'. If you really want to know why so many bariatric surgeons are prescribing low carb, here are some sources: "Good Calories/Bad Calories" and "Why We Get Fat" by Gary Taubes. "The Diabetes Solution" by Dr. Richard Bernstein And here's an LA Times article that does a pretty good job for being an article. Scroll down to click "next" because there are 4 pages (really not that long once you scan past the ads). Many people think 160gm is low carb because that's what the American Diabetic Assoc. uses for their diabetic diet. A number of diabetes experts, however, still feel that's too high since it's not resolving the insulin resistance or getting Type 2's off their meds. They're coming around more to Dr. Bernstein's way of thinking - 30-60gm spread across 3 meals and no grains, fruits or starches. Those without metabolic problems obviously have the ability to eat more carbs. We just need to figure out which we are. Hope this helps

About 4 days ago, I read an article on food cravings in one of my naturopathic magazines. According to the authors, eating 1.6-1.8gm of Protein per kilo of weight prevents cravings. I've read this before, but for some reason I assumed that they meant per kilo of *ideal* weight...but no...they mean per kilo of current weight because it is your current weight that determines the protein needs which affect the cravings. Ok, so I've been doing an experiment for the last few days since I've also been dealing with food cravings. Instead of keeping my protein at 60gm, I've upped it to 150gm. In order to get the protein in, I'm doing the liquid Protein shots (0 carbs, 200 calories, 50gm protein) twice a day to boost the protein since I can't get 100gm protein in 400 calories of 'food'. My calories are still around 1200 because the cravings and even the desire to eat are gone and I've dropped 2 lb in the last 4 days! I literally don't even feel like eating! Oh...the article also said that if someone is doing weight building exercises, their protein needs would be higher. .

We've gotten quite a bit off topic, so I thought I'd post an update to my original post since I've been doing increased Protein for about 9 days now. I'm happy to say that my desire to eat really seems to be gone as a result of the increased protein. Since I am a diabetic and always at risk for impaired kidneys, I did call my doc ahead of time to make sure my recent lab work verified that I had no kidney impairment...something she keeps a close eye on. Now what to do with the Hoodia that just arrived in today's mail. I'd like to try it but I'm kind of going with the 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' approach for now since I'm soooo close (2 lbs) to Onederland.

It might depend on how the surgeon places the band. My surgeon folds a piece of stomach (?) down around the band, kind of like an elastic waistband on a pair of pants. He said it prevents the band from slipping. He did say that about 25% of his patients never need a fill. The band puts just enough pressure on the vagus nerve by itself to control the hunger. .

Ok...I did just find a study in a 2009 issue of Appetite (a science journal) that many other sites use as their source for cognitive impairment as a result of low carb. What I've pulled from this so far is: The study was on a small group of 19 women...some following low carb, some following a traditional ADA diet. The low carb diet was *zero* carbs for the first week - no nuts, no eggs, no cheese, no vegetables...because all of these do contain trace amounts of carbohydrates. The first point I'd like to make is that I don't know of any low carb diet that restricts these items. Even Atkins, requires people to eat 2 cups of salad type vegies during the first 2 induction weeks and cheese and eggs are allowed and encouraged. The second week they could add 5-8gm of carbs a day. Again, this means severely limiting all vegetables, eggs, and cheese. The third week they could go 'all the way' up to 10-16 grams. Still below the 20gm Atkins allows during the induction (first 2 weeks) phase. By the third week on Atkins, most people are on their way up to 30gm...significantly higher than this small study group. At the end of week 1, researchers found no difference in cognitive ability between the two groups. At the end of week 2 and 3 they found some minor differences...but there are a couple things to keep in mind. First, the body will make glucose for the brain if it is denied carbohydrates, but it takes time for this to happen. So, in the short term (1-2 weeks), there may be some *slight* impairment, but over time the body adapts and the brain once again gets the glucose it needs. Second, the slight cognitive differences found in weeks 2 and 3...well, yes, these people weren't getting any carbs at all so their body was probably going bonkers. Atkins is the most restrictive low carb diet (to begin with) and even he starts with a minimum of 20 carbs. Interestingly, despite the above, the low-carb group actually consistently performed better on a task requiring sustained attention...and the researchers found that the ADA group did worse on a measure of confusion. This study did not follow these women beyond 3 weeks or on a normal low carb diet of 30-60gm per day. *OK, I should add that there are people eating what they call a 'primal' diet which is basically Protein and fat...pretty much zero carb. After they get acclimated to it and their bodies switch from producing glucose from protein instead of carbs, results seem to show a return to the previous cognitive levels. Some experience better because the carb fog is gone (their expression). Personally, I've given up just about everything else and I'm keeping my vegies! .

Please address the issues instead of personal attacks. Whether or not I leave is my business. No' date=' science is not the embodiment of progress. One hopes it is that...but too often, the studies themselves are faulty. I have no problem with traditional science, but I don't place my life entirely in its hands...particularly when I can go read the original studies and see how shaky they are to begin with. Pharmaceutical companies are constantly doing studies (because they're required to) and we all know the spin they put on their findings...and how many drugs have been pulled off the market when it was discovered the companies weren't quite truthful in their findings. If the science was always interested in the truth, that might be so...but many studies are done for a specific purpose...to push a specific agenda. I'll be honest and admit that when I look at low carb studies I view them just as skeptically for the same reason. One does not have to be a scientist in order to read their studies and come to logical conclusions. Putting ones faith in someone just because they have all the right little letters after their name is' date=' in my opinion, foolish. Degrees do not confer open mindedness or true intelligence. Some of the most intelligent people I know have nothing beyond a bachelor's degree. I've met more than my fair share of close minded idiots with doctorates, so we'll just have to disagree on the value of that education. Except that the risks you're quoting aren't verifiable. Experts in the field of nephrology say there is no evidence that a high protein diet harms healthy kidneys. Also, despite spending several days searching, I could find no reputable source study that proved that low carb caused cognitive deficits...although I did find several sites claiming this as fact with no source. The same can be said of Weight Watchers or any other diet. It's why there are so many fat people in the world. Some will stick to the WOE that works for them...some won't. I have no problem discussion potential risks...when they're based in fact. But telling people that eating a high protein diet will lead to kidney problems goes against what the nephrology experts are saying. There is no evidence to back up the belief that a low carb diet results in reduce cognitive abilities either. Please...if you have the studies, post them. I would truly be interested in reading them. Bernstein, Kendricks, Eades and Taubes do a very good job of listing the studies in their books that back up their claims that a low carb diet, even one that is all animal protein, is healthy and does not lead to cardiovascular disease, etc. Don't just believe them. Go find the studies and read them and come to your own conclusions. I would like to bring up the 20 Harvard study that concluded in 2006 that so many like to use as their source that low carb diets are bad. The thing to keep in mind is that this was a questionnaire study. So the validity of the study is questionable since there is no way to verify the veracity of questionnaire responses. There's also the issue of bias. Their report says that there was an insignificant difference in cardiovascular risk between those who ate animal protein vs vegetable protein. What's interesting is that despite this finding, their conclusion still says 'vegetable protein' is better. Out of curiosity, I went and did a search and discovered that this study is used by both the pro-low carb and anti-low carb factions. They just all put their own spin on it. Now, I think it's pretty apparent to anyone still reading that you and I will never see eye to eye because you believe if someone doesn't have a bunch of tiny letters after their name, then they have nothing useful to say. While these are the people doing the studies, they do publish those studies in detail and it is possible for intelligent people with a background in the sciences (which Taubes has by the way) to read the reports and verify the accuracy of those conclusions. I don't have Taubes science knowledge, but I can read the studies, read the conclusions of the researchers and read Taubes conclusions and why he disagrees...and even come to my own conclusions. Now, I am more than happy to discuss *facts* but in a civil manner. So please feel free to post your sources. .

If you aren't eating low carb, then Beans can be combined with rice to form a complete Protein. Beans, on most diet plans like weight watchers or the ADA's diabetic diet are considered a 'starch' so you'd count them as you would bread (this applies to corn and peas too). .

A friend of mine wrote this but I thought it might shed light on why some people stall when they eat things with artificial sweeteners, particularly the 'low carb' diet bars (e.g. Atkins & south Beach). You can also add Maltodextrin (found in powdered splenda - packet or bulk) to this. From what I read so far, glycerin is metabolised only when your liver glycogen is depleted, or in other words you are in keto. At what rate and at what GI I am unsure. Now in regards to maltitol. It is a scam. Maltitol is metabolised at 75% and provides 3 calories per gram as compared to sucrose which is metabolised at 100% and provides 4 calories per gram. Sure Maltitol metabolises "slower" than sugar, so it dosn't spike you insulin as much as sugar does at the same time but there are 2 aspects to consider: LC in terms of Ketosis: Brain needs 100g of glucose a day (25g after adaptation) regardless of insulin responses. If your brain gets that glucose from the 75% metabolisation of maltitol, then your ketone production can be halted, as well as all lypolisis that generally is caused by ketosis. LC in terms of Insulin Management: Regardless of whether you are in keto or not, insulin triggers are what store dietary fat, and keep it locked away in your fat cells. Even if Maltitol has lower GI value of 36 - 53 (depending on form) it is still not that much different that table sugar (sucrose) with a GI value of 60 - 65. .

Yes, but they're actually called Shirataki noodles. You can find them in the grocery store in the same section as the tofu. They aren't completely carb or calorie free, but they are very low. Per 4 oz: Calories 20, Carbs 3 I know a lot of my low carb friends love them, but they smell and taste 'fishy' to me. Don't know why since they're made of tofu and I think tofu smells very fresh and clean, but it's enough to put me off. .

The Harvard study this person is referencing is here. What is interesting about the study is that the researchers concluded that a vegetable Protein diet was better than animal protein as it relates to coronary heart disease risk...even though they admit (further up in the report) that their findings showed the difference was "insignificant". Also, more importantly, old thought was that Type 2 diabetics developed diabetes because of lack of exercise and excess weight. Now we know that is not true. You don't get diabetes from eating. You get it because you have a genetic predisposition for it. There are many people in the U.S. alone who are obese and yet do not have diabetes...and there are people who have diabetes who are not obese. If you do not have the genetic predisposition for diabetes, you can carb load as much as you want and you still won't develop diabetes...and that is fact. .

Wanted to post this before I go. It's mainly focused on diabetics, but does have some of the info I've posted before if you scroll down and read through it: We observed no signifcant adverse renal effects of high Protein consumption in women who had normal renal function at baseline. In addition, when we separately analyzed nondairy anima, dairy and vegetable protein intake, we found no evidence of a detrimental effect of animal protein compared with vegetable protein. In short, eating well below the 130 grams of carbs ignorant dietitians will tell you are essential for brain function, works fine. Memory was not affected, and mood improved. Gary Taubes' book, published in October of 2007, Good Calories/Bad Calories, Taubes provides descriptions and analyses of hundreds of nutritional studies performed since the 1940s. He also cites several well-conducted studies whose results were suppressed because they didn't match what diet authorities thought the results should be (So much for putting faith in the 'experts'.) There are numerous other links to other sites and other studies to show how the medical community has *LIED* to people about low carb diets by deliberately omitting studies that don't fit in with their preconceived expectations. If you're a diabetic, there is a *ton* of information here. It's one of my favorite sites. Oh, and there's a link to also help you figure out how much protein you need...and that varies by individual. It's been fun. .

Hey ladies, There's so little activity here and most of you have already friended me on facebook, so I'm going to take my leave of the LBT. As a whole, I find it quite hostile to low carb...despite the fact that so many surgeons put their band patients on low carb following surgery and I realized today that it's one 'stress' in my life that I don't need. See you on Facebook! .

<sigh> For those who actually have an interest in low carbing, I would suggest you get ahold of the books by Dr. Bernstein, Gary Taubes and Malcom Kendricks. There are other books if you do a bit of researching. I think you'll find that there is no truth to the claims that low carb is bad for you. If you're the type who believes intelligence and knowledge is defined by how many degrees a person holds, then you probably shouldn't waste your time. If you believe that someone doesn't have the right to charge what they're worth without it being evidence that they're just in it for the money and have no concern for their patients, as the previous poster does about Dr. Bernstein, then you probably shouldn't waste your time. Low carb works. Low carb is not dangerous, nor does it lessen mental acuity. You can get all your nutrition in Protein and vegetables. The brain does not need carbs...it needs glucose which can be obtained by eating as little as 60gm protein per day. If low carb is so 'dangerous', then the only logical assumption is that all of your surgeons are irresponsible for telling you to go low carb. .

And think how great you'll feel when you come home without having to unbutton the top button of skirt .

I'm not going to get into a peeing contest. You choose to rely on the beliefs of traditional medicine. I'm willing to step outside the box and read what others (who also stepped outside the box) have to say and read the research it's based on. You say Dr. Bernstein is " a practitioner outside of the realm of scientific research and one who has an obvious financial interest in advocating the benefits of low-carb diets." Perhaps you're confusing him with Atkins or South Beach or others who write diet books and sell diet products (not that there's anything wrong with that). Dr. Bernstein is a highly respected expert in the field of diabetes. He doesn't tout low carb because it's a money maker for him. He promotes it because it is responsible for helping Type 1's (he is one) maintain normal blood sugars and Type II's in getting off all their meds. Sure I could continue to eat 160gm of carbs per day...and take the insulin necessary to deal with the sugar spikes...but why when simply dropping the carbs to less than 45 or so and eliminating grains, fruits and starches will do the same thing. There is nothing in grains, fruits or starches that cannot be gotten through the Protein and vegies. Gary Taubes is a science journalist. Quite able to read the research that is being done and follow it to a conclusion. I don't make the mistake of assuming that just because someone has all sorts of medical degrees after their name that they are somehow more knowledgeable. The thing I like about both Taubes and Bernstein is that their books list their sources and, if someone is so inclined, can go read the original sources for themselves. So you've lost weight without restricting your carbs. That's great...and I've been pretty clear in most of my posts that if you can do that, then obviously there's no need or motivation to restrict your carbs. However, for many of us who are insulin resistant, hypoglycemic and/or diabetic, it is necessary because our bodies, due to the metabolic imbalance, are incapable of processing them correctly. Telling people that 'studies' show mental acuity declines on low carb and warning people to start eating carbs again a week before some big test is a scare tactic...and the worst thing a diabetic can do. If I suddenly upped my carbs, my blood sugars would spike. Also, I even went to the trouble of posting a portion of one study that showed there was no difference. There are many other studies out there (several in both Bernstein's and Taube's book appendices) that state the same findings. The brain needs glucose...not carbs. If there are insufficient carbs to produce glucose, the liver is able to convert protein into the necessary glucose for the brain...which it can do quite well at only roughly 60gm of protein per day. It is difficult without writing an entire book, to explain all of this. That is why I refer people to Taubes and Bernstein. They do quite well at documenting their sources and conclusions. Another good book by Taubes is "Good Calories, Bad Calories" although I've heard from some that it's a more difficult read than "Why We Get Fat"...but it has far more in-depth explanations as to how the body works and why it functions quite well on low carb. A low carb diet is healthy for everyone, but everyone may not need to do low carb because they do not have a metabolic imbalance that makes their body unable to process certain carbs. A traditionally high carb diet may be healthy for some, but for those with metabolic imbalances, it's not healthy. Considering the CDC believes that 75% of the people in the U.S. (vague recollection so don't quote me on that percentage) are insulin resistant, it would explain why eating a controlled calorie, high carbohydrate diet has been a failure for so many. Again, lest I was not clear. I do not think low carb is the *only* way but I will defend it when people try to convince others that low carb is ultimately bad for them since the studies don't support that and. If that's true, then the vast majority of forum members have irresponsible doctors since most of them have surgeons who prescribe low carb diets. .

Happy Easter to all who Celebrate it. Happy Holidays to those who don't but do the Easter bunny thing and for the rest...hope it's another good day. I'm being PC and covering all the bases. We were supposed to have my husband's mother over to dinner today but he, inconveniently, came home with some kind of stomach bug yesterday afternoon. I'm debating whether to cancel (since I enjoy her company) or quarantine him in the bedroom. Since I already bought the ham, asparagus and brussel sprouts, I'm thinking the latter. Hope all is going well with everyone! .

This is just absolutely not true. I know many people who eat no more than 45gm of carbs per day and who have very mentally demanding jobs. If anything, their mental acuity and job performance improved after they went low carb. This is just another one of those 'myths' that the anti-low carb crowd spreads trying to scare people back into eating the very carbs that made them fat. Published in the September 2007 (I think) issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (sorry...I copied the pages from microfiche for a paper I wrote for one my classes and the date has sort of faded and I couldn't quite make it out) "Researchers from Australia decided to investigate diet and mood. They put 93 overweight or obese men and women on one of two diets- high-carb low- fat, or low-carb high-fat. The diets ranged from 1400-1700 calories a day, approximately 30% less than what the participants were used to. The study lasted 8 weeks. Not surprisingly, the low-carb group lost significantly more weight. But everyone in both diet groups improved in mood, with no significant differences seen between the two groups. Memory was also the same in both groups, and both groups improved in “speed of cognitive processing” though the low carb group improved slightly less. (The researchers admitted that more studies were needed to see if that minor finding would be replicated.)" Notice they said the low carb group "improved" "slightly less". In other words, no change in current function and they admit that the difference was minor and had not yet done further studies to see if they could replicate it. .

The body is capable of getting the necessary 'energy' for brain function without carbs. In a nutshell, your brain does not need carbs in order to function, it needs glucose and not very much at that. You could go completely carb free and, if you're eating 60gm of Protein a day, your brain will get enough glucose from that protein. One of the books for my nutrition degree (no, I didn't finish it) was called "Understanding the Brain and Its Development" and had an explanation of how the liver turns protein into glucose and provides the brain with what it needs. There's just absolutely no proof (and actually quite a bit to the contrary) that low carb causes any type of mental deficit. Again, I would refer people to both Dr. Bernstein and Gary Taubes books and the book referenced above (although it's a pretty difficult read). Another long held 'belief' is that excess protein will cause kidney stones. According to several sources, this just isn't true assuming the person does not already have compromised kidneys. "The claim that protein intake leads to kidney stones is another popular myth that is not supported by the facts. Although protein restricted diets are helpful for people who have kidney disease, eating meat does not cause kidney problems (10). Furthermore, the fat-soluble Vitamins and saturated fatty acids found in animal foods are pivotal for properly functioning kidneys (11). Many experts attempt to explain how meat supposedly "acidifies" the blood, leading to greater mineral loss in the urine is also incorrect. Theoretically, the sulfur and phosphorus in meat can form an acid when placed in Water, but that does not mean that is what happens in the body. Actually, meat provides complete Proteins and Vitamin D (if the fat or skin is eaten), both of which are needed to maintain proper acid-alkaline balance in the body. Furthermore, in a diet that includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6 and restricts simple sugars, one has little to fear from kidney stones (12)." ~Dr. Stephen Byrnes .

As a diabetic, there is no such thing as going of my diet because it's not a diet. It's the way I have to eat unless I want to be right back on my insulin again. So we're having baked ham, roasted asparagus (drizzled with olive oil, Kosher salt and cracked pepper), deviled eggs, baby potatoes and homemade rolls (both only for others) and a cherry pie for the troops and a cupcake sized mini sugar free cheesecake (homemade) for me. .

I've gone back and read through this thread, wondering how we can help you but, to be honest, I don't think you're being honest with us. You say you're eating Cookies and chocolate milk and junk but in another post say you're healthier than you've been in a long time and "my diabetes was out of control.. and I had sleep apnea.. and NOW I DONT". If you're still eating cookies and chocolate milk and junk, then your diabetes cannot possibly be under control...unless you're just increasing your medicines to deal with the extra sugar. In which case, it is not under control. I think you have a decision to make. You either need to decide to *choose* to eat the right foods...or *choose* to remain fat...and then stop looking for pity. Nykee...as a diabetic, those sugary things are causing an insulin response in your body which will create actual physical cravings for more. Yes, you can take insulin to compensate for the sugar you're eating *but* your insulin resistance will never reverse itself, meaning you will find it difficult to lose weight and the cravings will never go away. The best thing you can do for yourself is to eat a low carb, high fat diet and make sure your carbs only come from green vegies. I really recommend the book "The Diabetes Solution" by Dr. Richard Bernstein. He advocates no grains, no starches and no fruit and I know some will say "nobody can live like that" but the truth is that for many diabetics, 'living' like that is the only thing that gets us off the meds, reverses the insulin resistance and controls our blood sugars...and keeps us from dying 10-15 years earlier as a result of the damage done to our bodies (and this happens even taking enough insulin to control blood sugar). People live without nuts because they know the alternative may be instant death. People live without gluten and wheat (celiacs) because they know it can mean death. Diabetics need to learn that we can live without fruits, grains and starches...because the alternative is death. Maybe not immediately but certainly a shorter life span as a result of out of control diabetes or side effects of long term use of diabetic medications. Look at the contraindications. These medicines aren't good for us either...but they're better than the diabetes...and getting control of our diabetes *and* getting off the medicines (or at least having to only take minimal amounts) is even better. Check out my "how much protein" in the Nutrition forum for another idea how to curb food cravings. /.

GNC sells the Carnivor Protein shots but they have other types too. I can also get them from my Bariatric clinic but they're a different brand. The nice thing about the 'shots' is that if you just shoot them, the taste is of no consequence (assuming it's bad). I usually just toss them in my bottle of Water since I drink a 20 oz bottle between meals and in the evening. .

Deb, I'm with you...that is a great send off for a loved one. What better way than with laughter and warm memories! .