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.

.

Omg, thank you for this. I am at goal but my cravings are going to sabotage me. I have been in the cookies and candy the last couple weeks. I haven't gained (yet). But I want to stop this n nasty cycle. I am going to do this.

It's not necessarily the "ideal" weight. You should be going by your lean body mass, from what I've read/learned. I do find that protein tends to keep cravings at bay. I'm getting upwards of 160g of protein in a day and it's been working miracles.

It's not necessarily the "ideal" weight. You should be going by your lean body mass, from what I've read/learned. I do find that Protein tends to keep cravings at bay. I'm getting upwards of 160g of protein in a day and it's been working miracles.

I think you're probably right since they say that body builders or even just people pushing weights to build their body mass. Glad to hear it's working for you cuz that means the last 4 days haven't just been a fluke.

.

U know this week I decided to trade my 52g of Isopure (bored, taste) for 20g of this stuff called Dessert protein (by the same company that makes Syntha 6) and I have been STARVING! I went back to Isopure today and had a much better day. Totally makes sense. Thanks for sharing.

Could you please tell me where you purchase the protein shots? Thank you.

Where do you get the liquid protien shots? I'm now on full liquids and staring to feel hungry. I'm 1 week post op and wondering if I should add the protien shakesi had during my pre op diet to hlp with the hunger.

I just got back from Costco and they have 12 protein shots for $14.99, normally $19.99. I think u can get them at gnc too. They dont taste that great but 25g protein is good.

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.

.

Walmart sell the shot to , for 2 dollars , right now I am around 150 grams of protein to

I think you guys should really watch out with how much Protein you're consuming. I understand that many of you are on a low-carb diet and that it's important to replace much of the carbs you're taking out with protein. But, as always happens, people think that if something is good for you, a lot of it must be great. Excessive protein consumption can place a lot of stress on your organs and bones. High consumption of animal protein can raise your risk of kidney stones by a whole 250 percent! At least make sure that a good amount of your protein is coming from eggs, legumes, whole grains (if you're eating carbs), soy, dairy (cottage cheese and Greek yogurt are great), and quinoa.

Also, you guys should be aware of research that showed that insufficient carbs have a negative effect on brain function. A study comparing low-carb (less than 130 grams of carbs) and low-calorie participants found that the low-carb participants had slower response times in tests and worse memories than the low-calorie dieters. The low-carb dieters had worse results than even their own pre-diet scores. A week after the participants reintroduced carbs, their brain functioning returned to normal, pre-diet levels. I know how quick and satisfying the weight-loss can be on low-carbs. I just want to make sure that people go in to it knowing the cons and maybe give it a break the week before any challenging mental tasks are to occur (tests etc).

Also, you guys should be aware of research that showed that insufficient carbs have a negative effect on brain function. A study comparing low-carb (less than 130 grams of carbs) and low-calorie participants found that the low-carb participants had slower response times in tests and worse memories than the low-calorie dieters. The low-carb dieters had worse results than even their own pre-diet scores.

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

.

I know how quick and satisfying the weight-loss can be on low-carbs. I just want to make sure that people go in to it knowing the cons and maybe give it a break the week before any challenging mental tasks are to occur (tests etc).

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.

.

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).

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.

I won't claim that what you've said is "absolutely not true" because, before the research is conclusive, it would be unscientific for anyone to pretend to know what is or isn't "absolutely true" about any empirical issue. I also won't be referring to anecdotes about how people I know "feel," as evidence to support my claim. There are also people who feel healthier increasing their consumptions of whole grains and fresh fruit, but anecdotal evidence of feelings is worthless in scientific arguments, or any argument, for reasons you must already know.

It's strange that you claim that "there's just absolutely no proof" that low-carb consumption causes "any type of mental deficit." How you came to such a god-like comprehension of the existing scientific research is beyond me. I never said that low-carb diets are bad. I never said that low-carb diets "absolutely" cause "mental deficits." I only pointed to current research that cautions against low-carb diets because they found detrimental effects on cognition in low-carb dieters. I can point to various other studies which demonstrate the health risks of low-carb diets (I will in another post shortly). There's also research that shows that low-carb diets help dieters lose weight quickly and attain better health compared to their former eating habits. But that's why I'm not going to pretend to know absolutely what even the experts of the field can't possibly yet.

And, you rely very much on Dr. Berstein, 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. If I wanted to argue that off-shore oil drilling is a safe enterprise, I'm not going to cite the opinions of Exxon-Mobile. Even more curious is the fact that you cite Gary Taubes. He only has an undergrad degree in physics. He's a journalist, not a scientist. Scientists don't look to Taubes to contribute anything to the scientific literature. Even if his writings were about physics, they would be worthless to real physicists, let alone to biologists.

"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" Haha, what? I assure you that I'm not a member of some grand conspiracy that's trying to lure innocent dieters everywhere back to obesity. Maybe I'm just jealous of your success and I'm looking for some scheme to foil your weight-loss. I won't stop until I make you all fat again, but how shall I do it? I know, I'll just advise people to be careful while on low-carb diets. How nefarious!

Your statement--"scare people into eating the very carbs that made them fat"--also implies that it's carbs that make people fat. I'd agree that excessive consumption of especially refined carbs make people fat, but so does excessive eating in general. There are many people on here, including me, who are eating healthy, multigrain carbs daily without gaining weight. Healthy and steady weight loss can be achieved easily by cutting out (or really limiting) refined carbs, controlling portions (thanks, lap-band) and limiting junk foods to the occasional treat. Like many others, I've lost weight quite successfully without an extreme restriction of carbs. You speak of the Dr. Bernstein or low-carb diet as if it were the one true way. Also, if those of the "anti-carb crowd" really wanted to make people fat, they would be criticizing all diets to the same extent. Is it possible that scientists are just conducting research for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge?

Also, you keep placing redundant quote marks around words like "belief" and "myth," in order to highlight your utter scepticism of my views or the research. But, the word "myth" already by definition implies something that is false. There's no such thing as a "true myth." Also, a "belief" is well-understood to be subjective and liable to be incorrect. So, unless you're trying to secretly tell me that you don't really believe my "beliefs" are "myths," you should give the punctuation the day-off. Rest at ease, there's little chance that people will read your post and come away thinking that you agree with the research I mentioned. Everyone knows that you're a staunch defender of the Dr. Berstein way.

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.

.

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.

.

I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I'm the one having trouble comprehending something. I'm not the one speaking in absolutes. You are saying that low-carb is definitely healthy for everyone and you're saying that there is absolutely no proof to the contrary. I've said that, although some research shows that there are risks to very low-carb diets, there's also research that demonstrates other benefits of low-carb diets and that I know from personal experience and from the scientific literature that people can lose weight quickly on low-carb.

As for your beloved Dr. Bernstein, I'm not confusing him with anyone. He could afford to make his services to the obese much less expensive, just as other doctors with similar programs do (i.e. Dr. Brown has a very successful program, he's greatly respected, and he charges a tiny fraction of Dr. Bernstein). His prices are ridiculous. CBC Marketplace did an investigation of Dr. Bernstein and it was very unflattering. I've done my research on him myself, I've had relatives go to him (or his nurses, more like) and much of what I've read and heard is not flattering. Now, I know that you can't stand to hear anything bad said against the man and you'll probably just chalk it up to another conspiracy theory. But, this isn't just about Dr. Bernstein, it's about low-carb/high-fat diets in general.

You cited one study. I can show you many to support my brief words of caution. I have access to those articles and when I have the time, I'll cite them (hopefully tonight). It won't make a difference to your views, but that's because your views are clearly not amenable to reason. You have a particular attachment to a view, and anyone who tells even other people (it wasn't directed to you specifically) of certain possible risks is accused of using "scare tactics" or trying to drive people back to obesity.

What did I say that amounts to "scare tactics?" I said, "while you guys are doing your low-carb diet (as in, I'm not telling you that you should stop), just be wary of consuming too much protein and perhaps try to get in some non-animal protein as well." It should be evidence enough of your insurmountable bias that you would see this as some sort of tactic to get people to gain weight or to scare them out of not eating carbs. If you have to avoid carbs because you're a diabetic, and if that's the best way for you to manage your diabetes, did I tell you to do otherwise?

You're the one being unreasonable. I never set out to have a "pissing contest." You've said unreasonable and absurd things regarding my motives and also about your own knowledge of what is or isn't "absolutely" true. Even scientific experts don't claim to know conclusively as much as you pretend to know.

Good that you've decided to arbitrarily broaden your definition of the word "scientific expert" to include people who have no academic qualifications in that regard (i.e. Taubes). Next, I'll broaden the word to include celebrities who like to talk about science a lot. Taubes is a journalist only. It doesn't matter if he writes about a certain genre; how does that make him qualified to be a scientific expert? I write about science too. I extensively read about science and I have a degree in science. I wouldn't think of calling myself an expert. Science isn't a subjective field, where anyone can be considered a scientist. There are defined standards and abilities that must be proven systematically. The laws of aerodynamics aren't subjective and neither is the definition of a scientist. If Taubes isn't a researcher himself, if he isn't qualified and able to carry out the research of actual scientists, then his opinions on scientific truths are not worth knowing. He neither has a masters in science nor a PhD. in science. Do you really think that physicists are wondering what Gary Taubes, with his undergrad degree, can reveal about quantum physics? No, and that's because he can't reveal anything of importance. He can reveal much less about biological truths, in which he has no training or testing in whatsoever.