I'm not just starting out on induction. Argula, raddichio (less of this) and mache are my favorite lettuces. It adds up to just over 10 carbs for 5 cups of this mix. Full of so many nutrients too. I am quite certain that my 5 cups of salad aren't causing me to stall.

salad makes me stall BIG time.. i have to cut it down to no more than one handful a day.

That's very odd.

i know. i hate it. last time i had a big salad i gained 2 pounds.. i have to be pretty careful what i eat. ick. now that i limit it to 1 handful ive started losing again

I'm also quite certain that your salad greens aren't causing a stall either.

When I upped my veggies, and ramped down the other 'little carbs' as I call them, my weight loss picked up again.

I realize everyone's different, but I do have a very tough time believing that vegetables are the 'problem'.

In fact, there's this one amazing post that really opened my eyes up to this...



from: http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...48&postcount=44

I just *love* that line, "are the vegetables the problem?"

For the longest time, I thought the vegetables were the problem. I'd put scant amounts of veggies and salads on my meal plates.

But um - those veggies and salads were more like 'cheese delivery vehicles' than anything else. Plunk down the tiniest amount of salad onto my plate, then sit there at the dining room table, with a giant tablespoon from the cutlery drawer, and 'goop' on the Marie's Super Blue Cheese dressing - right on top of the grated cheddar that was covering up the little bit of green stuff in there.

I'm not suggesting anyone else does this, just sharing my own experience with the 'vegetable problem'.

So yeah - I thought the veggies were stalling me. :o

Sara

Sara, thanks for reposting that reply from Regina. This makes a lot of sense.

Sara, that was a great quote from Regina...really hits home on the very topic I've been dealing with recently. I personally have a hard time accepting that veggies (and even some fruits) can somehow be "bad" for me...I've actually upped my carb allotment and exchanged my high fat approach as such. I feel like there needs to be a tradeoff and I think I've finally found a balance that works for me.


I have to tell you I laughed SO hard at "Cheese delivery vehicles" OMG this was SO true for me in the past. I was just reading reading on the PP blog (Michael Eades) about something called a "calorie torpedo". In this case he was talking about nuts, but I've found cheese to be the same problem for me. When I first started LC I went nuts...um, ok, ironic phrasing...I guess I meant I went crazy and overbaord with cheese. I could eat SO much of it. And then the nuts were next. And of course blue cheese dressing. And butter. The list goes on. But in retrospect, I realize I was experiencing both carb AND calorie "creep". Now I use nuts and cheese sparingly and live with the "calories DO count" motto. Seems to be working much better and I enjoy a wide range of veggies (and even fruits) in my more moderate carb, and much better balanced, lifestyle.

P.S.

Yipee! Bring on the salad. Thanks so much for your amazing post, Sara, as well as my new terminology -- "cheese delivery vehicles" and Lisa -- "calorie torpedo."

I'll keep you posted with my progress.

Forgive me for hijacking this thread, but there's something nagging at me about all of this.

Yes, I remember Dr. Michael Eades' excellent blog post about "Caloric Torpedoes"

For reference purposes, here is that blog post:

Caloric Torpedoes

I find it interesting to note that the 'caloric torpedo' chosen to illustrate his points - is a bag of nuts and dried fruit. Seemingly low in carbs per portion size, but the small-ish bag contains much more than just one serving etc.

Here's what's really nagging at me...

What if it's NOT the calories or the carbs?

Why is it that we have all kinds of people with fantastic success on very low-carb, others who have success with increasing their fat content, still others who've upped their carbs and spurred on weight loss again?

Why?

We have people who are following a 'zero carb' path, people who like to do 'meat and eggs' for awhile, others who are doing Atkins '72 - and they are all finding success.

We also have people who are increasing their carbs - adding in more vegetables, fruits and so on. They are also finding success.

The common denominator seems to be the elimination of foods that combine both carbohydrate and fat. Particularly, if that food, in it's whole state - contains both carbohydrate and fat, especially in relation to portion size.

Nuts, nut butters, cheese, certain salad dressings.

The zero carbers aren't eating very much cheese, and they aren't eating nut butters or snacking on nuts. The people who have found success with a higher-fat regimen, for the most part - they seem to be choosing fattier cuts of meat, adding in olive oil or coconut oil or whatever.

Meanwhile, the South Beachers are not eating much in the way of full-fat cheese, or nuts either.

I don't find olive oil to be a problem. I don't find butter to be a problem in terms of losing some weight for most people (unless there's an intolerance to dairy foods). I don't find more vegetables to be a problem either. Even fruit, in moderate amounts.

Why is the Atkins KISS regimen working so well too? The only added fat recommended in that plan is olive oil - but one can have all the meat, eggs, veggies they want (except starchy veggies). Once again - they're not eating foods which contain both carb and fat together. I'm willing to bet that butter would actually be ok on the Atkins KISS plan - just that you don't want the cream or the cheese etc.

We wonder why there are limits on cream and cheese on the Atkins plan. Sometimes we think it must be because of the calories - but if this were the case, then why is butter not limited? Why isn't olive oil limited? Or beef?

There is a common denominator across all of these plans - from VLC or 'zero carb' to South Beach maintenance. The foods that contain both carbs and fats together have to be 'controlled'.

Is this what's meant by 'controlled carb' ? I've never quite grasped that concept.

So you take nuts, cheese, even something like pepperoni - relatively 'carby' in terms of their portion size, and also high in fat calories.

So, if the "caloric torpedo" was a little vacuum sealed pouch of butter slices - would it have the same effect on a low-carb eating plan?

Why are the low-carb desserts a problem? They're fine as a special treat, but they don't produce weight loss. When you combine cream cheese, and attach it to a nut crust - what are you getting? That same combination.

When you eat an Atkins bar of some kind, sure it has those dastardly sugar alcohols, but what else makes these potential stallers? Again, that same combination of carb and fat (ie. nuts).

So why is it that 'zero carb' all the way up to 'moderate carb' works so well? Why do we see "Atkins '72 ROCKS" and somewhere else, we see "I upped my carbs up to 60g a day and broke my stall" ?

What do all the plans have in common?

:q:

<<The foods that contain both carbs and fats together have to be 'controlled'. >>

Interesting theory. I can see nuts falling into this category but heavy cream?

Your post is full of thought provoking ideas. I intend to noodle on them.

Sure. When I wanted to stop my weight loss, heavy cream was my weapon of choice.

If you consume too much dietary fat, your body will have all the fuel it needs and won't need to draw on fat stores, no matter how severely your restrict carbs.

Read the howskinnykiniget thread.

http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=379366

1 oz of almonds or
1/2 oz of chicken breast, 2 stalks of broccoli and .61 oz of butter

Both are 170 cals, 15 g fat, 2-3 g net carbs and 6 g protein.

The differences are in micronutrients. I'd have a hard time looking at those in isolation and declaring one better than the other. The real question is the overall balance.

I find that people who eat a lot of cheese or nuts or cream do not eat a lot of veggies. I find that for me, eating a wide variety of veggies is better than eating larger portions of fewer veggies. (I'm using veggies as a shorthand for fruits and vegetables, btw.) I often wonder if other people would benefit from eating more different veggies in smaller portions, but I have no idea if this is the case.

Excellent post LessLiz!

Don't you find it curious that the almonds have all of the macronutrients together in a single food? And for a very small portion size?

But yeah - definitely - if I'm hungry, I'd be much better off with chicken, broccoli and butter than a single ounce of almonds.

I have also found this to be very true. I switched from Atkins to PPLP, and there was way more variety of fruits and veggies - and I'm not eating a large amount of any one particular fruit or veggie. I think you're onto something :)

I couldn't overeat chicken or broccoli, but an ounce of almonds? I can easily eat an entire can of almonds.