Saturday, January 7, 2012

forward again, and backward in a different way

Still being "perfect", and my weight is down from the original number by 2.4# -- yes!  :-)  After dinner last night, though, i had my first craving;  i REALLY  wanted to put cream in a cup of  decaf for dessert.  I settled for a big spoonful of coconut butter instead.  It was the fat my body wanted, more than the lovely, creamy, sweet dairy product, i'm sure -- filet mignon is just too darned lean, but that's what my appetite called for.  I cooked the parsnip as i would Carrots Vichy, but without the added sweetener, and ALMOST added some ghee, but restrained myself.  Yum.

I may start following the recommendation of the author of "The Shangri-La Diet," and take a couple of tablespoons of bland-flavored oil a day, in place of my beloved cream.  I'm STILL deeply doubtful of his rationale, and i'm thoroughly convinced that some of his reasoning is flawed, but it seems to work for a lot of people. 

Often, tried-and-true techniques work for reasons that we don't understand yet.  Much as modern science "knows," there are a few glitches in how it filters down to everyday life, and it has also gotten to the point that there's SO MUCH known, that a lot of good stuff has been forgotten in favor of the latest discovery or refinement.

One of my favorite bloggers, Chris Masterjohn, presented us with a stunning article yesterday, discussing how the body can manufacture glucose from fatty acids, that mainstream textbooks declare this to be impossible, and that this information has been around for more than half a CENTURY and is absolutely undeniable -- and largely disregarded.  This has impact on low-carb eaters and the compromises they make.  Mind you, most of the scientific world is convinced that what's in a textbook HAS to be true....

 (Chris Kresser also dug up some sound, old information on choline, that's going to affect diet in my household!) 

I have an OLD diet book that belonged to my grandmother, and in my younger days of fighting weight gain i read it and tried it.  Apparently, it was one of the earliest low-carbohydrate diets to achieve a good deal of popularity, spread through a radio show in the 1930s.  Dr. Victor Lindlahr, "Eat and Reduce"!  :-)  He had some interesting tricks (like a recommendation to hang around your house naked, to speed metabolism), but it was principally a very low calorie, low fat diet, and therefore unsustainable.  He mentions the actual first low-carb diet book author, William Banting, but gets the "facts" wrong.

So when i get on an everything-old-is-new-again kick -- and i can almost promise that i will -- there's a reason for it.  Besides, i'm a reenactor and living-historian, too.


  1. Ah, I'll be curious to see what you think of SLD! Just remember, no taste for an hour before and after, so no coffee, teeth brushing, cough drops, etc.

    I like it. It just seems to ratchet down the food drama.

    Congrats on your loss!

    Re: everything old is new, I remember doing WW in the 80s, and as I recall, you didn't get bread til week 13 or something! Well, it was successful, but not sustainable , for me. (Not that I'm eating bread these days.) I think their points program is probably healthier.

  2. yes, i got the SLD book a couple of days ago, and skimmed through it very fast. i need to go back and read the "science behind the diet" chapter carefully. i'm sure keeping my fingers crossed for having it work the way he says it did for him!

    my daughter has had good luck on WW (as i probably would have at her age). my biggest criticism of it is, they don't teach people to eat more healthily, just less of the usual stuff. i think PHD is a lot more "intelligent" -- but i still didn't lose weight on it. i'm one of those who just has to dial back the carbs! so far this week, i think i've done so well because of ditching the dairy and alcohol -- drat it! :-)