The Steaks Are High

Luscious Lemon Cheesecake

Luscious Lemon Cheesecake

I made this recipe by combining some awesome ideas from the Sweet Treats section at the Active Low Carber Forums. The base is a standard low-carb cheesecake crust, the cake is a slightly tweaked version of the incredibly Bawdy's Cheesecake, and the topping is a higher-fat version of NancyLC's Lemon Curd.

Here goes:

Preheat the oven to 350*F.

First make the base by combining:

1.5 cups almond flour (if you have other nuts you like, feel free to throw a few crushed ones in - macadamias are great for this)
5 tbsp melted butter
5 tbsp granular Splenda

Line an 8x8 cake pan with greaseproof paper. The easiest way to get the paper to "stick" to the pan is to smear a little butter from the butter wrapper around the pan and press the paper into place.

Press the cheesecake crust mixture into the bottom of the pan, and pop in the oven for 10-15 mins, until the edges start turning golden brown. I find the pre-baking stops the base soaking up the cake batter and becoming soggy.

While the crust is baking, combine the following in a large food processor or mixing bowl:
2 eggs
1 tsp vanilla extract
1 tsp lemon extract
Juice of one lemon
1 1/2 cups sour cream
1/2 cup sugar-free vanilla syrup (or 1/2 cup of Splenda or equivalent sweetener)

Blend until combined. Then add:

16 ounces (2 packages) cream cheese (it's easier if the cream cheese is softened beforehand, and cut up into pieces before you add it)
2 tbsp melted butter

I usually let the crust cool a while before pouring the batter on top. Then, I bake the cheesecake in my own improvised water bath. I plop the cake tin into a wok half-filled with water and then put the whole ensemble in the oven to cook. The water prevents the top of the cake from cracking. Alternative methods: a pan of water placed below the oven shelf you use for the cheesecake. This isn't absolutely necessary, so if you feel intimidated by it or don't have the pans, don't worry about it - it just makes for a prettier overall result.

Turn the oven down to 325* and bake for 35-40 minutes. IMPORTANT: After the cooking time finishes, don't open the oven door. Just turn it off, otherwise the whoosh of cool air will crack your cake. Leave the cake in the turned-off oven for an hour (more if you can), before letting it cool at room temperature, and then moving to the refrigerator.

While the cheesecake is baking, it's time to make the topping.

Grate the zest of two lemons into a bowl. (When you hit white, stop grating and move to the next section.)
Add the juice of both lemons
Stir in 3/4 cup of Splenda (or other granular sweetener)

Now, add two whole eggs, plus two egg yolks, and stir everything up.

The next part is to slowly, slowly cook the mixture so it turns to curd. Place your mixing bowl over a pan of simmering water, and keep the heat low-med. If you cook it too fast, you'll get lemony scrambled eggs. (I always found this double-pan method intimidating, but give it a try, it's not as hard as it seems.) It should take around 10-15 mins to cook. Keep stirring so the heat moves through the mixture evenly. It should start thickening, and once it reaches a pudding-like consistency, remove it from the heat.

Add 6 tbsp butter for a richer, creamier taste. It will melt and combine if you stir pieces of butter in immediately. This is optional, so you can skip it if you'd like to marginally lower the calories of the final product!

Put your lemon curd in a container and place cling wrap over the top so it's touching the mixture, otherwise a skin will form. Place in the refrigerator to cool and thicken. This can be used as a topping for more than just cheesecake - on low carb yogurts, flax muffins and more. It tastes like an extremely intense lemon custard.

Once everything is cool, you can remove the cheesecake from the pan and spread the lemon curd over it. The result is a deliciously creamy, rich cheesecake with tangy lemon topping. Heaven for lemon lovers.

Makes 14 good size slices, each one:

331 calories
31g fat
8.5 carbs (7.5 net)
6.6 g protein

Does the Economy Make Us Fat?

I've blogged before about low carb being a more expensive way of life, at least when it comes to the grocery store bill, so I was excited to pick up this book on the economy of obesity.

Eric A. Finkelstein and Laurie Zuckerman's answer to the question "Does the Economy Make Us Fat?" can be determined by a quick glance at the cover of their book, The Fattening of America. The subtitle, below a burger bun packed with twenty dollar bills, reads: "How the Economy Makes Us Fat, If It Matters, and What to Do About It."

So how does the economy make us fat?

Finkelstein and Zuckerman's first chapter asks "Craze or Crisis?" and provides some detailed breakdown of the rising obesity rates in the United States. One of the great things about this book is the clarity of the number crunching. The authors break down obesity rates between adults and kids, by race, by income level, by gender, and even a comparative graph by country. (Saudi Arabia, by the way, is the only country to top the US in obesity prevalence. Third and fourth go to the United Kingdom and Australia.)

As far as kids go, the rate of overweight 6-11 year olds tripled from 4% to 19% in the past 30 years, as did the rate for 12-19 years old, jumping from 6% to over 17%. For adults, the picture is no prettier: the US has seen a 38% increase in obesity prevalence since the early 1990s. Americans are, as the authors put it, "indeed fat and getting fatter". Combining these numbers with the long list of medical complications from obesity, the obvious answer to "Craze or Crisis?" seems to be, well, both.

Chapters 2 and 3 take a look at the two biggest factors in causing this crazy crisis: in short, eating more and moving less. This is perhaps no big shocker to anyone who reads about weight loss, but the interesting part about Finkelstein and Zuckerman's treatment of the subject is that they take a look behind the scenes. Here, you won't find any admonishing for lack of will power and people just lazily sitting around stuffing themseves. Instead, they point to concrete economic factors that produce an "obesity inducing environment".

Graphs show unhealthy food (soda, sugar and sweets, fats and oils) getting relatively cheaper, while healthy foods like fresh fruit and vegetables and fish get more expensive. (I do take issue with fats and oils being categorically placed in the "unhealthy" category here, but more on that later.)

Other factors include the ready availability of warm-and-eat meals. The powerful example of french fries speaks volumes. Fries, if made from scratch, take about 40 mins to prepare, complete with peeling, slicing and messy, splattering oil. Frozen french fries? Ready to eat in under 14 minutes if baked. To an economist, then, it is entirely unsurprising that the average American now consumes almost 60lbs of frozen potato products per year, more than triple the amount in 1965. Yep, sixty pounds! I don't know about you, but I feel lumpier just reading that...

They continue in this tone, pointing to the increase of high-fructose in corn syrup in food as an obvious effect of these economically attractive properties: highly-subsidized, cheap, easy to transport, with a long shelf life and good resistance to freezer burn. A frightening echo of the potato stat: the average American consumes 60lbs of high-fructose corn syrup a year.

So we have high energy foods which are easier to prepare, high in calories, and very tasty. What makes more economic sense, 80 cents for 1,000 calories of potato chips, or $4 for 1,000 calories of fresh carrots - which you'll then have to peel and chop?  Some people choose the chips because they taste better, others choose them because they're simply cheaper.

We're also moving less as a result of increasingly sedentary jobs. Technological advances help the economy, but also leave workers burning less calories as they push a button or tap instructions into a computer. When it comes to leisure time, surprisingly, we have more free time, but we also have more lazy entertainment options: movies, hundreds of television channels, video games, computers.

Finkelstein and Zuckerman emphasize that small changes in diet and exercise patterns can, over time, lead to large increases in weight. They do outline some lifestyle changes that might induce weight gain. These include increased use of prescription medication with weight gain as a side effect, decreased sleep, pollution, increased use of air conditioners, as well as debunking ideas like the "fat bug" and the decrease in smoking. However, they conclude that "it's the economy, stupid." They find the most convincing explanation for the escalation in obesity rates the simple fact that technological and economic advancements have created an obesity-inducing environment.

One of the frustrating things I've found when explaining this part of the book is that most people go "Well, duh!" Ok, point taken - that there's way more cheap food around and we move a lot less isn't exactly headline news. I still found their explanation of the underlying factors extremely enlightening, bringing up factors that may seem obvious but I hadn't thought about before.

One such moment was when I read about the decreased costs of obesity to the individual. The argument here goes something like: an individual with health insurance is more likely to take risks with their health, just as drivers with car insurance take more risks on the road than those without. Sure, I may be overweight, but my health insurance will cover any side effects, so who cares? Also, the increase in drugs and treatments for obesity means that the symptoms of obesity are more treatable now than ever before. One shocking fact: obese individuals today have better cardiovascular disease risk factor profiles than normal-weight individuals had 30 years ago! Technology hasn't just made our jobs easier; we can also pop some pills or get clogged arteries cleaned out with relative ease, making the health costs of obesity appear lower.

The rest of the book continues to dissect various possible solutions, from the role of government and different public policy options for both adults and kids. The employer's dilemma is laid out with stark rationality: why should employers invest in their employee's health when the greatest likelihood is that another company, possibly a competitor, will reap the benefits?  Sure, we can argue that employee morale will increase, productivity will improve and sick days will decrease...but here's the kicker: employees in today's job market change positions on average every five years.  An employer who invests in  obesity prevention or treatment for an individual will likely not see a return on that investment.

The solution offered by these economists, is, unsurprisingly, an economic one: lower the cost of health-promoting activities, and increase the payoffs for maintaining a healthy weight. Do the opposite of where the economy is taking us, and make it cheaper and easier to be thin, not fat.

This last sentence sums up the take-home message of the book. We are described as utility maximizers - a fancy economic way of saying that given all the possible choices we could be making, we're choosing options that make us best off. The two biggest factors constraining most people's choices are time and money, and The Fattening of America clearly shows that a healthy lifestyle costs more in both time and money.

Can a book be depressing and refreshing? I think so. Depressing in terms of the grim economic picture, refreshing in the simplicity of the number-crunching. Fat people are depicted not as moral failures, but as rational people who make rational decisions in an economy that provides an abundance of cheap, fattening food and little motivation to exercise.

Although I disagree with the authors' categorical condemnation of fats as unhealthy, I found little to argue with in their recommendations for weight loss. They even admit that different weight loss strategies will work for different people, and I believe following their simple dietary strategies could help anyone concerned about their weight. In brief: cut out sugary drinks, buy fresh foods and fewer boxes and cans, eat out less, and stay away from snacks.
I'd strongly recommend this book for anyone interesting in an economic argument about the obesity crisis. Well-written and easy to read (I flew through it one Sunday morning in bed), you'll come away with a fresh and intriguing perspective on why grocery shelves and Americans look the way they do today.

Interview with the Carnivore

Jimmy Moore posted this week about a ludicrous "Interview with a Carnivore" posted by Allena Rose Tapia over at DietDective.com. Check out Jimmy's answers to her questions here: "Moderate Vegetarian" Goes To Extremes In Her Mock Interview With A Carnivore. I'd like to offer my own answers to Tapia's questions, since I think some of these questions are valid and deserve real answers:

Question: What's the one thing that keeps you from being vegetarian?

Answer: Credible research up to this point indicates that humans need a dietary source of amino and fatty acids. Some of these are only available from animal sources.

Question: What about the fact that alot of these tastes can be replicated by meat substitutes?

Answer: They absolutely cannot be replicated by meat substitutes! Are you kidding? You think a juicy steak and a Boca Burger taste anything near alike?
(Also, it's "a lot" not "alot".)

Question: I notice you have children. Do you worry about the environment you're leaving them?

Answer: I don't have children, but the argument about meat-eating being bad for the environment is based on faulty logic. Vegetarians like to tout the "one acre of land can produce 165 lbs of beef or 20,000 potatoes" line, but let's examine that briefly.

Firstly, while you do get more potatoes, potatoes are a vastly inferior source of nutrition to beef. If you doubt this, let's go head-to-head, and I'll eat only beef for a year while you eat only potatoes, and we'll see who's alive at Christmas.

Secondly, this argument rests on the faulty premise that every acre of land in the world is suitable for arable farming. This simply isn't the case - there are many areas where it is impossible to farm, but animals like sheep can graze freely. Until humans evolve a mechanism to derive nutrients from grass, perhaps we could continue to eat the ingenious devices which turn grass into nutritious protein - animals.

Question: Why aren't you worried about it?

Answer: I think there are more pressing concerns, like 8,500 people dying from AIDS every day and a largely ignored genocide ongoing in Darfur.

I am concerned about damage to the environment, however. To that end:
- I recycle whatever I can
- I use a canvas bag to go grocery shopping instead of using environmentally-damaging plastic bags
- I pay a carbon offset charge when I fly (for example, $70 for a round trip flight from Montreal-Orlando for two people)
- I don't smoke or litter
- I don't own or drive a car

Care to rack up your environmental damage next to mine just because you eat veggies instead of delicious meat?

Question: You're familiar with some of the methods by which meat animals are killed and tortured. How do you get past that when you bite into a burger?

Answer: I find the inhumane treatment of animals disgusting and unnecessary. I absolutely favor reforms so animals are raised and slaughtered in the most pain-free way possible. Temple Grandin has made some great progress with slaughterhouse improvements around the country. Buying free-range grass-fed beef, and free-range eggs are just a couple of ways to support more humane farming. Plus, happy cows taste better!

Question: How much do you worry about your health in connection to what you eat?

Answer: I pay very close attention to my health in connection to what I eat. I've noticed that eating a diet full of high-quality protein from meat, fish and eggs, and a few vegetables thrown in has made me healthier and happier than ever before. I also don't have the sallow complexion and the big dark circles you often see under vegetarians' eyes from iron deficiency.

Question: Would you be willing to reduce your meat-eating days to 3 per week, plus one fish day?

Answer: No way. Would you be willing to reduce your eating days to 4 per week?

Intermittent Fasting

I've been encouraged by a few people to blog the bad as well as the good...so here goes.

I'm completely annoyed. I've stuck to low carbing faithfully since October 19th, mostly doing the shake plan during the week, and just regular Atkins-style eating on the weekends. I've been going to the gym 4-5 times a week, doing a mix of cardio and weights.

Since gaining weight on my honeymoon and the following month, so far I've lost a grand total of...11lbs. And, honestly, most of that was the first whoosh of water weight. I lost 11lbs in a week and then nothing since then. This is dangerous territory for me. When I work out, eat well, and don't cheat, I expect to lose. When I don't lose, I get discouraged and start thinking things like, "Well, if I'm not losing weight anyway...hand over the Krispy Kremes!"

Okay, clearly that is not a good solution here. The thing is, low carbing is the only thing I know how to do, and the only thing that has worked for me. I know I could see the scale move if I did something drastic like Kimkins, but I also know that wouldn't be a long term, sensible fix. I figure if I'm going to keep eating low carb (less than 20g per day), one of the things I could play around with is the timing of my eating, rather than the content.

Dr. Mike Eades' seductive introduction to Intermittent Fasting reads as follows:

"How would you like it if I told you there was a way to eat pretty much anything and everything you wanted to eat and still maintain your health? Or better yet, what if I told you that you could eat pretty much anything and everything you wanted and even improve your health? Would you be interested?"

Intermittent Fasting, as the name implies, involves fasting for a given period of time. Most people recommend a fast less than 48 hours long, since after 48 hours, you will start losing muscle mass. Some practitioners fast one day, eat the next, fast the next, and eat the next. Others do an up-day, down-day approach where they eat high calories one day, and low the next. Interestingly, across schedules, the average caloric intake doesn't change. Fasters make up for it by eating more in one sitting.

From what I have read, it is more common for intermittent fasters to try to get one meal in per day. How is this a fast? Well, check out my schedule for the last two days:

Thursday
Brunch 11:30am-1pm

Friday
Brunch 10:15am-11:45am

Saturday
Lunch: 12pm-2pm

So, from Thursday to Friday I fasted for 21 hours. From Friday to Saturday, my fast was 24 hours. Fasters talk of their eating time as an "eating window". You choose your fasting period, and your eating window. Schedules look like this:

15/3 = 15 hour fast, 3 hour eating window
22/2 = 22 hour fast, 2 hour eating window         ...and so on.

Old-timers recommend easing into a longer fast, starting with 15 hours and working up to a comfortable number. Many people who try intermittent fasting (IF) and hate it are usually trying too much at once and shocking their bodies.

You can read more about the Eades' experience on fasting here:

Fast way to better health

Protein Power versus intermittent fasting

Inflammation and intermittent fasting

There was also an interesting story on NPR about IF, which you can listen to here:

Retune the Body with a Partial Fast

Some benefits listed on the NPR site:
- Improving glucose regulation, which can protect against diabetes
- Lowering blood pressure
- Potentially beneficial effects on the brain, protecting against Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and stroke
- Reducing inflammation
- Reducing cancer risk

                        

Partial fasting may even extend lifespan, in the same way calorie restriction has been shown to do in monkey studies!

I am just beginning my research on this fascinating topic, but I'll post more links as I come across them. One thing that seems to fit intuitively to me is thinking about the way Paleolithic humans ate: probably not three square meals a day, with snacks in between. The theory is that they would eat a larger meal after a kill, and then rest and digest. Think lions devouring their dinner and then sleeping until they need to hunt again. If you believe, as I do, and many in the low carb community do, that our bodies are naturally adapted to a Paleolithic style diet (focusing on meat, a few vegetables, and very occasional berries), why wouldn't we be adapted to a Paleolithic style eating schedule, too?

I'm sure I'll be posting more info on this soon, but for now I'm just going to try it. Essentially, it shouldn't be too much harder than the shake fast...just without the shakes! So far I haven't felt particularly hungry or deprived, and man, does that meal taste amazing when you finally eat. 

Other tips:

• Make sure you aren't going too low on calories. Lengthen your eating window to get a sensible amount of food in for the day if necessary.
• Drink water or other non-caloric drinks (diet soda, black tea, black coffee, herbal teas) to keep hydrated during your fasting.
• Don't go crazy with hunger. If you feel hungry, have a shorter fast for that day. It's not about starving yourself. Listen to your body.
• You can intermittent fast intermittently. You'll get benefits from doing it even once or twice a week. The important thing is to let your body go for some time without any caloric intake - that means no cream in coffee, no protein shakes, no juice.

If anyone feels like trying this, let me know how it goes!

Want to see some real pictures?

My interview for the awesome Weight Loss Tips site is now up, including some before and after pictures I finally felt brave enough to post:

Kate's Low Carb Weight Loss Method: Her Journey to Better Health

What I like about this site is that they feature REAL people, with real weight loss struggles and successes. You won't find any fake Russian bride pics here!

For those of you to whom that last sentence was, well, Russian, a brief update on the Kimkins Controversy is in order. The infamous woman-in-the-red-dress pic which Kimmer claimed to be her "after" pic turns out to be snatched from a Russian dating site profile. Here's a screenshot:

Anyway, many, many folks have blogged about the recent explosive discoveries, including most of the success stories also featuring photos from dating sites. A court date is set for November 1st, and I truly hope all the folks who were scammed by Kimmer get their both their money and health back in full.

Back when I first blogged about the issue, I was trying to be even-handed about it and see it from both sides. After all, when low carb became popular, there was a huge knee jerk reaction to declare it "dangerous" and "unhealthy". Now that study after study is proving those naysayers wrong about low-carbing, I didn't want to jump to conclusions about a new approach.

However, I find the utter dishonesty Kimmer has displayed by using fake pictures deplorable. She's preying on vulnerable people, those struggling to lose weight and desperate for a quick fix.

As far as the diet goes, you can find some great information here, at Kimkins Exposed, on why going on a very low calorie diet (defined as 800 calories or less) is incredibly damaging to your body. I still maintain that the Kimkins Experiment, or K/E, where you eat as much lean protein as you're hungry for, and enough fat to make the menus work, is a viable way to break a stall or get back into ketosis quickly after a stall. For a long term diet though, I think you need more fat, which is why I use mayo and full fat dressings to up my calories when I follow the shake plan.

All of these picture scandals had me pondering. It's so easy to throw up a picture and claim it's you - and people generally won't go searching for evidence to the contrary. As Photoshop skills become more and more sophisticated, it gets even easier to doctor pictures you already have. I heard of someone actually photoshopping a "No Parking" sign out of a photo and taking it into court to get himself out of a parking ticket - and he won!

I was looking around for information on how to detect such trickery, and I came across an interesting interview with a guy who does this for a living. He's developed software to detect image manipulation, and works with the FBI and companies who rely on real digital images. I found this info at a pretty funny fishing site, of all places. They care about the veracity of the images submitted to them because that's the way they give out prizes for who caught the biggest fish - and they don't want any fakers!

I find this whole mess pretty sad, and was glad to read about someone fighting the good fight against fakery. I don't think it's a huge deal if someone removes bags from under their eyes in a picture, or blurs out a pimple on an otherwise pretty photo or takes out the red eye. To me, none of those things alter the essential portrayal of a face or body. But when you're shaving the edges off arms and shrinking bodies digitally - that's dishonest. So check out some real stories (or some real fish!) to brighten your day.

Critical Mass

I have to admit, I thought getting back to low-carbing after a honeymoon off-plan would be a breeze. After all, I reasoned, I LIKE eating low carb more than eating carbs. Meat, steak especially, has always been the "best bit" of the meal for me, so discarding the surrounding crap never felt like much of a sacrifice. And after discovering low-carb alternatives for my favorite sweets, like the sugar-free chocolate cakes or deliciously creamy low carb cheesecake, I thought I had it made.

So what's going on? I am baffled by how difficult I'm finding it to get back on and, most importantly, stay back on plan. Judith Beck, in The Beck Diet Solution, has some insight to deviations from diet when she writes about the brain as a muscle. Every time you cheat, or, in her terminology, "give in" to a craving to eat (whether it be eating more, or eating unhealthy food) you're strengthening the "giving-in muscle" of your brain. You're more likely to give in the next time, and the time after that. The flip side of this, of course, is that by resisting the temptation to eat unhealthy foods or unhealthy amounts, you strengthen your resisting muscle. Next time, you're going to have a much easier time resisting. It's a way of thinking about the brain as getting into a groove.

Here's how I picture it: imagine scoring a line in a block of wood with a blade - not too much difference, right? The next time you run the blade down the line you've made, it's pretty easy to skid off course. However, the more lines you score right on top of that one, the deeper the groove you make in the wood, and the harder it is to run off course. Eventually, you've carved a deep enough path in the wood that it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get out of your groove.

It's helpful for me to think of dieting this way, as a choice between carving out a healthy path, or entrenched myself in a valley of unhealthy choices. Here is my disclaimer: I am pretty much an all-or-nothing type of girl, flinging myself into projects wholeheartedly or abandoning them as useless. I know there are dieters out there who follow programs like the Carbohydrate Addicts Diet (CAD), which allows a carbier dinner, and even sugary desserts, and people who practice re-feeding (a day of higher carb eating) on the weekends. I can't hack it. Tasting sugar makes me want more, and, hedonist that I am, I forgo my long-term goals of health and happiness for the short-term sheer pleasure of food enjoyment.

One thing I've found interesting is that when I've been eating carbs, I've avoided the low-carb community, the forums, the blogs, the journals, the newsletters, everything. How's this for twisted logic: I think I know, deep down, if I'm reading the wisdom of low-carbers, I won't cheat. If I want to cheat, I don't read it. It's as though I'm covering my ears and shaking my head, drowning out any voices that may pull me from my syrupy pool.

Such is the power of addiction. Having observed it countless times in others, it's still harder to turn that critical gaze upon oneself. I woke up this morning feeling like crap, again, and not wanting to step on the scales, again. I think, and still purely in line with my hedonist leanings, that critical mass has been reached in more ways than one. The pleasure of enjoying foods I've restricted for two years has turned into something not so pleasurable at all, with the costs far outweighing any crunchy benefits.

I know part of the extension of this carby phase is deeply connected to that very restriction. I know once I get back on plan these foods will no longer be available to me. It seems pretty logical on the part of the body to say "Hey, we're not going to eat this stuff again in ages - what's the harm in one more day?"

Clearly, the harm in one more day is that it's not just one more day. It's filling your body with sugar that leaves it craving more sugar, scoring a deeper and deeper tendency to give in to tempting off-plan foods, and ultimately setting yourself up for another day and another day.

Today, I get into a new groove.

Wedded, Breaded Bliss!

Apologies for not posting ahead of time about my long absence. I was off getting married and then honeymooning in London, Ireland and Amsterdam.

The wedding was absolutely perfect. I was prepared for things to go wrong or to have some mishaps, but we kept everything so simple that the whole day went smoothly. The ceremony was beautiful - our friend Sameer did an incredible job, explaining to everyone why there was no priest or rabbi standing before them, and making everyone cry as he spoke about how honoured he was to perform the service and talked about Simon and me.

The reception was, above all, fun! The food and bar were great, and everyone enjoyed eating, drinking and dancing. I was overwhelmed by the sheer force of happiness throughout the day: every single person at the wedding seemed genuinely happy for us and genuinely happy to be there. We were surrounded by warmth and love.

Then, Simon gave the speech to end all speeches. He was charming and funny and loving. He managed to quote a Middle English text about love from the Chaucer tale I'm using for my Master's thesis (this was pure coincidence, since he didn't know I was studying that tale!), and then read an astonishing Shakespearean sonnet he'd written himself. It was so good everyone thought he was quoting Shakespeare and just reading something to me. He had tables of people in tears by the end of it.

We danced the night away under the stars, and then were surprised by a room at the Ritz by two of our good friends. The honeymoon was fantastic too: London, Dublin, southwest Ireland, and Amsterdam. Above all, I feel so, so lucky to have married such a brilliant partner.

As for the breaded part of all this bliss, I did indulge in carbs on my honeymoon. Lots of carbs: Guinness throughout our Ireland trip (starting off at the brewery), and traditional Irish meals that included three kinds of potato - roast, boiled and mashed - and then onto the glory of fries covered in mayonnaise in Amsterdam.

More thoughts on "cheating" or off-plan eating to come, but for now I have some serious poundage to remove! Returning home to the scales was a bit of crashing return to earth, but I'm sure I can shed the extra by getting right back to low-carbing.

Kimkins Controversy

Anyone surfing around the low carb blogs and forums these days can't miss the controversy exploding over the latest low carb plan to hit the newstands: Kimkins.

The very short, very condensed version of this story is that a poster by the handle Kimmer over at Low Carb Friends creating quite a following by proposing that calories actually were important in low-carbing, and too many people were forgetting this. My very first post of this blog described Kimkins like this:

"Kimkins is a stricter version of Atkins Induction, developed by a low carber named Kimmer. The basics of this approach to weight loss are:

- < 20 carbs (no fiber subtraction)

- 70-90 g protein

- just enough fat to make your menus work

- absolutely no low carb treats and very limited cheese

Being this strict ensures a state of real ketosis, symptoms of which include strong appetite suppression and very rapid weight loss. This is a chance to see what it's like.

Warning - not everyone likes the feeling, even if you're losing weight very rapidly."

The way I saw Kimkins back then was as I see the Atkins fat fast, the meat and egg fast, and the protein sparing modified fast I'm currently doing. It's a way to lose weight FAST, but realistically not a permanent way of eating. You have to transition from pure meat & egg at some point, same with the shake deal, same with Kimkins.

So what's all the fuss about?

Unilateral Nutritionism
Jimmy Moore used this phrase this week while defending Kimkins to describe the phenomenon of other low carbers turning against a new or stricter way of eating. I can personally testify to this happening to the Meat & Eggers thread at the Active Low-Carber forums (the first post of which was a description of the Kimmer Experiment!), and also to The Bear's "zero carb" thread. That's why there now exist two spin-off forums: Meat & Eggers For Life, and Active No-Carber Forums, for people who felt their chosen plans were constantly under attack. No doubt there is part of this spirit occurring with the Kimkins bashing. Whether people feel that a stricter plan is an implicit criticism of their own, or a bastardization of Atkins, are jealous of Kimmer's incredible success or genuinely believe this way of eating is unhealthy is hard to say, and I suspect there are folks in each of these camps and more.

Problems with the plan
For the people who want to debate the merits of watching fat as well as carbs, of counting calories and avoiding frankenfoods for clean eating...bring it on! I actually don't have a problem with the Kimkins plan as written - in fact, the shake plan I'm doing now is probably pretty close to one of the Kimkins options, which states you can replace meals with protein shakes. I LOVE losing weight quickly! I understand why people are so motivated by this, and I don't think it's harmful unless you get into a binge and lose cycle, or fail to recognize the need to learn healthy eating habits for maintenance.

The plan behind the plan
Here's where things get a bit sticky, for me. While Kimkins plan as written seems fine and doable and above board, a lot of posters over at Low Carb Friends have described her "plan behind the plan" - Kimmer's advice on her infamous "Ask Kimmer" threads there, which seemed to include some very dubious statements. The following transcript was quoted:

Poster: "Kimmer, I don't know what's happening. I haven't cheated at all and I didn't loose a pound today.?? I ate maybe 4 bites of lean chicken,my coffee and two diet cokes. What causes a stall? Is this normal or is my coffee finally catching up with me? Or could it be bathroon issues? HELP ME KIMMER???"

Kimmer: "*name deleted* what's in your coffee? What about constipation? What kind of chicken? What have you eaten the last 3 days?"

Poster: Coffee:SF carmel 2g carbs,30 cals,2.5 g fat, per tbsp (I use 2 carefully measured) sweet n low (1 packet) 1 cup day. 2 days ago I had 2 cups.
Friday Hardly nothing to eat,c 2 cups coffee,2 diet drinks,water
Saturday,1/4 chicken breast cooked in George Forman w/ salt,coffee my way,Snow cone w/ SF syrup2oz (did not measure) 5 cals,o carbs o fat,2 diet cokes,
Today Roast beef broiled in oven about the size if a tennis ball 1 diet coke,1 cup of coffee.

Kimmer: "...Have you considered taking a mild laxative each night you're doing "protein only"? Or, hate to even suggest it, make up a batch of the horrible Epsom salt solution and take a couple tablespoons each night?..."

Okay...bear in mind, I did NOT witness this conversation as it happened, and this is someone else entirely reporting the conversation. However, from the sheer number of people agreeing that this is exactly the sort of advice she gave, and other similarly disturbing examples of encouraging people to go lower and lower and lower on calories, I'm inclined to believe that this sort of thing was going on.

This advice is patently ridiculous. Anyone who tells you they're eating four bites of chicken and a coffee in a whole day needs, in this order, a big hug and a healthy meal. Many posters describe such a way of thinking as pro-ana (pro-anorexic) and it does set off all sorts of eating disorder warning bells.

HOWEVER...I also think it's possible to separate the pearls from the swine here. She doesn't seem to be giving this kind of advice through any official Kimkins channels, so I think people could follow Kimkins in a healthy way. This is little comfort to the people who had bad experiences with Kimmer over at Low Carb Friends, but taking a step back is necessary to evaluate the plan as it now exists.

Kimmer's identity
Here's where people get all conspiracy-theorist...
Kimmer refused to post pictures other than tiny, blurry avatars for some years, and when she finally did release before/after shots, people questioned whether it was the same person. Here, check out the pictures for yourself and see what you think:

Or check out the shots from the Kimkins site:

Personally, I haven't measured or scrutinized to this degree, but detractors are claiming that specific ratios of the facial features change between pictures, as does arm length.

Others are suspicious of her beautiful skin tone and shapely arms in the red dress picture, which looks more like a 20 year old than a 47 year old.

Here's another picture, Kimmer's avatar picture on Yahoo Answers:

To this I can say a few things: airbrushing works wonders, low carb does great things for the skin, but if I had to put my hand on my heart and swear, I don't think I could say the various pictures Kimmer has posted are all of the same person.

There is also a lot of suspicion over the fact that she has consistently refused in-person interviews and face-to-face meetings, even with some of her most successful followers. Jimmy Moore offered to fly out and meet with her in person, but no dice.

So, who cares? Jimmy Moore in particular seems to be saying that all of this is just a big ruckus about nothing - if the plan works, work it! And don't waste time looking up Kimmer's real name and address and trying to find the real person behind the name.

Critics claim that since she is not a doctor, the real authority behind this plan IS Kimmer, and her testimony about her plan should be backed up by more evidence than just words typed onto internet forums. Her claim that she lost 198lbs in 11 months is what drew people in to begin with, and that should be verified. Personally, I'm curious about why she wouldn't just put all this drama to rest by doing a few interviews in person. I don't think it's the kiss of death to her plan that she's a mysterious, missing person, but it does seem pretty shady.

Affiliate marketing
The Kimkins plan is marketed very successfully through affiliate marketing. This is when bloggers or other internet folks post links to the Kimkins site. When someone clicks on that link and joins the site, the blogger who posted the link gets paid! Woo! Currently, Kimkins affiliates make 25% of the $59.95 membership fee, which is $14.99 per joining member sent by the affiliate. Affiliates who signed up earlier could make up to 30-40% of the join fee.

Okay, this is nothing new in internet marketing. Check out the links to the Amazon books at the side of this site - if you click on and buy those books, I get some money. (I have made approximately 75 cents off this since my blog began, but hey, can't blame a girl for trying!)

The complaint is that various bloggers, including Jimmy Moore, are not being straightforward and open and honest by saying "I make X amount from promoting Kimkins!" There are many Kimkins support sites and blogs cluttered with links, some of which are probably genuine Kimkins-followers who want to share this plan and make a little money while they do so (no problem with that) and others who see this as a chance to make some quick cash and throw up fake sites with fake pictures and fake stories (not very ethical).

I think it's unfair to attack Jimmy in particular for having links and banners up to the site. He has banners and links to all sorts of low carb programs and products all over his blog. This is a guy who spends a huge amount of time each day blogging and reading and researching and responding to people who are curious about low carb life. Why shouldn't he be compensated for his hard work in building a massive readership and huge amounts of traffic to his blog by throwing links and banners up there?

I like Jimmy a lot. Do I think it would be more completely squeaky-clean for him to disclose to his readers that he's making quite a bit of money promoting Kimkins? Sure. Do I think that would fit with his straight-shooting, laying-it-all-on-the-table blogging style? Definitely. But is that holding him to very rigid standards of accountability that aren't necessarily expected elsewhere on the web? Yep, absolutely!

If you tweak it, it isn't Kimkins
Alright, last but certainly not least is the following information to consider from the Kimkins site:

"The original Kimkins Diet:

As much lean protein as desired from the Kimkins Food List

0-20 total carbs per day (no fiber or sugar alcohol subtraction)
0-3 cups List 1 veggies per day  OR
0-2 cups List 1 veggies + 0-1 cup List 2 veggies per day
Use minimal fat to make your menu work (careful, calories count!)
No alcohol or low carb products (sugar free candy, energy bars, ice cream, frozen meals)
Your appetite will reduce naturally after 3-5 days
Take a complete multivitamin each day plus other desired supplements." [My emphasis added.]

Kimmer also clearly states in the instructional section:
"Question: Can I modify the Kimkins Food Lists?

Please don't. If it's not the list [sic], don't eat or drink it!  Remember that Kimkins is a lean low carb plan. The #1 reason for slow weight loss is 'modifying'."

And a quote from Kimmer on Low Carb Friends:
"I hope you won't think I'm a total snot for saying this, but please don't "modify" Kimkins. Just call your plan Atkins instead."

This has people running around yelling that Jimmy Moore isn't in fact doing Kimkins, since he HAS modified it to include some foods he enjoys like Chocoperfection chocolate bars and some low carb wraps. How dare he claim he's losing all this weight from Kimkins, give Kimkins all this credit, when in fact he isn't actually doing Kimkins?

My thoughts on this are first, congratulations to Jimmy for being honest about what he's eating. How much easier would it be to just pretend he's sticking to pure Kimkins, and not have to face any of these detractors?

Secondly, who the heck doesn't modify their eating plans?? Every single person I know on the Meat & Eggers Forum has personalized their plan, some including Cool Whip (why, I have no idea, but hey) and others adding veggies back in, still others carb-cycling.

The important thing here is that Jimmy Moore and countless others have taken the general guiding principle of Kimkins - watch the fat along with the carbs, and calories will limit themselves - incorporated that principle into their diets, and seen amazing results.

I'm not sitting here thinking, "Oh, well, he's not really doing Kimkins, so all this is crap," - I'm thinking "Damn! He's eating all those frankenfoods and STILL losing all that weight? Kimkins is scary fast!"

Scary is right, and that's where I'll finish this gargantuan post. People are scared by fast weight loss for a whole host of reasons, some sound and valid criticisms, others not so worthy of attention. People are rightfully scared by doubts and shadiness about Kimmer's identity, and rightfully worried about the previous disturbing eating disorder-esque advice.

I think it'd be relatively easy to clear up a lot of this fear and doubt and infighting by Kimmer coming clean about her identity and putting the picture doubts to rest once and for all. I wish she'd do that.

I also think that, parsing through all of the fighting and anger and genuine hurt, there's some sound dietary advice to be had from the Kimkins plan as written. Too many low carbers return to Atkins Induction with bad habits from previous low carbing stints - eating frankenfoods, being used to massively fatty portions and overeating, skyrocketing their calorie counts and wondering why the weight isn't dropping off. Kimkins manages to cut out a lot of these problems by stripping Atkins down to the bare essentials (she admits her plan is simply a tweak of the original Atkins from 1972) and limiting fat to what's needed for cooking.

As I wrote last year, I believe this is a very useful tool for dropping you in deep ketosis and stripping your diet down to the bare essentials. You can then add in different foods and experiment with what works for you personally.

And hopefully, hopefully, all of us can sit down over some Kimkins-friendly, Atkins-friendly, Zone-friendly, Stillman's-friendly, Bear-friendly chicken and be friends again.

Shakin' It In Florida

I'm in Florida visiting my family for a few weeks, and so far enjoying mornings of beautiful sunshine and catching up on reading during the stormy afternoons.

One of the greatest diet-related aspects of this trip is that I finally have a partner in crime: my mum!

So far, using the shakes plan, she has lost 27.5lbs in just 58 days! This was no quick-n-easy water weight drop by going suddenly super low on carbs. She had been low carbing on Phase 1 of the South Beach Diet since January and reached a frustrating plateau before I told her about the Protein Sparing Modified Fast. She had already lost 25 lbs before starting this, which only makes her speedy weight loss even more impressive.

I have to say, she looks absolutely fantastic. One of the things she's most excited about is that she bought her first dress with a belt! She also has TONS of energy, and as far as I can see, close to zero carb cravings. (She's cooking up a batch of cinnamon rolls for the rest of the family as I type.)

It's been awesome doing this together since I got here: making shakes for each other, sharing lovely low-carb meals and weighing in together in the morning. I think having a diet partner really helps my own accountability, and just being around someone who is so successful on this plan is very inspiring.

We decided to come up with some handy tips for anyone following this, based on our experiences with the plan. I'm getting tons and tons of emails asking questions about the best ways to do it, and reporting amazing results, so keep 'em coming!

Accept that you'll feel like crap for the first few days
Like the good old Atkins flu, starting this plan WILL leave a lot of people feeling tired, groggy, lethargic, slightly nauseous or spacey and out of it. This can depend on the person, and some people just breeze through it straight away. However, especially if you've been eating a high-carb diet previously, you will probably not feel very well as your body makes the switchover to getting energy from protein instead of carbs. Hang in there - your energy will return, and you'll be feeling fine in less than a week.

Weigh every day!
This flies in the face of a lot of weight loss advice, but both my mum and I have found it extremely motivating to get on the scales each morning and see what we've lost. Since weight loss on this plan is so consistent and fast, weighing in is rarely a disappointment.

Journal it
Write down your weigh-in number every day so you can track your loss. There's a great program to do this online - FitDay - where you can get a graph of your weight as it tumbles down. By doing this, you'll also be able to get a more accurate picture of your average weight loss week-by-week.  It's very typical to lose 8-10lbs the first week, and then average around 2-3lbs per week after that, but this will help you keep focused.

Get back on
If something happens and you do end up eating off plan, get right back on. This is easy to say, but the encouraging part about this diet is that anything you gain will drop right off...if you get back on plan immediately. You may experience the yuckiness of a carb hangover the following day, which is further motivation to stay away from the sugar!

Sugar-free gum
Bear in mind that you're eating real, solid food once a day, so it helps to occasionally give yourself something to chew. Sugar-free gum can also be a dietsaver in meetings where people are passing around sandwich plates and baked goods: if you pop a piece in right at the beginning, your mouth will be full of flavor and the treat will seem less tempting.

Shake doctoring
If you're not too thrilled with straight protein shakes, people have come up with a number of ways to doctor them up. Bear in mind that the original Thin So Fast plan as described by Dr. Mike Eades added all sorts of stuff to the protein shakes to make them palatable (this book was published back when protein powder tasted dreadful). Some variations to try:

- After you have your morning coffee, pour the rest of the pot into a pitcher and leave it in the fridge. Mix the cold coffee with protein powder for a delicious and energizing shake.

- Add a teaspoon of vanilla essence, or the sugar free syrup of your choice for different flavors.

- Mix the powder with diet soda - but be careful of the fizz! This makes for a float or creamsicle type drink, depending on the soda you use.

- Add cream! Some people like to add a couple of spoons of cream to the coffee version, and our latest treat is to squirt some whipped cream onto a chocolate shake and sprinkle a little unsweetened cocoa powder on top.

Treat yourself
Nope, not to sweet treats - to good quality tea and coffee. We are a Starbucks-loving house, especially the bold blends like Komodo Dragon and Arabian Mocha Sunani. I'm also a big fan of different teas: both Stash and Republic of Tea make some amazing flavors. (The Republic of Tea Ginger Peach flavor is lovely, and great if your stomach feels slightly off.) Drinking high quality tea and coffee fills your mouth with gorgeous tastes without adding hardly a carb or calorie, and the caffeine will rev you up too. 

Beware the side salad
One common fall down is ordering salads from fast food outlets or restaurants. Atkins and South Beach and Protein Power and even this fast encourage eating vegetables with your protein, so having a side salad often seems like a fairly safe option. Now, if you're at home, and sticking to the greens (romaine, iceberg, spinach, cucumbers, asparagus, broccoli, avocado) you'll be safe. Where people get into trouble is ordering something like Boston Market's chopped salad which weighs in at 12g carbs before adding dressing. Quizno's Black & Bleu salad might look like a low carb dream, sprinkled with beef and blue cheese, but clocks in at 27.9g carbs! Steamed vegetables are often a safer choice, or you can always stick with trusty old caesar, hold the croutons.

Double up on shakes
A lot of people have found they've been skipping shakes, either due to time, forgetfulness or lack of access to shake making materials. A simple solution is to drink double shakes. Say you're on four scoops of protein powder a day: just make a shake with two scoops in the morning, and two at night to ensure you get your protein requirements met for the day.

Enjoy your meals
This is obviously not very hard when you're eating once a day! But I think it helps to put in the effort to make delicious meals. I will post some sample menus in the days to come, and there are always the recipes here for more ideas. A huge part of sticking to any diet is finding it psychologically satisfying, and making yummy food and treating yourself to nice drinks and interesting shake variations will undoubtedly help you stay on plan and keep losing.

Get support
You can join the very small but very friendly group following this plan over at the Meat & Eggers Forum. Here's the thread link: Arckins Plan Challenge so stop on by and say hello. Or try doing it with a friend, partner or family member so you can help and motivate each other.

Good luck, and here's to your very great loss!

At The Butcher's

A couple of guys walk into a butcher's and see two joints of meat hanging up. One of them says to the other:

"I bet you $200 you can't roundhouse kick both of those down."

His friend replies:

"Nah, I can't do that man - the steaks are too high!"