Rule Six: Empower Yourself

You may recall that in rule one of the Rules of Induction (Atkins), those starting the first phase of the diet are reminded to eat regularly and develop a pattern of eating each day that they're comfortable with, be it three meals a day or four or five. Also within that rule was the caution not to go more than six waking hours without eating something. I bring rule one up again today because it complements rule six, which says:

Rule 6:

• Adjust the quantity you eat to suit your appetite, especially as it decreases. When you're hungry, eat the amount that makes you feel satisfied, but not stuffed. When you're not hungry, eat a small controlled carbohydrate snack to accompany your nutritional supplements.

Where rule one speaks to our need to establish good eating patterns to take with us as we lose weight and then maintain our weight, this rule helps us understand that over time, as our weight declines, our food intake will decline and we still need to be aware that even with a diminished appetite, it's important to nourish our bodies for good health.

So many diets play on our fears - and one of the biggest is our fear that we lack enough willpower to actually stick with a diet long enough to lose the weight; forget about keeping it off!

One of the draws of a low-carb diet is the natural appetite suppression that comes within a few days of carbohydrate restriction. A large number of studies have noted that even when allowed ad libitum access to any and all of the foods allowed on a low-carb diet, those who stick with the allowed foods experience a "spontaneous" reduction on caloric intake while consuming an adequate level of protein and dietary fats to sate appetite and lose weight.

Sometimes the appetite suppression is so good that it's easy to miss a meal or go without eating too long. This rule reminds us that adjusting our food intake as we lose weight is expected, but we do not need to limit our intake to a point where we're potentially doing more harm than good, nor to we have to rely solely on willpower to lose weight or live with hunger pangs as we lose - we need nutrients from food, we need energy from food (even while losing weight) and we need to establish good eating habits.

That means eating for both to nourish the body and to sate appetite; adjust how much you eat to satisfy your appetite, allow yourself - give yourself permission - to eat and feel satisfied. Satisfaction with your meals keeps you motivated as you lose weight.

This rule does have a caution and that is to be aware not to overeat and stuff yourself, not to gorge or binge. For some who are new to low-carb this may be something that could become problematic - eating too little and then binging - so the caution is there to listen to your body, pay attention to your appetite and learn when you're hungry and when you're satisfied. Over time, if you're paying attention to this you'll find your body really does trigger hunger when you're hungry and if you're eating well, establishing an eating pattern happens!

The last part, to include a small carbohydrate controlled snack with your supplements, reminds us that including nutritional supplements is considered a benefit on the diet and eating something small with them can help you with rule one to establish good eating habits!

Over time as you lose weight, your appetite is going to naturally diminish and your energy requirements will adjust too. This is something to be aware of for the long-term - what you eat when you start - whether it's 3000-calories or 2000-calories - is going to slowly decline in time as your body weight is reduced. Someone who weighs 300-pounds needs more calories each day to maintain their weight than someone who weighs 150-pounds. So, in the long term, this rule is establishing this in your mind to remember later, as you reach a lower weight - you won't eat the same as you do at the start of the diet!

Overall this rule fosters a sense of empowerment - the understanding that you can, perhaps for the first time in your life, listen to your body and learn how to eat well over the period of losing weight and then as you maintain your weight!

Rule Five: Break Free from Contradictions

Thus far we've looked at four of the Rules of Induction for the Atkins diet. I've used the Atkins diet rules because no matter which low-carb diet one chooses, these rules have little "gems" that can broadly apply to any controlled-carb diet based on its design, carbohydrate restriction and/or phases.

Today, we'll look at rule five. At first glance, it appears to be in a rather harsh tone toward the reader:

Rule 5:

• Eat nothing that isn't on the Acceptable Food List. And that means absolutely nothing. Your "just this one taste won't hurt" rationalization is the kiss of failure during this phase of Atkins.

Simply put, this rule is reinforcing the importance of being able and ready to begin something new and different while letting go of the "diet baggage" we all had/have that will not serve us well throughout weight loss on a low-carb diet, and certainly not when we maintain our weight later. The only way to say it is straight-out and without sugar-coating it - if you start the diet with bad habits and do not address them, they'll be your undoing on this diet (or any diet) you want to utilize as your means to lose weight.

This rule makes clear that everything on the 'acceptable foods list' is allowed, go and enjoy these foods; those not on the list are not allowed right now - not even one bite, not even if you can manage to include them within your carbohydrate allowance for this period. The time frame here is two weeks and you will not die without the foods that are excluded during this period.

You may crave them, want them, think you need them - but what you 'want' is not always what you 'need' and for now, there are plenty of nutrient-dense foods you are allowed to eat, so take this period to eat those and only those foods; more variety will come in time.

Many wonder why this rule is so harsh. In part it is helping to break habits of the past, in part wiping clean years of eating foods that were not the best choices for health and well-being, in part imploring you to ignore many current dietary contradictions, and in part to help you naturally supress cravings for carbohydrate-rich foods.

Did you catch that last item?

It is true for the vast majority of those starting a low-carb diet; if you can simply stick with the 'acceptable foods list' for your first two weeks, you'll find that cravings for carbohydrate-rich foods diminish quickly and by the end of two-weeks, they're supressed so you no longer think much about having bread or pasta or potatoes or sweets.

Now granted, these foods will always be around you; but you will now have a powerful way to make them less tempting in the future if you can avoid them completely for a couple of weeks.

In the process you'll be rewarded for your efforts and discipline too - you'll lose weight in the first two weeks, find you have more energy at the end of the two weeks, and also realize that the foods you used to reach for in times of stress or to celebrate can be replaced by foods that are better for you and your health.

What this two week period is teaching for the long-term is that you ultimately control what you choose to eat. It is a period that is allowing you time to step back from everything you think you know, retreat from all the contradictions we hear from the "experts," step back from all the habits you've developed over the years, and start again - at the basics.

This particular rule goes against everything we hear and read so often; on the one hand we're repeatedly told part of the underlying reasons for obesity is lack of willpower and discipline; on the other hand we hear often this insistence that if you want something eat it, if you're on a diet and craving whatever it's better to eat it than to not because it's not good to deprive yourself of something you want.

How in the world is one supposed to develop this necessary discipline if they're never challenged and expected to discipline themselves?

As I said, this rule sets a standard for you to hold yourself to, that for a short period of time - two weeks - you will avoid any food that is not on the accepted food list so you can prove to yourself some big things:

• What you think you want to eat isn't always what you need to eat
• Food is not the enemy, nor do you lack willpower; given adequate time and nourishment, your body will help you re-learn how to eat well
• You really don't have to punish yourself to lose weight with feelings of hunger, eat what's allowed and you'll be sated
• You really are empowered to make good decisions and eat delicious food while you lose weight
• You'll really get to experiment and play more with your eating later, as you move forward and continue to lose weight

These first two weeks extend to the longer term as you are empowered to listen to what your body is telling you; you'll initially get over the idea you need starchy or sweet foods all the time, and then understand as you continue, when and where these foods will fit into your long-term menus. Once again, you'll also begin to appreciate just how good real food tastes, and take the foods from these first two weeks into your long-term eating, so they serve as your foundation for the future.

Oh, Yeah, That'll Work

An article in Sunday's Independent (UK) paints an ominous picture of what may be coming down the pike as a way to solve the epidemic of childhood obesity; simply take these children from their families and place them in care of the state.

"Doctors are calling for the parents of obese children under the age of 12 to be targeted under child protection laws and for their offspring to be taken into care."

Next month a motion will be presented at the British Medical Association (BMA) conference that will include provision for social workers to "treat childhood obesity as neglect" and allow state intervention, including removal from the home.

"Dr Matt Capehorn, who will present the motion on obesity in Torquay, said: "No healthcare professional would want to break up a family unit but this has to be considered if the child's health is being put at risk." Dr Capehorn, a GP, runs an obesity clinic in Rotherham, South Yorkshire."

The motion comes on the heels of our own American Medical Association releasing its latest Expert Committee Recommendations on the Assessment, Prevention and Treatment of Child and Adolescent Overweight and Obesity document on June 6, 2007. Noticably absent - media coverage to highlight its release!

Take some time to read it, I'll be writing more in depth about what appears to be in the works for us here in the United States! I'll note where the evidence stands for the recommendations in the document and point out data that's obviously being ignored in the efforts to reduce the prevalence of obesity in children.

Keep in mind as you read the document, this is from the same organization led by Dr. William Plested III, president of the American Medical Association, who was quoted as saying at a recent Rotary Club meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, “We’re going to pay for this with a generation of ‘fatsos’ with every disease you can imagine.”

Nice, huh?

Can you feed yourself with $3.00 a day?

The challenge is one millions Americans face each day - feeding themself and their family with just $3.00 per person, per day.

Patt Morrison wrote of her experience trying to do shop with $21 for a week as a vegetarian in the LA Times.

In the long run, it takes money to eat thin and healthy. For $3 a day — which is what you get when you divide 30 days into the $155 monthly food stamp allowance for one person — you wind up on the fatty-salty-sugary-canned-processed-bottled diet. Get heart disease on $3 a day! Ask the government how! [empahsis hers]

She highlighted that "Several members of Congress took the food stamp challenge, and now two of them, a Missouri Republican and a Massachusetts Democrat, are trying to make the food stamp fund a little bigger and to guarantee that combat-zone pay doesn't knock military families off the food stamp eligibility list (yes, there are food stamp debit cards in the pockets of U.S. military uniforms)."

Which led me to The Congressional Food Stamp Challenge, a blog detailing the experiences of two members, during the week May 15 to 21, as they lived with a budget of just $3.00 a day to feed themself.

As congresswoman Jan Schakowsky noted in her reflections of the week, "Living on food stamps is not just about the food. It takes a lot of planning ahead to live on a food stamp budget, and still, even if you get the calories you need, you can’t get the nutrients. Maybe some nutrition expert can figure out how one can eat healthily on a food stamp diet, but I can’t see how it’s done. Fruits and vegetables, especially fresh ones, are very expensive relative to foods like pastas and bread."

The Washington Post featured the experiences of Representative Tim Ryan, who found "He made some poor choices when he shopped for the $21 worth of food, and the country's food stamp program is not sufficient for the 26 million Americans who rely on it."

What started the challenge was two representatives, Jo Emerson (R-MO) and Jim McGovern (D-MA), calling on their colleagues to join them in raising awareness of hunger and what it's like to live on just $3.00 per day. Only two members joined them - Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) in the challenge.

"I've been a little low on energy, but I feel guilty about complaining about anything," said McGovern, who took the challenge with his wife; each lost about five pounds. "For us, this is an exercise that ends Tuesday. For millions of people, this is their life."McGovern said he faced down many temptations at several receptions and fundraisers -- the duck rolls, the crab cakes, the red wine.

"Every time I thought, 'I wish I could have that scallop wrapped in bacon,' at the back of mind I thought, 'Why are you complaining? This is the way people live every day,' " he said.

The Southeast Missourian featured Jo Emerson's experience, "Most people on a day-to-day basis don't think about the fact that there are millions of people in this country who have to make a choice every day about how much they're going to spend on food," Emerson said.

And, who knew? "I'll save over a dollar by blowing my low-carb diet," Emerson said.

Which got me thinking, what would I do if I only had $21 for the week to feed myself?

What would be more important - satiety or nutrient-density; could I manage both?

More importantly, would I be able to feed our family of three, with just $63 for the week and still feed my child a nutrient-rich diet?

What compromises would I make in my diet to assure his diet was healthy?

I'm up for the challenge, as is my husband - later today, with just $63 in my pocket, I'll shop for a week of groceries, commited as a family to only eating what we're able to purchase with that sum next week.

We'll begin this evening, and continue through lunch on Friday next week.

In doing this I hope to learn even more about nutrition and provide my readers with insights about how possible it is to maintain a controlled-carb diet while on a tight budget.

I'd like to invite my readers to join me and use the comments section to share ideas, tips and frustrations as we journey together through the challenge.

Before you agree, here are our "rules" for the week:

1. The budget for food, all food, is limited to just $3.00 per person in our households each day ($21 per week, per person), so if you're single, you have $21....a couple has $42....each child adds $21. One major caveat - we cannot use anything during the week we already have in the house unless we deduct the cost of it from our budget - so if you're using chopped garlic in a jar already in your refrigerator, deduct the price from your budget for the week! Same goes for spices, cooking oils, and such since it's unlikely we'd have a stocked pantry if we were living life routinely on $21 a week per person!

2. We can shop for, prepare and cook whatever we want to eat, but cannot eat free food at business functions, meetings, work, or other places; but we can sample from tasting stations in grocery stores, and eat at parties we attend, hosted by friends or family (but not business functions!)

3. If you have a child in school, buying school lunch, the cost of the lunch is part of your budget....or you can pack their lunch for the week to buy more groceries. Or you can opt not to include your child in the budget and only do this yourself (and/or with your spouse).

4. We can eat out, but any cost to eat out must come from our $21 a week per person, so if we plan to eat out, we need to plan the cost and keep it within that amount when we do eat out. Friends and family cannot pay for us to eat out during the week, nor can the business expense account pick up the meal.

5. The budget does not include paper products, cleaning products, or non-food items available at grocery stores (lightbulbs, batteries, etc.); the budget does include alcohol, so shop wisely if you want a drink with dinner or use wine in cooking!

6. The budget does include condiments, spices, supplements, and anything you'd consume as part of your "diet," but does not include over-the-counter medications or prescription medications.

7. The challenge includes preparing and eating what you are able to purchase throughout the coming week, and any meals eaten out, since it's one thing to have to shop with a limited budget and another to live with it for a week.

Who will join me this week?

Those participating in the challenge are encouraged to email me photos of their groceries for the week, along with recipes and meal ideas and insights about your experiences during the week. I'll highlight them here on my blog next week and open discussion about the various challenges we all faced, and the things we learned along the way!