Jump to content


participating member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CompassRose

  1. Unh....hunh. I can't be arsed to go back to the article to check, but from what I recall, that isn't exactly what they said. They said that the CR guys no longer had a lively, guy-type libido, didn't check out the femmes as a fertile male is wont to do, but still functioned well in the sack. Yeah, when I was starving, I functioned fine once I got started, too. Didn't particularly have an interest unless I was prompted, but nothing was broken... And I could point to any number of "cutters" on bodybuilding forums -- who while they might not be calculating their nutrients with QUITE such precision, are certainly eating healthy, balanced and nutrition-rich foods within their restricted and hypocaloric intake -- and most of them will bitch at length about how cutting cuts more than the fat off your hard earned muscle, and how the wife/husband/partner hates it. No, not really. This was fancy; I bet they took extra time planning it. I've seen some horrifying things on CR sites, including one guy who lived on a kind of "mush" composed of all the essential things he needed (including blueberries, flax, some kind of meat and various vegetables) all buzzed together and simply weighed out as required. Takes "eat to live" to a whole new level. Daily, they probably each have pretty set routines. And, for what it's worth, I think the "diagnostic criteria" for anorexia are somewhat inaccurate, particularly the one about inaccurate body image. That myth of the anorexic who sees a gigantic fatty looking back at her from the mirror is, for many anorexics I've had contact with, just that, a myth. They may not think they look as bad as other people think they do, but believe me, they know they're bony, and love their bones.
  2. Yes, but that's the thing. It doesn't matter how you get there; starvation induces chemical changes in the brain. Whatever your original reasons for restricting food, you become an anorexic (in the sense of having "anorexic" thought patterns and behaviour) after a certain point. There's a study about -- it's easy to find on the Web -- of a bunch of guys who were kept on restricted diets, and very soon began to show the easily identifiable traits of anorexics.
  3. "Not anorexia because they balance their nutrients" blah de blah. Fun article, but the author has not branched out into any quick studies of so-called "lifestyle anorexics", because they do. They eat exactly like this, the measured portions and the tracking of macro- and micro-nutrients. Indeed, many of them are prone to throw out the calorie-restriction research as an argument for what they're doing. Personally, having been down that road, I would have to say that starvation-induced euphoria or not, who wants to live to be 120 while measuring out one's arugula?
  4. There are dulce de leche Oreos? Where? Why have I not seen them?
  5. I bought this book just because I love their style of writing. (And it was in the discount bin.) But I haven't made much from it -- honestly, I must confess it's not really my style. I don't bake a lot of breads (I very rarely eat bread) and I like my cakes to be CAKES! -- all over the top and outrageous with layers and decorated bits. I made some kind of savoury stuffed bread once, which was extremely good, and I do make their Quark Stollen every year. I love stollen, and the Quark version is a lot moister than my mother's recipe, which is tasty but tends to be dry. The inclusion of ingredients like margarine, and of my least favourite kind of icing in the cake section, did somewhat put me off I must admit. However, if I did eat bread, I probably would try out more of their basic folk-style breads.
  6. I went to The Parkside during my semi-vacation in Vancouver last week. I wrote a full report, which includes the shameful truth that I really don't belong in such fancy surroundings, here: http://compassrose.vox.com/library/post/mmm-swanky.html Great meal, though.
  7. Are they searching out anyone though? I'm not "in" with the pastry industry... but in the design industry, awards are certainly not recognising the unsung heroes, they're recognising people who send in their own materials, and possibly an entry fee, to the awards committee before the deadline.
  8. You're not listening. "Long term" = "slow going". It just does, and there's no way round that. Fast weight loss and rebound go together like the chocolate and peanut butter you'll be binging on in your deprived state. "Long term" also usually = "not eliminating whole food groups." It is true that some people do manage to low-carb long term, particularly if there are attendant medical issues -- but honestly, other than that, those who give up particular foods or food groups entirely to lose weight, or eat nothing but *** in order to lose weight, normally can't stick with it. Seriously. If you don't like veggies or fruits, plan something that doesn't include them. Which will mean counting, probably, yes. Fruits and vegetables are beneficial in a diet, because they are: - high in fibre, which helps one not feel deprived - high in fibre which also helps one stay regular on reduced food volume and calories (some people can use fibre supplements for this, but they don't work for me -- TMI) - very nutrient-dense and energy-poor (which means "fulla vitamins, low in calories) which helps one to keep healthy on reduced calories -- women in particular often have difficulty meeting even minimum nutrition requirements on a reduction diet -- supplements will again help here, but personally I feel that real food is always best, given a choice. BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO EAT THEM. Unless you are in a situation such as mine, or my friend Terrasanct above, in which case macronutrient balance and such becomes important, to lose weight eat less than you burn. That can be all fruits and veggies, no fruits and veggies, all bacon, whatever -- in the long term, anything that excludes large ranges of food WILL PROBABLY HAVE AN EFFECT ON YOUR HEALTH, be aware, but you will almost certainly lose weight. That's it. That's the answer, and it's an easy answer.
  9. I'm not sure if you're saying that Atkins is a starvation type diet, but it isn't. The appeal of low carb diets is that you aren't constantly hungry, as you might be on a higher carb diet. Fat provides satiety, whereas excess carbs make blood sugar levels unstable, leading to hunger. And not everyone loses weight quickly, either. It took me two years to lose 45 pounds. BUT it was the only diet I've ever lost weight on, and I felt a lot better, too. My cholesterol levels got much better, and my blood sugar went from borderline diabetic to very healthy. No, I wasn't. That was my lack of clarity. Keto and low-carb diets are a staple, however, of the person who needs to lose weight in a fair hurry -- as long as they don't mind regaining it practically immediately when they're done (the rebound of most bodybuilding competitors after a show and the last few weeks of carb depletion? Not pretty.) Extremely low-carb diets have their place, but I would suggest not as a lifestyle way of losing weight, unless one's prepared to eat that way for the rest of one's life. IMHO, anyway. I have found, AFTER low-carbing it, that not only do I rebound (and I no longer lose weight or fat on low carb, anyway, like anything else these days) but I am much more sensitive to carbs and my blood sugar will go nuts if I eat them. If you plan a higher carb diet right, though, you aren't "constantly hungry". The mistake many people make is 1) not eating protein with every meal (and contrary to what diet magazines will tell you, a tablespoon of peanut butter isn't a serving of protein) and 2) eating refined carbs -- sugar, white flour, and so on, figuring "if it fits into my WW points it's fine" when these will send your blood sugar reeling. I don't think it's necessary (unless one is lifting large barbells with fair regularity) to eat, as I do, one gram of protein per pound divided into six meals plus the allotted fibrous carbs, starchy carbs and EFAs -- but for a normal sedentary person, at least half that (plus the other macronutrients), and five small "meals" rather than three, is usually a less painful way to diet. And of course, if physically possible, adding in some exercise and some lifting of weights to increase muscle mass and metabolism is never ill advised. couldn't agree more.
  10. Oh yes -- and I just read your original post more carefully, and saw the part about "fast weight loss." Just... don't. As others have pointed out, an Atkins-esque or starvation diet WILL make the weight come off fast, yes. The first time. Or maybe even the second, too. However, many of us who are naturally weight-challenged are also more or less metabolically thrifty as well. Speaking of bodybuilders. Many competitors do drop weight in more or less unhealthy ways every year for shows -- and it works for them. Others do it once, and never again. That's not always because they don't want to -- sometimes, it's because they can't. Me, I lost a hundred pounds the anorexic way a few years back; it was psychologically painful, but quite fast -- and then, after my recovery, I competed in one bodybuilding show. One. Now, I'm carrying about fifteen or twenty more pounds of fat than I would really prefer, thirty pounds over my very lean competition weight (and fifty pounds more than my this-side-of-dead anorectic weight) -- and NO diet strategy works for me. Seriously. None. And after eating disorders plus some years of bodybuilding, believe me, I know diets. My entire adrenal system is more or less unhappy, though not to a clinical level. This is quite common in chronic dieters, particularly women, and particularly those with a history of crash dieting; our systems tend to be more resistant to fat loss in the first place (survival trait). You know this of course, but I just thought I would repeat it. After years of happy, healthy, heedless fat followed by the sudden discovery of thin followed by the apparently irreversible loss of same, I personally find this phenomenon horribly embittering.
  11. Flaxseed has carbs too.... that's what fibre is. But yes, and then they're posting on BB forums moaning that they're constipated and wondering what they can take for it. (I tell 'em Triphala.) Back to your original problem, Anonymouze; you can make your own "diet plan." A diet -- correction, diet is what you eat, whatever -- a diet for weight (or preferably, fat) reduction consists of eating fewer calories than you burn. That's it. If you ARE a bodybuilder or otherwise going for a specific physique goal, then things like the balance of those calories becomes important, but for most people simply seeking to lose, or start losing, pounds, you just have to reduce your calories. Not too much, or you will have the opposite effect; your metabolism may slow and you will feel awful, too. So, if you are that picky, take what you are willing to eat, and do eat, and go to one of the useful sites like Fitday. Track yourself a week or so's worth of meals (honestly! honestly!) and that will give you your maintenance -- what it is taking to keep you at your current weight. Then reduce your daily intake, taking bits off your meals here and there. Many people find it easier to stick to "A Diet Plan" in the short term because it feels special, eating all those special diety foods. (But by the same token, means when they feel they're "done", they go right back to their old habits and regain.) And it is true that certain foods are better for dieting purposes than others, just cos you don't feel like gnawing off your, or your nearest co-worker's, limbs at the earliest opportunity -- whole grains and vegetables and other fibre-containers being notable for that. So if you like any of those things, try slotting them in where you can. But if you can put together a viable plan from what you actually really eat, you probably in fact have a better chance of success.
  12. Really? All the bodybuilding keto diets I've seen/tried have involved plenty of fibrous veggies. It's starchy or sugary vegetables, and fruit, that are left out. The thing is, they darn near have to. If you go low-carb and DON'T eat fibrous vegetables then most people get to a point at which they need a bulldozer to have a bowel movement. (And fibre supplements, I can tell you from hard experience, don't cut it.) You don't have to eat vegetables to diet; it just makes it easier, which is why most plans include them. Large portions of bulky, more-or-less calorically impact-free vegetables are the only things that allow most people to suffer the pain of reduced calories and portions, is all. But if you're willing to suffer real, physical gnawing emptiness as well as actual caloric shortfall, there's no reason you need to chow down on celery and cucumber. Drink lots of water.
  13. I too would like weights of ingredients, for baking at any rate. And notes and thoughts about the recipe (as well as any weird phenomena one can expect at certain midpoints -- "The mixture will look curdled and disgusting" -- are helpful to my cookin' soul. However, I (personally) HATE when a recipe writer says, "No substitutions." In fact, I usually take it as a personal challenge, if I'm interested in the dish at all. Not, mind you, to the point of substituting cornmeal for wholemeal flour ( ) but... I built most of my real cooking skill through fixin' recipes -- to fit my own fat-free thing when I was into that; converting meat dishes to veg for my partner A.; de-allergizing dishes for various sensitive friends. DON'T tell me in that arrogant tone that I can't do something; make a recommendation if you like, or tell me something you tried that HASN'T worked, instead. Also -- divvying out ingredients by stages of the recipe? As in "For cake", "For filling", "For frosting"? Yes, please. Incredibly thoughtful and considerate; ditto with ORDERING ingredients as per recipe use. And if something is divided, for pity's sake, don't just say "divided," especially if it needs to be into precise amounts. List 'em separately.
  14. I haven't made nearly enough recipes from this book, but the ones I have made were fantastic. The Zelten fruitcake is one of my holiday standbys. But I love it most for his style. It's a great read, which is my final criterion for cookbooks. He writes like a hug.
  15. oh yeah -- forgot about The Vegan Chef. She's got a lot of dessert recipes in her archive, too. Tracey, that Post-Punk Kitchen site looks niiiiif-ty! Thanks.
  16. CompassRose

    Cooking Myths

    Speaking of witches, this probably, ultimately, has something to do with them. For some reason, witches (in European superstition, anyway) always have a keen interest in dairy products... stealing your cream, sucking the milk out of your cows, turning your butter. And many of them will either send their familiars to do it, or do it themselves in animal shape (toad, rat, cat, hare). My mother also has told me to stir only in one direction (clockwise) -- but only certain things, a cornstarch pudding, to be exact. Said they don't thicken if stirred in different directions -- which, as I have tested several times since, doesn't appear to be true.
  17. There's an excellent chocolate chip cookie recipe (low in fat even) in the Millennium Restaurant's eponymous cookbook. And that book also has some of the finest vegan cakes I've ever tried, though they are a tad fussy. The Millie has a second cookbook out, too, but I don't own it. (I did see one recipe from it though, also a dessert, something super-decadent with peanut butter.) For good home baking, I highly recommend Bryanna Clark Grogan's cookbooks. She's an obsessive recipe tester, so her material is very reliable. She also regularly posts recipes and answers questions at the Beginners' forum on Vegsource. I've tried a couple of Meredith's recipes, and found them very, ah, virtuous.
  18. Wine. I don't understand wine. I don't hate it, but I'd far rather have the grape juice. I tried, I really did. I bought a few books on wine for beginners, asked my local LCBO for recommendations and drank them with appropriate foods... and still, huh?
  19. Those Lee Valley tins are extremely seductive, but I must warn you that the lids on them are not, as a rule, terribly secure. Nice for storage, not so practical for a purse.
  20. Nothing really very thrilling for me. However, in terms of my personal scale of exoticism, I would have to say that my family's visit to my grandparents' house in Ireland, when I was twelve, rates very highly. They had a big house on acres and acres of land, all divided into garden plots, some of which were kitchen gardens. I remember eating artichokes for the very first time in my life -- freshly picked, with mayonnaise my grandmother made herself. And potatoes -- potatoes with names. Once, my grandfather dug some potatoes and buried them in a fire where he was burning some garden waste; we knocked the charcoal off them as soon as they were cool enough, and ate them right there -- amazing! I also had blood pudding for the first (and last) time there. Not that I didn't like it, but I didn't like it enough to ever again go in search of something with so unappetising a name.
  21. In a week or so you will still have dulce de leche left? From the same jar? Woooow.
  22. I think the only thing even remotely exciting in my fridge at the moment is half a block of Gjetost cheese. Which I am eating in the strict 1-ounce servings mandated by current dietary plan. Mmm, Gjetost.
  23. I thought that's what brownies are supposed to do. That's what makes them so orgasmically dense and fudgy, as opposed to cake, which when done right does not slump. Seriously, I've never had a good brownie, even a purchased brownie, that wasn't all collapsed and crackly on top.
  24. Kashi Crunch. It's not on plan right now... sometimes I have it for a "cheat meal". How pathetic is that? I like Weetabix, with a bit of hot water poured over it so it gets hot and mushy. I only have that at my parents' house, though, since they always have Weetabix in stock.
  25. I've never used a boxed cake mix, ever, except for the one for No Pudge Brownies (which I like, cos I can make one, single brownie if I have a craving). I don't like boxed mixes. That weird sweet taste, the funny kind of noncrumb dissolve-in-the-mouth quality -- bleeeyuch. I tend to like a heartier, European kind of cake, and actually really enjoy my own foolings around with whole-grain cake baking. And I loathe that horrid "buttercream" made of white shortening and sugar more than I can even describe. I do not get the appeal of that stuff, at all.
  • Create New...