Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Weight loss chat

A space to talk openly about weight loss journeys and challenges. Mumsnet hasn't checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. You may wish to speak to a medical professional before starting any diet.

The Pretty Extraordinary Low Carb Diet Thread

999 replies

QueenStromba · 22/02/2012 16:17

A continuation of The Rather Amazing Low Carb Diet Thread.

OP posts:
BIWI · 17/03/2012 11:49

How about Total full fat yoghurt, with some vanilla essence stirred into it? Lovely!

lemniscate · 17/03/2012 11:50

Hazelnuts and a few squares of dark choc - replicate Cadburys Whole Nut?

lemniscate · 17/03/2012 11:52

Sorry for multiple posts! GOML - no recipe in their book, think you just adapt one from any cook book. Delia has a lush one and just checked - no sugar in it!

lemniscate · 17/03/2012 11:52

Add chopped pistachios to the yoghurt/vanilla and it's even nicer Grin

GetOrfMoiiLand · 17/03/2012 11:53

I will give the yog a go - I have steered clear of yoghurts this whole diet because of my muller light debacle when on the dukan diet, but will buy a pot of that Lidl stuff today I think.

I can eat rhubarb can't I?

GetOrfMoiiLand · 17/03/2012 11:54

I will also give that coconut chocolate thing a go (miles upthread).

What do you use again? Is it that vacuum packed block of hard creamed coconut?

BIWI · 17/03/2012 11:55

Yes you can eat rhubarb - it is very low carb. Just don't sweeten it with sugar!

(which also takes us back to the difficult issue of the role of artificial sweeteners....)

I sweeten mine with a very small amount of Splenda. I've bought some PureVia, based on stevia, to try, but haven't used any yet, as I'm still trying to exclude artificial stuff.

lemniscate · 17/03/2012 11:57

Total Greek yoghurt much lusher and lower carb than thin runny yoghurt.

Rhubarb fine, but it really needs sugar so you might need to sweeten with stevia/splenda

On that score, never used either of those - do you just substitute 1:1 for sugar or are they sweeter? Is either lower carb of better tasting than the other?

GetOrfMoiiLand · 17/03/2012 11:57
Grin

I like rhubarb very sour anyway, so won't bother with sugar.

Am I very sad that I am thrilled at the idea of stewed rhubarb?

BIWI · 17/03/2012 11:58

FYI - rhubarb is 0.8g carbs per 100g

GetOrfMoiiLand · 17/03/2012 11:59

Great - so I can eat a kilo of rhubarb.

Then all my toileting problems will be over!

BIWI · 17/03/2012 12:00
Grin
flipflopflap · 17/03/2012 12:02

I know you're right BIWI, I shouldn't have chocolate in the house, especially not around totm. I'm not arsed about sweet things at any other time, so I didn't see it as a threat. I'm going out for a meal tomorrow as well and there probably won't be anything LC, so I thought if I'm having a weekend off I may as well eat what I want, but I know it doesn't work like that Sad

So, back on it today, I've had a LC protein shake and will probably have some sort of salad for lunch. Keeping it as low as possible to try and make amends.

GetOrfMoiiLand · 17/03/2012 12:04

I have never really considered that I have a sweet tooth but since on this diet I have been absolutely fine with avoiding savoury carb such as bread, pasta, crisps, spuds etc. The one thing I really crave is something sweet. Hence the sneaky toffee and bunny ear eating, and feeling that options hot choc was my saviour Hmm.

I hate going to shops at the moment and running the gauntlet of the easter egg aisle.

BIWI · 17/03/2012 12:10

Try ordering online?

GetOrfMoiiLand · 17/03/2012 12:13

But they are everywhere! Every bloody petrol station has them lined up in serried rows on the counter.

I think there is nothing nicer than easter egg chocolate.

londonone · 17/03/2012 13:17

Creamy chicken casserole

celery
shallots
streaky bacon (chopped) or lardons
chicken thighs (either skinless and boneless or with skin and bones)
herbes de provence if you're poncey like me or plain old mixed herbs (dried)
mushrooms
stock chicken or veg
double cream or creme fraiche
parsley

Heat some olive oil in a casserole dish, chop the celery and shallots and fry until softened.
Add the bacon and cook through then remove from the pan.
Put the chicken into the casserole dish, turn the chicken over until sealed on both sides, chuck the veg and onion back in and add the herbs.
Add enough stock to cover (between 1 and 2 pints) and bring to the boil, then simmer gently until chicken is cooked through and falling apart (approx 45 mins for boneless and 1-1.5 hours for bone in.
When chicken is cooked bring to boil to reduce sauce if necessary.
Chuck in mushrooms and parsley and cook for a minute or two then add cream to taste and reduce heat.

Serve with celeriac mustard mash or cauli mash.

I have not put any quantities as you can add as little or as much veg as you want depending how carby you want it to be. For non low carbers like my dh I just cook some baby carrots and chuck them into their portions at the end.

Cheers

BIWI · 17/03/2012 13:20

I have a lovely/relatively low carb pork vindaloo recipe if you want? Can happily type that out for you. (And it doesn't have to be really hot if you prefer a milder curry)

londonone · 17/03/2012 13:22

That sounds good but not too spicy please!! I can do quite but not very spicy!

BIWI · 17/03/2012 13:38

Pork Vindaloo (serves 4)

INGREDIENTS
900g/2lb boned pork, cubed
4 tablespoons vegetable oil
5 garlic cloves, finely chopped
2 onions, chopped (2 onions = roughly 250g = 19.75g carbs)
1 teaspoon ground turmeric
1/2 teaspoon chilli powder
1/2 teaspoon tomato puree
3 tomatoes, chopped (tomatoes - 3.1g carbs per 100g - haven't got any tomatoes to hand to weigh to work out the carb content!)^
3 tablespoons wine vinegar/cider vinegar
salt/pinch of crushed black peppercorns
1 tablespoon chopped coriander leaves for garnish

SPICE PASTE
1 teaspoon cumin seeds
4 cardomom pods
4 cloves
2.5cm/1 inch cinnamon stick
5 black peppercorns
1 green chilli, chopped
2.5 cm/1 inch fresh ginger, chopped
4 garlic cloves, peeled
3 tablespoons lemon juice (3.2gcarbs per 100ml; 3 tablespoons = 45ml = 1.44g carbs)

First, make the spice paste:

  • grind the cumin, cardomom, cloves, cinnamon stick and peppercorns into a fine powder
  • Blend the spice powder with the green chilli, ginger, garlic and lemon juice in a food processor to make a fine paste

(I use a mini blender, which does the trick although I'm not sure it becomes a fine powder or paste in these small quantities)

  • mix the pork with the spice paste in a large bowl, cover, and leave to marinate in a cool place for 1.5 hours (I have left it over night in the fridge, and it was even tastier)

For the curry:

  • heat the oil in a frying pan, add the garlic and saute for 1 minute
  • add the onions and cook until they are golden, stirring occasionally
  • add the turmeric, chilli powder, tomato puree, chopped tomatoes and vinegar and stir well
  • add the marinated pork and salt to taste
  • cook for 10 minutes, stirring occasionally
  • pour in 275ml/9fl oz water and bring to the boil, then reduce the heat and simmer for 30 minutes or so until the meat is cooked through and the sauce is thick
  • add the pinch of black pepper and serve hot, garnished with coriander

I have made this a number of times, and it is lovely - and not too hot (you could obviously add more chilli powder and/or another chilli if you like it hot). I have used different cuts of meat, but fattier pork definitely works best. And the last time I made it, I did it in the slow cooker and it was definitely the best way to do it. Unlike the recipe which calls for a relatively short cooking time, I think any recipe like this benefits for longer, slower cooking. However, if you're using lean pork - e.g. fillet - then definitely go with the shorter cooking time.

This recipe is from "Curry", various authors, published by Dorling Kindersley

londonone · 17/03/2012 13:45

sounds lush - I knew onions were carby but didn't realise they were that bad!

BIWI · 17/03/2012 13:50

yes - but don't forget that's divided by 4, so not too bad.

You could always substitute shallots or leeks, both of which are lower in carbs. (can't find a carb count for shallots, but leeks are 2.9g carbs per 100g)

BIWI · 17/03/2012 13:56

Oh, and I thought it would be timely to post this - taken from www.low-carbdiet.co.uk/

"STALLS -- WHY THE SCALES CAN LIE
A biologist at Berkeley shared something very revealing on the low-carb BBS system about 4 years ago that helps us all through the erratic weight fluctuations you invariably encounter: Fat cells are resilient, stubborn little creatures that do not want to give up their actual cell volume. Over a period of weeks, maybe months of "proper dieting", each of your fat cells may have actually lost a good percentage of the actual fat contained in those cells. But the fat cells themselves, stubborn little guys, replace that lost fat with water to retain their size. That is, instead of shrinking to match the reduced amount of fat in the cell, they stay the same size! Result - you weigh the same, look the same, maybe even gained some scale weight, even though you have actually lost some serious fat.
The good news is that this water replacement is temporary. It's a defensive measure to keep your body from changing too rapidly. It allows the fat cell to counter the rapid change in cell composition, allowing for a slow, gradual reduction in cell size. The problem is, most people are frustrated with their apparent lack of success, assume they have lost nothing, and stop dieting.
However, if you give those fat cells some time, like 4-6 months, and ignore the scale weight fluctuations, your real weight/shape will slowly begin to show. The moral of the story - be patient! Your body is changing even if the number on the scale isn't.

PATTERNS OF WEIGHT LOSS
Common patterns of weight loss from tracking a lot of people who become assimilated into the lowcarb lifestyle (hehe...resistance is futile!) a pattern emerges.... the 2 week induction is pretty heady...weight lost just about every single day, enormous and unbelievable amounts of weight loss are reported. This is often followed by complaints that weight loss "stalls" or that the rate drops to only 1 pound per week.
Many people just don't know that fat-loss ...the actual goal when on a weight-reduction" diet, is rate-limited. In other words, the human body has factors that prevent more than a certain amount of fatty-acid release from storage...and even more factors that prevent those released fatty acids from being used up instead of stored back into the fat cells.
A priority of the human body is survival. Anything that threatens its survival results in the cascade of events to maintain the previous status quo. Water fluctuations are one way the body does this. OK...so you done good on Atkins' during induction...lost 10 pounds the first 2 weeks. Maybe 7 the first week and 3 the second. But, whoa!Weeks 3 and 4 there is NO loss! And weeks 5 and 6 is only 1/2 pound each!
So... what gives? Initially, the body jettisons the water attached to the glycogen stores that we diligently deplete to get into ketosis...this accounts for about 3-5 pounds of water. In addition, muscle stores of glycogen are not being replaced when used...which will account for the rest. All in all...MAYBE 1/2 pound of fat was metabolized during the first week... and MAYBE 1/2 pound of fat was metabolized the 2nd week. Of that 10 initial pounds, only 1 pound was fat and 9 pounds water... The body senses this lack and sirens start shrieking: Warning! Warning! Losing water... new thing...got to get back to the status quo! Brain tells body to produce and release that vasopressin antidiuretic hormone....more water is retained, and no weight loss noticed. Fat loss is still occuring, MAYBE even 2 pounds per week, because ketosis is firmly established and appetite supression is in effect...but water retention is hiding that continuing fat loss. The body is preventing dehydration with this mechanism, and that's a good thing.
From the perspective of the scale, it can be discouraging. Which is why the mantra: Water retention masks fat loss (repeated frequently to oneself ) is helpful. Water retention will mask ongoing fat-loss for as long as the body retains the water. We can combat this by drinking more water...but we aren't going to totally overcome this mechanism during the initial water-loss phase of the Atkins diet. By weeks 5 and 6, things start to get back in balance, and the scale will begin to reflect the true fat-loss...which, as mentioned before is rate-limited. Individuals vary, but max weight loss runs about 2 pounds per week...under extremely optimal conditions... or 1% of body weight (whichever is the lower number).

So don't use the scale as an excuse to undermine your progress. Even when the scale is in a stall, fat loss can be occurring."

BIWI · 17/03/2012 14:11

And this, re daily fluctuations:

"We?ve been told over an over again that daily weighing is unnecessary, yet many of us can?t resist peeking at that number every morning. If you just can?t bring yourself to toss the scale in the trash, you should definitely familiarize yourself with the factors that influence it?s readings. From water retention to glycogen storage and changes in lean body mass, daily weight fluctuations are normal. They are not indicators of your success or failure. Once you understand how these mechanisms work, you can free yourself from the daily battle with the bathroom scale.

Water makes up about 60% of total body mass. Normal fluctuations in the body?s water content can send scale-watchers into a tailspin if they don?t understand what?s happening. Two factors influencing water retention are water consumption and salt intake. Strange as it sounds, the less water you drink, the more of it your body retains. If you are even slightly dehydrated your body will hang onto it?s water supplies with a vengeance, possibly causing the number on the scale to inch upward. The solution is to drink plenty of water.

Excess salt (sodium) can also play a big role in water retention. A single teaspoon of salt contains over 2,000 mg of sodium. Generally, we should only eat between 1,000 and 3,000 mg of sodium a day, so it?s easy to go overboard. Sodium is a sneaky substance. You would expect it to be most highly concentrated in salty chips, nuts, and crackers. However, a food doesn?t have to taste salty to be loaded with sodium. A half cup of instant pudding actually contains nearly four times as much sodium as an ounce of salted nuts, 460 mg in the pudding versus 123 mg in the nuts. The more highly processed a food is, the more likely it is to have a high sodium content. That?s why, when it comes to eating, it?s wise to stick mainly to the basics: fruits, vegetables, lean meat, beans, and whole grains. Be sure to read the labels on canned foods, boxed mixes, and frozen dinners.

Women may also retain several pounds of water prior to menstruation. This is very common and the weight will likely disappear as quickly as it arrives. Pre-menstrual water-weight gain can be minimized by drinking plenty of water, maintaining an exercise program, and keeping high-sodium processed foods to a minimum.

Another factor that can influence the scale is glycogen. Think of glycogen as a fuel tank full of stored carbohydrate. Some glycogen is stored in the liver and some is stored the muscles themselves. This energy reserve weighs more than a pound and it?s packaged with 3-4 pounds of water when it?s stored. Your glycogen supply will shrink during the day if you fail to take in enough carbohydrates. As the glycogen supply shrinks you will experience a small imperceptible increase in appetite and your body will restore this fuel reserve along with it?s associated water. It?s normal to experience glycogen and water weight shifts of up to 2 pounds per day even with no changes in your calorie intake or activity level. These fluctuations have nothing to do with fat loss, although they can make for some unnecessarily dramatic weigh-ins if you?re prone to obsessing over the number on the scale.

Otherwise rational people also tend to forget about the actual weight of the food they eat. For this reason, it?s wise to weigh yourself first thing in the morning before you?ve had anything to eat or drink. Swallowing a bunch of food before you step on the scale is no different than putting a bunch of rocks in your pocket. The 5 pounds that you gain right after a huge dinner is not fat. It?s the actual weight of everything you?ve had to eat and drink. The added weight of the meal will be gone several hours later when you?ve finished digesting it.

Exercise physiologists tell us that in order to store one pound of fat, you need to eat 3,500 calories more than your body is able to burn. In other words, to actually store the above dinner as 5 pounds of fat, it would have to contain a whopping 17,500 calories. This is not likely, in fact it?s not humanly possible. So when the scale goes up 3 or 4 pounds overnight, rest easy, it?s likely to be water, glycogen, and the weight of your dinner. Keep in mind that the 3,500 calorie rule works in reverse also. In order to lose one pound of fat you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in. Generally, it?s only possible to lose 1-2 pounds of fat per week. When you follow a very low calorie diet that causes your weight to drop 10 pounds in 7 days, it?s physically impossible for all of that to be fat. What you?re really losing is water, glycogen, and muscle.

This brings us to the scale?s sneakiest attribute. It doesn?t just weigh fat. It weighs muscle, bone, water, internal organs and all. When you lose "weight," that doesn?t necessarily mean that you?ve lost fat. In fact, the scale has no way of telling you what you?ve lost (or gained). Losing muscle is nothing to celebrate. Muscle is a metabolically active tissue. The more muscle you have the more calories your body burns, even when you?re just sitting around. That?s one reason why a fit, active person is able to eat considerably more food than the dieter who is unwittingly destroying muscle tissue.

Robin Landis, author of "Body Fueling," compares fat and muscles to feathers and gold. One pound of fat is like a big fluffy, lumpy bunch of feathers, and one pound of muscle is small and valuable like a piece of gold. Obviously, you want to lose the dumpy, bulky feathers and keep the sleek beautiful gold. The problem with the scale is that it doesn?t differentiate between the two. It can?t tell you how much of your total body weight is lean tissue and how much is fat. There are several other measuring techniques that can accomplish this, although they vary in convenience, accuracy, and cost. Skin-fold calipers pinch and measure fat folds at various locations on the body, hydrostatic (or underwater) weighing involves exhaling all of the air from your lungs before being lowered into a tank of water, and bioelectrical impedance measures the degree to which your body fat impedes a mild electrical current.

If the thought of being pinched, dunked, or gently zapped just doesn?t appeal to you, don?t worry. The best measurement tool of all turns out to be your very own eyes. How do you look? How do you feel? How do your clothes fit? Are your rings looser? Do your muscles feel firmer? These are the true measurements of success. If you are exercising and eating right, don?t be discouraged by a small gain on the scale. Fluctuations are perfectly normal. Expect them to happen and take them in stride. It?s a matter of mind over scale."

CointreauVersial · 17/03/2012 14:36

Well, I'm back from my work jolly in Brighton. I was fairly well-behaved in the curry restaurant - had some strange duck soup thing for starter, then a whole seabass for main, which was so utterly delicious I didn't even look at the portion of rice on the side. There was, however, a large amount of alcohol consumed during the course of the evening, but I resisted temptation when (at 3am!) someone stumbled into the hotel bar with several bags of chips.

That chicken casserole recipe looks good, londonone, quite kiddy-friendly as well. I happen to have some shallots knocking about in the fridge, but who knew they were lower-carb than onions?

I have some rhubarb to cook up too - I will stew it with some Splenda, then top with some sort of soya/flax/almond crumble creation I think.

Still 9st 4lb, but no matter, I'm within range of my fighting weight.