Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    

One concern with the higher temps other than shorter cooking times is that
the liquids simmer/boil more vigorously.  Will this change the
flavors?
  

    
According to a few resource books I own, the low temp on a slow cooker
is approximately 200 degrees, and the high is about 300 degrees.
Obviously, I think this could vary according to make/model, etc. On the
high temp, the liquid will boil, but it should not atthe low setting.
Also, on the high setting, you may sometimes need to add more liquid,
but in our experience this is rare, since the higher temp setting
automatically means a shorter cooking time. 

In general, cooking on the high temp setting means the food will cook
twice as fast as it does at low. So, it it's supposed to cook 10 hours
on low, it will probably be done in 5 hours on high--this is a
guideline and foods should be tested for doneness, of course.
  

    

IIRC the rival rep said that low was around 225-235 with the new element.
  

    
And this is supposed to be a permanent change for Rival rather than
something they plan to change back for future units?
  

    

The rep said something to the effect of "we are talking to our
supplier/manufacturer".
  

    
How bizarre that slow cookers were "improved" to cook faster. Good lord!

  *********

I'm curious about how you two see low-carbing in your lives. I mean, do you
think of it as something you're doing for a while? That you'll go back to
garlic mashed potatoes, fettuccini alfredo and ciabatta at some point? Or is
this a food program you expect to be on for life? 
  

    
For me low carb has two purposes:  losing weight and maintaining
weight loss.  I have a fair amount of weight to lose, so I break up my
eating routine with "lose weight mode" which is very strict and
"maintain mode" which is much more flexible.  Regardless, I like how I
feel while doing low carb and I love the food that I can eat with out
the guilt (avacados, cream in my coffee, almonds).

With all of this said, I teach culinary arts part-time and that job by
its very nature requires tasting.  My work can definitely hinder
progress.  I am looking forward to a summer free of temptation.  I do
not deny myself any foods I love, I just eat them much less and more
consciously.  If I know that I am going to have carbs, they are
typically "good" carbs and I plan them for the morning.  I am not a big
processed foods junkie (except for diet soda) so the carbs that I eat
are typically whole grains breads, brown rice and fruit.  I have not
missed pasta which was a big shock and I have learned to love
vegetables much more.  I also have the benefit of living on the ocean
so we have a great supply of delicious seafood.  My diet on low-carb is
very healthy. but I do listen to food yearnings and I answer them in
moderation.

I also know that exercise is key not only to weightloss but also to
general well being.  Recently I have been skipping my regular work outs
because of lack of time.  I NEED to get back into exercise mode. 
Every person needs to experiment and find what works for him/her.
  

    
FYI - I have to be away from the office for two days to attend a
funeral.  I will check into our topic on Saturday PM.  Thanks in
advance for your understanding.
  

    
Our prayers go with you Kim. Thanks for the time you've spent with
us...
  

    
I'll still be here, in Kim's absence. 

Back to topic: I look at low-carbing through two sets of "eyes." One
being as a dietitian, where I'm frequently placed in a position of
defending low carb dieting. In this position, I often tell people that
I see low-carbing as a means to an end for most people. In other words,
I truly believe that for some people this is the best weight loss diet
they'll ever follow if they give it a chance. That being said, I know
there are nutritional concerns about it (very real ones), but that as a
weight loss program that won't continue for a lifetime, I think it's
great--effective, easy to follow, etc. The science definitely needs to
catch up as far as the health implications of following a low-carb diet
long-term. I'm comfortable with the science on the short term (weight
loss) .

As a low-carber myself, I don't see it ONLY as a means to an end. The
way I feel when I'm following a low carb program is enough to convince
me that, in some shape or form, it's a diet I'll continue to follow
long-term. Not to say that I'll never eat bread again (or pasta,
cupcakes, pizza, etc.), but that most likely I'll be quite conscious of
my carb intake for the rest of my life, and certainly not eat the
carb-heavy diet that I used to. 

I think that's one of the great things about a low-carb diet: you can
use it just for weight loss, if that's you sole goal, or you can use a
modified plan that's a bit more lenient if you plan to stick with it
for the long haul. 
  

    
one of the reasons I hadn't come to this topic before, despite my love and
frequent use of my crock pot, is that from experience, I know that a low-
carb diet is NOT a great thing if you're not going to continue for a
lifetime. Though I can attest to its effectiveness if you do continue (which
I, obviously, did not).

That said, and my LC-bias aside, I'd like to get your book, since I realize
that other than the potatoes and beans I use in certain stews, a great deal
of what I currently do in my crock pot still qualifies as LC. Always looking
for a new meal or three to add to the repretoire.
  

    
Am wondering why you say it's not a good thing if you're not going to
continue it forever? In what way?
  

    
In my case, my husband, and a few other people we know - we all did
Atkins in the late 90's. Personally, I stopped (after losing 35 pounds)
because my cholesterol level shot way up (though interestingly, my
triglyceride level went down) - in the high 300's. I not only gained back
every ounce I lost, but gained it all back pretty much all in my mid-
section, so I looked, and felt, much worse than had I not started at all.

My husband, and friends, all had basically the same result after adding
carbs back to their regular diets.

So while I will never argue that it is a great way to lose weight, I don't
believe that weight will stay off after going back to a "regular" diet. Have
not seen it happen.
  

    
Kitty...

I think a log of us would be curious to get your take on this. I know
it's a pretty popular scenario. I know several people who report
gaining the weight back at a rapid rate... of course these are people
who pretty much went back to their old eating habits in total.

The program I've worked out of, recommended to me by my friends here
ont the Well, is Protein Power. It, as I believe most programs do,
calls for a gradual return to "some" carbs and to a number of carbs you
can tolerate without gaining weight. It does NOT allow for a return to
previous eating habits.

Your thoughts?
  

    
If the previous eating habits are what got you overweight in the first
place...well, it stands to reason that you can't ever blithely go back
to them.

My take on the "rapid regain of weight" problem, and this is strictly
speaking as a mouthy layperson with some semi-educated guesses, is that
it probably does not happen "because of" low-carbing.  I think the
biochemical reasons for it are probably laid down when you gain the
weight in the first place - that some things, like various hormone
imbalances/resistances and the tendency to over-release insulin when
you eat a lot of carbs, are *caused* when you gain weight on a
high-carb, high-cal diet, and that maybe you can't wipe that slate
clean even if you lose the weight.  Maybe you can correct insulin
resistance in part or entirely, but you can't correct the tendency to
release too much insulin in the presence of certain dietary factors, so
it's forever easier for you to get hyperinsulinemic in the future. 
But I don't really know, and I don't think anyone does for sure.

There also isn't, of course, any good research comparing weight loss
maintenance when the weight was lost via low-carbing versus lost on an
ordinary low-calorie diet.  All we know is that weight loss is hard to
maintain, full stop.

I'm certainly of the camp that feels so much better on fewer carbs
than I did on a low-fat carb-centered diet that I feel absolutely no
desire to go back to such a diet.  But I'm also keenly aware that
different bodies respond differently to different diets.  There is so
much diversity among low-carb diets, though - it's really not all about
Atkins, I have a full shelf of books about different stripes of
low-carbing - that there is probably a low-carb, or controlled-carb,
diet out there for just about anyone, whether they want to stick with
it for life or not.

If low-carbing does anything for the dietary habits of most Americans,
I sincerely hope it will make people a lot more critical about refined
foods and added sugars (which practically got a free pass during the
height of the low-fat craze), and large portions of starchy stuff.  I
think the extremes of the low-fat movement did a lot of harm when they
encouraged such carb-heavy diets.
  

    

>I'm certainly of the camp that feels so much better on fewer carbs
>than I did on a low-fat carb-centered diet that I feel absolutely no
>desire to go back to such a diet.

I'm a resident at the same camp.  I'm also starting to formulate an
hypothesis about this that I haven't encountered elsewhere.  And while
I probably ought to do this in lowcarb, this is where I am right now.

Some background: I went to visit my brother last week, to catch some
spring training games, do some fishing, smoke some cigars, and maybe
loosen up a little with the discipline.

I've been lowcarbing since July, have dropped fifty pounds, and feel
great.  I don't really crave carby foods, and I don't feel deprived. 
To address an earlier point, lowcarbing is not a "diet" in the sense of
a temporary eating regimen to lose weight that you can then abandon
once you hit your target.  It's more of a lifestyle change, like
quitting smoking or practicing meditation.  You do it -- or don't --
based on whether it conforms to your ideal of a life well lived.  It
works for me.

But me and my brother, well, we grew up in mid-Missouri.  We have
shared comfort foods.  I indulged.  Mostly, this came in the form of
fried potatoes or chicken fried steak with biscuits and gravy.  As it
happens, the road from Chico to Phoenix is littered with places
claiming to make the best of all of the above.  I tried not to have
fried potatoes in the same meal with the biscuits and gravy, but that
was pretty much the extent of my restraint.  I had buns with my
hamburgers, as well.  Sinner, thy name is axon.

Anyway, when I got home my ring was tight and I felt fatter.  So the
day after I got back I scrupulously adhered to the cult rules, and on
the following morning I weighed myself.  Still at -50.  Huh.

That was a week ago tomorrow, and having maintained a rigorous
carb-controlled existence, I've been checking the scale every morning. 
Here's an interesting thing; I've lost another five pounds.

My hypothesis, then, circles around the idea that having a low-carb
diet will result in weight loss, but eventually the loss tapers off and
you hit a plateau.  Continuing to low-carb keeps it off, but it
doesn't keep coming off.  But I think that changing from a somewhat
carb-enriched diet to low-carb triggers whatever lipid-scavenging
mechanism that burns off the excess adipose, and that a little
backsliding, if followed by renewed rigor, can rejumpstart the weight
loss process.  If so, it may be that occasional brief vacations into
apostasy, followed by an abstemious recommitment, may actually be
better in the long run than grim calvinist fidelity to the lowcarb
dogma.

When I hit another plateau, as I'm certain I will, I'll try it again
and report back.
  

    
That's wild Ax. I've been thinking th same thing for the last couple
of weeks. I go off maybe one in every ten days. I almost ALWAYS feel an
increased weight loss, much like what you describe, after going back
on.

I too have wondered if there isn't something in the adding a few carbs
back in the jump starts the process again. Hadn't said anything 'cause
I was afraid I was just making it up.
  

    
my prior "regular" eating habits were, and are, not bad at all. I eat a
balanced mix, don't overeat, don't oversnack. I had a 19lb. weightgain frojm
quitting cigarettes in 1985, and 3 pregnancies that all left me with more
than I started with. So, at least in my own case, it was not eating habits
that got me where I was in the first place.
  

    
Axon, that sounds just like what Dr. Atkins calls the "reversal diet"
- going high carb for a short while in order to kick start weight loss.
 It's a well known "stall breaker" tactic among low-carbers - though
of course like any other stall breaker, it doesn't always work.

 >>>So, at least in my own case, it was not eating habits
that got me where I was in the first place.

I really don't mean to sound snippy here, but weight gain still
results from eating, right? 

If your eating habits didn't change over time, but your weight did,
then it just means your body changed.  In that case, the eating habits
need to change too.

Believe me, I'm not trying to sound self-righteous here.  I am still
significantly overweight myself, despite the losses I've achieved and
maintained.  But I know all too well that what you can get away with,
diet-wise, changes over time.
  

    
And, I hasten to add, I am also intimately familiar with the
difficulty of losing the weight, once gained.  It's a very different
situation from *preventing* weight gain, and may well call for a very
different dietary strategy.
  

    
I related very much to what's been said in the last several posts.  I
was never [significantly] overweight until my late 30s.  Once I got
fat, I did various diets and found that in the short term, they all
worked for me.  The problem was, once I felt like I was "there" and had
everything under control, I would quickly gain back the weight - and
often *then* some.  In my adulthood, my weight has fluctuated between
180# and 338# (I'm 6'1").  After a few episodes of that, I resolved
that I would never again "diet" unless I was willing to make those
changes permanent - for the rest of my life.  The low carb approach is
something I can live with permanently.  Your mileage may vary.
  

    
Kitty, can you tell us something of the new book? 
  

    
Wow, what great discussions. I really do want to touch on a few things
that werre said previously, by various folks. 

First, some seem to take issue with my usage of the term "diet" when
referring to low-carbing. It's sheer laziness on  my part, but is also
the way most people describe a low-carb regimen, lifestyle, whatever
you want to call it. 

Second, many of you seem to discourage my using a low-carb "diet" as a
suggestion for someone to lose an intial amount of weight, and then
stop using once they reach their weight loss goal. I find that
interesting. As a dietitian, we are constantly trying to find "sexy"
ways to get people to eat less, exercise more and generally put some
balance back into their diets. Currently, given the public's /media's
interest in low-carbing, I think using the low carb plan that way is
perfectly justified, as it will help immediately bring down weight for
many people (not all).

 I know a dietitian in Chicago who was practically tarred and
feathered for suggesting this same thing when speaking to a group of
fellow dietitians. As a group, "we" tend to stick to our "everything in
moderation" mantra and close our minds to any other possibilties--even
if it will help our clients. It's a shame. Anyway, she's the one who
got me started exploring low carb in the first place, and I thank her
for that. If an on-again, off-again low carb diet is what it takes to
get someone to drop pounds that are clearly harmful to his/her health,
then I'm all for it. As I said, a means to an end. I'm not saying it's
ideal, and that repercussions won't ensue when one goes "back" to
eating the old way, but it *is* effective for relatively quick and
painless weight loss, as most of will attest. Incidentally, a dietitian
who suggests such an approach would obviously be consulting regularly
with the client, and throughout the plan would monitor progress, as
well as "train" the person on which carbs would be appropriate to add
back, and in what amounts when the strict low-carb diet plan ends. With
that, one would expect less weight to be regained (if any at all), and
that the individual would then have learned how to eat more
healthfully overall. 

Third, the phenom of adding carbs back (naughty?!) and then going back
to low carb and seeing renewed loss is very interesting to me. I must
admit that I didn't know that to be something that many low-carbers
were aware of, but I  have also found that to be true. I'm going
through it right now, and it's most pleasurable in all ways. I also
think we must look at exercise in that equation as well. For me, once
I"ve decided to go back on a strict low-carb plan, I also up my
exercise in some way, which I'm sure helps all around. 

Finally, I think that the way we may see low-carbing to shake out for
long term use by many folks is something I call a "lower-carb" diet
(and not just in the weight loss sense of the word, but in the more
generic use of the word). I"ve encountered some resistance among people
(when talking to groups) to follow a strict low-carb diet, even for
just 2 weeks or so. In my mind, that's fine. It's not for everyone.
However, I do think it behooves most people to examine their carb
intake, both in quantity and quality, and make adjustments, whicih in
most cases means cutting down on total carbs, hence a lower-carb diet.
I'm fairly certain that most people would still realize some of the
benefits of a low-carb diet even if they only decreased their carbs by
half or so, and increased their protein. I  don't know of anyone who
has done that type of study exactly.
  

    
Wow, guess I was a tad long-winded in that last message; sorry!

As for the new book (books, in my case), one should be out next fall
(desserts) and the other, written with Kim again, will be out early
next year. We're almost done with recipe development on that one, as I
am with the dessert one. Things are progressing smoothly. The dessert
one will be publshed by Marlowe again, the other one by Chronicle.
  

    

>I think that the way we may see low-carbing to shake out for
>long term use by many folks is something I call a "lower-carb" diet

Exactly.  The problem, as I see it, is the a priori assumption on the
part of the vast overwhelming majority, reinforced by generations of
frugal economics, to *always* include a substantial starch course in
every meal.  Toast and potatoes with breakfast, bread on sandwiches,
fries or chips with them, for lunch (hey, and *supersize* that!), and
potatoes, pasta, or rice with the meat course at dinner.  Always.  This
is normative behavior, and as we are learning, it's pathogenetic.

A low-carb regimen to quickly lose weight is obviously successful, but
as many skeptics ask, what then?  For me, and I believe a lot of
low-carbers, once one gets past the initial cravings created at the
early segment of the induction phase, it means not going back to
including a default starch course in every meal.  I think it means
occasionally enjoying someone's special potatoes au gratin, a
rice-stuffed chicken supreme, or a side of pasta with veal parmesan,
without a significant impact on weight gain or glycemic artifacts.  I
think one could include a cupcake, or a full-bodied beer, or some
holiday fudge, without suddenly blimping out.  And, as I am
discovering, renewed fidelity to the lower-carb plan is rewarded with
renewed weight loss.

But what cannot happen successfully is returning to always eating hash
browns and biscuits and fries and shakes.  It also means you can't
make pasta the centerpiece of the evening meal five nights a week, as
many (guilty as charged your honor) did during the "fat bad carbs good"
trend that turned out so lamentably toxic for so many people.  If this
is the dieter's strategy -- lose a bunch of weight and go back to the
same bad habits that caused the obesity in the first place -- he is
doomed to failure.

One thing that has to be considered is that the food industry is very
aggressively responding with lower-carb foods in familiar form factors.
 Safeway, of all people, has its own house brand of low carb sandwich
bread that'a actually not bad for sandwiches.  (And their strategy,
according to the local store manager is not to make money on the bread
product, but to get lowcarbers to start buying their high-margin deli
meats again; and it's working).  It is becoming a lot easier to have a
mroe or less normalized menu without the carb count.  I know when I
started this plan it was tough finding enough variety and options; now
it's much easier, and will probably improve further.

>one should be out next fall (desserts)

Perhaps you should use the participants in this discussion as test
subjects for the recipes to be included.  Alternatively, maybe you
could just try them out on me.  :-)