Low Carb Foods - deja vu???
Recently near my town, a "Low Carb Store" opened. I haven't visited them, but apparently they have a wealth of low-carb products - bars, breads, desserts, etc. I'm sure they'll do well...but this whole low-carb products thing takes me back to the 90's - remember during the non-fat/low-fat/Snackwell's craze? I got caught up in that too - eating Fat-Free Fig Newtons without noticing that there was a mere 10 calorie difference between the fat-free version and the regular version cookie, for example.
We all want to eat healthier, but bottom line losing weight comes down to CALORIES...the 'trick' with low-carb for the most part, IMO, is that many overweight/obese folks eat the majority of their excess calories in simple carb stuff like bread, junk food, etc. Cutting out 'white carbs' results for many people in a drop in calories...KWIM? Anyway, here's the article I wanted to post - thanks to Meg for sending me the link ;) http://www.berkeleywellness.com/html/wl/wlFeatured.html Quote:
|
SF Chocolate
There's a lot of buzz on the message boards about the new SF chocolate that Hershey's has come out with -- you know, the usual "I ate the whole bag -- but it's OK because it's sugar free!" Since my son is diabetic, I wanted to check it out and see if it's something that would work for him. Here's the nutritional facts from the Hershey's web site: http://www.hersheyssugarfree.com/about/regular.html
Nutrition Information HERSHEY'S Sugar Free Chocolate Candy Nutrition Facts Serving Size (40g – 5 pieces) Calories: 170 Calories from Fat: 120 Total Fat: 13g Saturated Fat: 8g Cholesterol: 10mg Sodium: 10mg Carbohydrates: 24g Dietary Fiber: 2g Sugars: 0g Lactitol: 21g Protein: 1g Regular HERSHEY'S Milk Chocolate Nutrition Facts Serving Size (40g) Calories: 210 Calories from Fat: 110 Total Fat: 13g Saturated Fat: 8g Cholesterol: 10mg Sodium: 10mg Carbohydrates: 23g Dietary Fiber: 1g Sugars: 20g Protein: 3g There's really not much difference between the two. Needless to say, I didn't buy the SF chocolate! :lol: MrsJim -- I think you're right that these new low-carb and SF products are going to end up doing just what the low-fat craze of the 90s did -- making us fatter! Yep, at the end of the day, it's all about calories in vs. calories out. |
Now now - before you get all worked up - perhaps you should check out some research -
http://my.webmd.com/content/article/...tselectedguid={5FE84E90-BC77-4056-A91C-9531713CA348} Of course, calories matter, but I argue that it's more about proper nutrition. A suger free chocolate one in a while is nice, but it still has little or no nutritional value. If you eat things high in nutrients and cut back on the carbs, it's extremely effective! |
There have been a lot of studies lately comparing different diets, that have shown that it doesn't matter if you follow low carb or low fat, or whatever, that in the end, you only lose weight if you cut the calories and increase activity.
We are products of the media. Manufacturers are grabbing onto the low carb craze the way they did with low fat. However, it's a lot easier to charge so much more for low carb foods. Why sell a loaf of bread for $1.79 when you can get 8 or 9 bucks for it? Everyone is cashing in. The bread industry has been upset due to lack of sales lately, and so now they are getting in on the low-carb bread business. Are they thinking of our health? No, they are trying to recoup their losses. It's all about big business and $$$. Everywhere you look, you find low carb products for sale. The flip side of this is that it becomes ingrained in our minds. We assume that since everyone is selling it, and it cost so darned much, that it MUST be the only way to go. People that have diagnosed health conditions such as insulin resistance, or that have had wls may need to pay more attention to carbs and gi. The rest of us need to pay attention to overall diet and exercise to lose weight. What about all the people that have lost weight over the years before low-carb became the fashionable thing to do? I'm not saying low-carb is bad or should be avoided, so please don't anyone send me hate mail :) I'm just saying that I feel that too much emphasis has been placed on it, and we have been manipulated by the manufacturers into spending too much money on something that probably isn't any better for us than "regular" food -- at least regarding weight loss. A diet, any diet, only works if you follow it. Choose a diet because it fits your lifestyle and contains a selection and quantity of food that you know you will be satisfied, so you will stick to it. If it's low carb, then great! If it's low fat, WW, etc, then that's great too. Diets are like religion and politics. Everyone has an opinion. Some of you may agree with mine, while others of you may be searching for a voodoo doll :p Meg, I actually did eat a whole bag of those sugar free chocolates! (the bags are small, btw) All I can say is that for the next 24 hours, it was a damned good thing I live alone!! The next time I get a craving for chocolate candy, I'll eat one real piece. |
Star Princess — nice to meet you :) and congratulations on your weight loss.
I think you may have misunderstood what MrsJim and I are saying. Let me back up and tell you a little bit about us and perhaps you’ll see we’re all on the same page when it comes to calories and nutrition. :) Karen and I have both lost well over 100 pounds and are successfully maintaining our losses — Karen for more than 13 years and me for (only) 18 months. We’re both members of the Ladies Who Lift here at 3FC and are avid bodybuilders. A huge part of the bodybuilding lifestyle is the emphasis on what we call “clean nutrition”: minimally processed, nutrient-dense food consisting of complex carbs, lean protein and good fats. So you see, we’re both acutely aware of the impact that different foods have on our fat loss and overall health. I would never tell you that “a calorie is a calorie” — of course there’s a world of difference between eating 1200 calories of processed junk food (donuts, say) a day and 1200 calories of clean food. But the point we were trying to make is that a lot of crap is being marketed today as low-carb with the message that buying and eating it will help you lose weight. But in fact it’s often just processed junk food, tarted up as “low-carb”, that no one should eat — low-carb dieter or not. Too many gullible people are looking for a quick weight loss and buying up any product that’s labeled as “low-carb” because they think it’s diet-friendly and they can eat unlimited quantities of it, exactly like the low-fat craze of the 90s. So I completely agree with you that calories count and nutrition matters. Believe me, that’s how both MrsJim and I have managed to lose and keep off the weight! The purpose of our posts wasn't to cast any aspersions on the low-carb lifestyle; it was to point out that the giant food conglomerates are using the “low-carb” bandwagon to market junk to us and make big bucks for themselves. That’s all. :) |
StarPrincess - I think you might be missing the point?
Star Princess - curious - did you actually read the article posted? REALLY read it?
Suzanne was right on the mark with 'where I was going' with this. As I stated - this same thing happened in the 1990's with the 'Snackwells Phenomenon'. All of a sudden, every aisle in the supermarket seemed to burst with low-fat and no-fat products - that were still almost as high, if not AS high or higher, in calories than the 'regular' products, only much more expensive. Now, as Suzanne stated, the food companies are once again seeing a golden opportunity to make $$. And in my own personal experience - bottom line - it's calories that count in the long run. I didn't say anything AGAINST low-carb dieting (despite what I've read today in the thread in the Low-Carb forum titled "Buyer Beware??") - hey, if that's what works for you, then go for it - I myself have zig-zagged between low-carb days and high-carb days in the past (kept the protein grams and green low-calorie veggies constant and swung my intake of starchy carbs - i.e. oatmeal, yams, etc) up and down over the course of a week. If you read the article again - carefully - you might note that The UC Berkeley Wellness Letter is NOT bashing low-carb either. Just my two cents... |
Just can't keep my trap shut...
I was reading that article that StarPrincess linked to and the last paragraph caught my eye...
Quote:
You can find the NWCR's site here: http://www.lifespan.org/services/bmed/wt_loss/nwcr/ |
The National Weight Control Registry
Hey! I'm one of the study participants! :D
|
MrsJim - I mostly agree with you. And I always enjoy reading your posts - you have a ton of valuable knowledge and experience. And I think that a lot of companies are jumping on the low-carb bandwagon to try and make a buck. But I don't have to buy the stuff. And I generally don't. I can promise you that I'd never consider eating an entire bag of low carb chocolate. That's just not sensible eating.
I think that the people who are successful maintaining this kind of a eating lifestyle (maybe any?) are the ones who find the healthy balance for their own bodies. For me, that's lower in carbs. And when I'm maintaining, the carbs I eat will be chosen carefully. Not thrown away on sugar and white flour and a bunch of stuff that we all know isn't good for us anyway. I just found it interesting that there is some amount of evidence that it's not just about counting calories. |
Do I even want to go here?
What a bunch of ladies I respect and admire! :D
I have to humbly agree with everything said, but now add my own 2 cents. :D My problems with eating have never had anything to do with what was in them, it was how they tasted. The sweeter the better. That the food industry (which I belong too :lol: ) would come up with a way to market or replace sweet foods with sweet food that are made of a different thing doesn't suprise me at all. Supply and demand. It all comes down to turning a buck. AND THE DIET INDUSTRY/FOOD INDUSTRY don't give a CRAP about ME the PERSON! Anyway if its sweet its sweet and then its off to the races kids. I could end up in a depleted pile in the corner gorged on sugar-free, carb-free, low-fat whatever. Food no matter whats in it can be abused. So here I sit sugar-free and not a substitution in sight, because when push comes to shove for my mouth sweet is what matters. Off the point? Probably! ;) Miss Chris |
The interesting thing about the low carb phenomenon for me is that Atkins has been around for years, but it isn't until a study came out that said it wasn't all that bad that businesses began jumping on the bandwagon.
I was in TGIF's this past weekend and the whole front of the menu was dedicated to low carb and Atkin's friendly meals. I thought at the time "Gee, I never saw them do this for Weight Watchers!" ;) And it's because it's the new marketing craze. In my WW meeting, my leader said she had bought a loaf low carb bread, thinking to see what it was like. She paid over $4 for a loaf of bread that she said tasted like cardboard, and wished she had stuck with their light brand, since it was cheaper and tasted far better. But I wonder how many people will buy it, thinking that since it carries a low carb monniker, that it is good for them. And I wonder how long this fad will last. Any bets? ;) elaine |
Well ... low fat's been around for about 10 years ... so let's see how long this lasts.
Thing is ... in the olden days, most diets restricted carbs, particularly starch. The standard diner "diet plate" was a hamburger, a scoop of cottage cheese, lettuce tomato and sometimes a slice of pineapple (under the cottage cheese). No bread!! The first time I did WW, it was the the early 70s ... the basic daily plan included 2 pieces of bread (no rice, cereal or crackers!), 1 serving (1/2 cup) of "limitted veggies" (peas, greenbeans, and others but NO potatoes, no corn), three fruits, 2 milks and although it was limited, the portions of meat/fish/poultry were quite large and of course "unlimitted, 'free' veggies'. It's interesting to see how trends change. |
Quote:
I well remember those "dieter's special" plates too - as a kid growing up (my parents started me on dieting when I was 7 - I might have been 10 lbs overweight at the time) that would typically be what I 'got' to order when the family ate out at 'family style' restaurants - hamburger patty, tomato slices and a scoop of cottage cheese. I don't recall the pineapple but it's been a looong time... :lol: And I have a little book somewhere titled "They Lost Two Tons" put out by Weight Watchers Magazine (they used to sell it at meetings in the early 70's, or so I've been told). The book consists of success stories from the 1960's WW magazine...and back then YUP it was a restrictive, high-protein diet (especially compared with today when pretty much everything is allowed - I was a WW member in my pre-teen years and remember the excitement when peanut butter and hot-air popped corn were included in the "Legal" list). A couple of stories talk of eating 5 hot dogs at a meal! But no bread - bread was strictly "illegal" (remember when they had "Legal" and "Illegal" foods?). Restaurants today offering low-carb meals: Well, actually if you think about it, that's pretty easy for them - TGIF's, Red Robin, etc. all have menus heavily based on meat - all they need to do is omit the potato and bread, so it's not like they're going out of their WAY or anything to accomodate low-carb/Atkins dieters. Low-Fat/Non-Fat products: Oh yup, they're still out there - people still buy them...but I remember the days in the mid-90's when Safeway couldn't KEEP the Snackwells Devils Food Cookie Cakes on the shelves...I don't think they sell a third of what they used to, volume-wise, but Nabisco and the other manufacturers put so much money in the product line (according to "Losing It" by Laura Fraser, a special assembly line had to be built to accomodate the Devil's Food Cookie Cakes, which have to be air-dried because of their lack of fat) and made such tremendous profits the first few years, I'm sure there's still a market for them somewhere. My local Safeway still gives a significant amount of shelf space to the reduced-fat cookies and products such as cheese, etc - but the low-carb stuff has its own section right now and of course is at a premium price as the article above states. |
The thing that makes me laugh most about this is that it's missing the whole point.
For me , Atkins isn't an option. I have kidney problems and my Dr basically told me there was no weight loss greater than dialysis so If I wanted to lose a lot of weight by all means go on Atkins. HOWEVEr I know it works for some people an that's great. But the thing that makes me laugh is that Low Carb/Controlled Carb diets at THEIR BEST tell you that the reason why you are getting big is that you are eating too many refined carbs and sugars and so on. Which is sound nutritional sense, but what does the "industry" do...create refined "low carb " foods. Which defeats the purpose of a diet like South Beach . |
Megan - you're right on :) The food industry is doing exactly what they did back in the 1990's - they are cashing in on a popular diet. Of course, that's capitalism for you - I'm not going to act like they're the BAD GUYS here but it behooves all of us to be aware and informed consumers.
The big buzz right now seems to be the Subway "Atkins Approved" wraps. I haven't tried it yet (and I doubt if I ever will), but looking at the Subway nutritional info, IMO it has WAY too many calories...almost 500 which I think is the same as a Big Mac and half the calories are from fat...again, I think with all these lo-carb products coming on the market, people who are doing low-carb need to be VERY CAREFUL. The food industry, which includes the Atkins Company, is cashing in on the current popularity of low-carb just as they did in the 1990's with low-fat. The thing is, even if you eat only low-carb foods, bottom line you can still get fat if you eat too much. Interesting article from MSNBC.com: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3979332/ Quote:
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:53 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.