I've read my book , I've hopped the threads , I've scratched my big ol' bald head .

But I can't figure this out. If something is on the "Foods To Enjoy" list, can we eat as much of it as we like? If so, then why do so many of the thread discussions and the sample menus give such strict "servings"? For instance, in the lentil thread, there was discussion that we are "allowed" a 1/2 cup "serving." Are lentils restricted? And what about those quiche cups? Can anyone really live on 2 made according to the recipe? Yes, I know everyone modifies them, so that's not the best example. But you know what I'm getting at?

I know there are many foods that we can have in Phase 1, but in restricted amounts. But that list is fairly short, yes- nuts, sweets, and turkey bacon?

I understand that we should be paying some attention to portion size, because when it comes down to it, a calorie is a calorie and we are in charge of our own weight loss. But I'm just a bit confused, and yes, I feel a bit guilty when I have more of something than the menu suggests. No, I'm not really following the menus at all, but I was using them as a vague model.

Assuage my guilt! I come to you for absolution! I know that's all it is. But it is confusing. And all the guilt over portion sizes is dibilitating. Or at least for me.

TIA

You are forgiven - go and sin no more. Some of the foods have suggested serving sizes because they are calorie dense - nuts, for example. If you want more "foods to enjoy", have a serving of another kind of allowed food. That will fill you up and is also nutritionally sound.

Thanks for asking that question, because I was wondering the same thing

I am trying to go from an Atkins WOE to a SB WOE and I am still very confused. Hope to finish reading the book this weekend. Guess I am doing okay cuz I lost another pound (4 all together since Tuesday!)

I keep remembering that we are to eat "normal" servings and until we are satisfied, not full. Of course it takes a whole lot of peanuts to make me satisfied!!! (OK, I ate three days worth last night after dinner -- there I've confessed!) Anyway, I keep trying to remind myself to eat a normal servings and there is no such thing as "all you can eat."

Well put. I think I'm still struggling with everything. I had tried a very strict diet a few months ago, and part of the reason I couldn't stick with it was the endless measuring and constant hunger!

But I have noticed in the last ten days that my portion sizes have come in line with the recommended servings in the book. No, I didn't really NEED the whole piece of salmon, but I guess it was bothering me that I COULDN'T or somehow SHOULDN'T have it . Now I feel like I can have it if I want it, but I don't really want it! My breakfasts have gotten smaller, yet more satisfying. This is progress, I think.

As I mentioned before, there was a span in my 20's where I lost a lot of weight and kept it off for some time. People asked how. Ok, ok, part of it was that I had my jaw wired shut for surgery (not weight loss). Because it was so difficult to eat, a wonderful thing happened. I realized I didn't NEED to eat all the time. So even after my 6 weeks of closed mouth **** was up, I continued to eat in sensible small portions because I didn't really need anymore. That really lasted for years. Although I did slowly gain, and I wasn't thin in law school, but I was healthy and strong. It has only been in the past year that I've gone back to that eating all the time and eating everything I want thing, and packing on 40 pounds for a variety of reasons, some of which ya'll know, some of which are probably more appropriate for a shrink.

Which reminds me, I'll have to tell ya'll about my narcoleptic shrink on the chat thread.

Wow, that was a ramble. Sorry.

Back to studying now.

Hi Lisa
Well, I am also wobbly about the serving size thing, and the meaning of enjoyment (in so many ways). I see you went to law school - Dr A could do with a legal brain helping with his drafting I think. Iron out some of the vagueness. I used to be a lawyer (now, scarily, I am a shrink, but I hope not usually narcoleptic......... ) and I have a bit of a craving for clarity.

My question is about olive oil. A calorie is, as you say, a calorie. Do I need to be wary of the olive oil? Of course I do. Why am I asking? I dunno. I suppose I want someone else to do it for me. Tell me I can get thin while overeating. Go on........

Hi Clovey!

Yes, you hit the nail on the head- I want someone to tell me I can get thin while overeating!! I suppose on some level, that is what we all want, while we all KNOW that is impossible. So, while we come here for support, we also come for some kind of absolution- to be told that thing we ate is REALLY ok, even though we know deep down it wasn't the BEST choice. I think you know just what I mean.

On that olive oil, at least it isn't transfat margarine, right?

Yep, Dr. A needs a lawyer and/or a better editor!! I get that the diet itself isn't supposed to be super strict, and it is ever-evolving. But, clarity and consistency within a single volume would be nice!!

A lawyer and now a shrink! How'd you make the transition? I know now I really really really don't want to be a lawyer. Not that I'm sorry I went to law school, or anything. I went to a terrific school, well, not terrific for teaching the ins and outs of being a lawyer, but terrific for examining the system of law and how it controls (or not) our world. Sigh. I'd go back and do it all over again in a heart beat. Just please don't make me be a lawyer or take the bar at the end of it! I think I need a career counselor AND a shrink!! Oh, and a personal trainer and nutritionist. Yeah.

Btw- Weren't you just in Boston? Boston is not one of my favorite cities, but I hope you had fun! I see you live near one of my absolute favorites- London. I studied for a year in Glasgow, and took the train down to London as often as possible! Anyway, hope your trip went well and you were able to avoid bad weather and bad carbs!

Hi Lisa
Well, lawyer to psychotherapist is a bit of a jump! I worked in the City being a lawyer for about 8 years, and it was awful. Stressful and not about the principles of law at all. It was about twisting the truth for whoever paid you, and delivering self righteous opinions and helping people to live out the worst side of their character. Usually it was about those things. Occasionally you got a case that was someone really being clear headed about either side of things. But that was rare (two in my career?). So I got increasingly more interested in what psychological drives were pushing people in to litigation and the disputes which led to litigation, and also interested in how people could heal from the stresses of the arguments. And of course became fascinated by my own process - what had led me to become a lawyer and what it had done to me and how and why I was increasingly more interested in heart than head arguments. I did all the usual personal development stuff, especially the transpersonal side, and eventually I just knew that things had to change. So now it is eight years on from that decision and I am very happy. I agree that the theory of law and rights and justice is interesting. But the practice was yukky.

I loved Boston. It felt a bit more like 'home' than New York (which freaks me out a bit....). I am more of a country person than a city person I would say. I did not totally avoid the bad carbs or the bad weather. But I liked the lobster (except the bit where they were in the tank, but I just put myself firmly in blinkered denial about that).

Blinkered denial. Yup. Thats the life for me......!!