Low Carb Freedom

A New Low Carb Cooking Show

I have never read Protein Power, but my blog buddy, Levi, really admires them. His quote from his blog (great stuff):

The Eades are not only coming out with a new book about staying on your low-carb diet for the long-haul, but they are actually going to have their own low-carb cooking show on PBS. I have long thought that their measured, sensible message of eating a diet rich in natural and organic whole foods that are low in carbs is one that the media has ignored because it isn't "exciting" enough. PBS, with their lack of a need to sensationalize everything in order to keep massive audience shares that attract advertizers, may be the perfect place for this kind of message. The Eades approach is also very scientifically based. It delves into our genetic, anthropological and evolutionary history as a species. I believe it appeals more to those who are willing to do a lot of reading themselves and not just accept the dogma foisted upon us by the American Dietetic Association and their minions of registered dieticians spouting the party line of low-fat, despite real proof that that approach results in long-term weight and health gains, while they criticize low-carb for not having similar proof and also for a slew of potential risks which are mere theories and have never been proven or indicated by real-world data. With the ability to explain their compelling experiences as doctors as well as some of the real scientific underpinnings of low-carb in a relaxed time-frame (rather than having to give scintillating sound bytes or doing some high-pressure promotion), it might finally sink into some that this approach deserves some attention.

Based on his recommendation alone, I'm interested in seeing the show. Unfortunately, I checked the link, and while I am in a major metropolitan area, Boston, both PBS stations that I can receive, Boston PBS and the NH PBS, don't seem to be running the show on their regular channels. It is available on HDTV.  I don't have HDTV, and I'm not planning to get it soon.

If someone catches it, please let me know how it was!  The low carb recipes used during the show are available now. I glanced through them and they seem to use a lot of Splenda.

My Favorite Bars -- Go Lower -- And They Are From England!

Update: Andrew from Carbsmart just emailed me to tell me that he now carries these Go Lower bars in the US and they are available on his site (click here to order). These get my highest endorsement!

Folks, for long-time readers, you know that I usually can't abide low carb "bars." Most of them are just filled with maltitol, and I don't know how anyone can stand the consistency let alone the after effects; gas, bloating, etc. I have taken to eating nuts. I let my kids eat the Carbwell Cereal bars because they only have 3g of maltitol, but I wish they had none.

The employees at the Go Lower company from England read my site and said that they had low carb bars that I would like. Even though they currently don't distribute in the US, they kindly sent me some to try. All I can say is, "nirvana!" These things are the absolute best!

To my readers in England, run to try these out! And for those readers in the States, join me in begging them to distribute them over here! The Brits definitely have it over the Americans in the low carb bar department! For adults who are interested in health AND good taste, I haven't seen another product that even comes close.

According to Kevin Dorren of Go Lower Limited, website located at www.golower.co.uk :

We produce a totally natural range of bars (Nut and Seeds) bound with Inulin that are doing really well in UK retailers such as Sainsbury's, Waitrose, Fresh and Wild (part of Wholefoods - the only low carb product they would stock).

For those new readers, inulin and oligofructose are fabulous sweeteners -- and very healthy -- with little or no laxative after effects. Just make sure you drink a glass of water when you eat it, because it is basically fiber. So if you see these weird sounding names on a label, these are the GOOD ingredients to see. Frankly, the inulin and oligofructose makers should create a campaign similar to the Intel Inside campaign used in computers.

There are three flavors of bars: coconut, chocolate, and raspberry (my favorite.)

I was so excited about these bars that I just had to take a picture to let everyone see the texture and the individual whole nuts in this bar! The picture doesn't depict the whole bar because I had already taken a bite and realized I had to let everyone "see" what I was eating. Click on the picture to see a bigger version.

Kids have to like all sorts of nuts to make these a favorite, and, unfortunately, few kids fall into that category. My daughter thought they were OK, son wouldn't even try them.

To me, this is the low carb bar gold standard.  I have to be very careful and buy the single serving pre-packaged nuts or I could go overboard. Nuts do have a lot of calories. This is a way to get my nuts in a more appetizing manner, with fiber, and in a single serving package.

PLEASE distribute these in the US!

	Go Lower Carb Counter Nut Bar
Serving Size	1 bar, 34g
Calories	140
Total Fat	11.5g
Saturated Fat	2.5g
Cholesterol	5mg
Sodium	20mg
Total Carbohydrates	3.7g*
Dietary Fiber	9.3g
Sugar	1g
Other Carbo	2.7g
Protein	5.8g
Ingredients	*Oligofructose Syrup, Brazil Nuts, Whole Almonds, Soya Crispies (Isolated Soy Protein, Tapioca Starch, Salt), Oats, Pumpkin Seeds, Sunflower Seeds, Linseeds, Palm Oil, Freeze Dried Raspberries (1.2%), Flavoring, Emulsifier (Soya Lecithin) * Go Lower is only currently available in England and the nutritional information package rules are different. Fiber is in a separate category (AS IT SHOULD BE!) since it does not have an impact on blood sugar. That is why the total carbohydrates don't add up as it would on an American label.

Update: For those of you with a lingering question about the ingredient palm oil, Whole Foods has a great overview of Palm Oil:

A bad rap in the eighties.
As palm oil gained popularity in the U.S. in the eighties, a campaign was waged against all tropical oils—not by the scientific community or the FDA—but by American manufacturers of hydrogenated vegetable oils. Much of this negative advertising was eventually stopped, by law, but not before it successfully destroyed demand for tropical oils in this country. Ultimately, popular opinion forced U.S. food manufacturers to switch to synthetic hydrogenated oils. These hydrogenated oils are supplied, not surprisingly, by the very same companies who started the campaign against palm oil. While this was a very good deal for hydrogenated-oil manufacturers, it was a bad deal for American consumers—and a bad rap for palm oil. As a result, added palm oil tends to raise a red flag in the minds of consumers who formed strong opinions about it during that era.

Read the whole thing. Bottom line: Palm Oil isn't bad!

Another Update: Allen, a new reader but experienced low carber writes in the comment section:

A question about the Brittish labeling system. Should I read "Total Carbohydrates" as what we would call "Net Carbs"?

My answer? I think so!

Exercise to Get Rid of Visceral Fat

Low carbing doesn't help everything... especially visceral fat, the fat around your organs that is often associated with diabetes and heart disease. Read Laura's post on a medical study and visceral fat.

Frozen and Canned Spinach Better Than Some Fresh

My husband hates, hates, hates frozen vegetables! Well, aha! Now I have some ammunition for the convenience of having some vegetables always available! (Hat tip: Turtleway.)

It seems that the colder the temp for spinach, the longer it retains its folates and caratenoids. Leaving it on the counter is the worst. Canned is even better than "fresh" spinach stored a long time. Read the whole article on how to store spinach.

This is cool: Contact Lenses for Diabetes to Check Blood Sugar Levels

I put a lot of posts about diabetes on this blog because diabetics have to control their carb intake. Well, if I were a diabetic, I would be clamoring for these new contact lenses!

Contact lenses that change their appearance according to the wearer's blood-sugar level could one day help people with diabetes keep track of their levels non-invasively, new research suggests.

Diabetes affects the body's ability to make or use the hormone insulin, which can cause dangerously large swings in levels of blood sugar, or glucose. Currently, most people suffering diabetes monitor their blood sugar by pricking their skin and drawing blood.

Read the whole article on these diabetic contact lenses! An older woman at my church stopped taking guitar lenses because she needed to be able to still take her blood sugar readings and the calluses were interfering! And they can even make them so you don't need a special light to take a reading. What a great way to monitor kids or the elderly!

New Lower Carb Ice Cream Treat from Sam's

I haven't tried these or even found them yet, but Connie, a great Low Carb Freedom Reader is begging all of us to try these. From Connie:

I found a new frozen treat at Sams Club today. A Philly Swirl Stix, came in a box of 40. Sweetened with Splenda, and only 10 calories 0g Fat 4gCarb 10Calories.

Main Ingredients: Water, Sorbitol, erythritol, polydextrose, glycerine, Natural and Artificial Flavorings, *Strawberry Concentrate, *Lemon Concentrate, *Orange Concentrate, pectin, xanthan gum, guar gum, ascorbic acid, sucrulose, acesulfame-K (sweeteners), Red # 40, Yellow # 5 and 6, Blue # 1.

These came in 4 fruity combination flavors and are delicious. You get 40 in a big box. I just got this info on their website - phillyswirl.com - and they say they are on trial at Sam's so how they are received is how they will remain. Please try so we can have these this summer.

Connie

Updated Low Carb Discontinued Product Watch

I have updated the Low Carb Discontinued Product Watch with new information on Low Carb Oreos and Quaker Q-Smart Snack Crisps. Check it out.

New Sugar Substitute On The Way: Shugr

If this sugar substitute product is all that it says it is, then we only have to worry about refined grains in the future.

What would the perfect sweetener be?  It would be natural.  It would taste just like sugar.  It would cook and bake just like sugar.  It would have no calories at all.  And it would be healthy: tooth-friendly and diabetic safe.

Sounds impossible?  Meet Shugr.™

This product hits stores this quarter. I have written about tagatose twice before, which is one of the main ingredients. According to the Shugr site there are two other ingredients: erythritol and polydextrose. I'm not sure how polydextrose stacks up against inulin and oligofructose, which I really like.

I'll be watching this closely and keep you posted as I learn more.

(If they want this product to go mainstream though... I think they should redo their website. Navigation is confusing, you have to go to the bottom rather than clicking on the words on the left that don't do anything; the words just describe the product. Powerful words, but there needs to be a better distinction. Then, if you want to cut and paste some of their copy (which is what they should want you to do, after all they wrote it) -- you can't.)

Red Alert: Lower Sugar Cereals No Better Than High Sugar Cereals

I think I am going to faint! An article about the new kid's "lower sugar" cereals had the following quote:

The reduced-sugar versions of Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes and Froot Loops; General Mills’ Cocoa Puffs and Trix; and Post’s Fruity Pebbles all have the same number of calories per serving.

Blame the calorie woes on crunch. To preserve cereals’ taste and texture, sugar is replaced with other carbs that have the same calories as sugar and are no better for you. (emphasis mine)

That’s also why not even diabetics benefit from these cereals. The body treats all refined carbohydrates the same, whether they are sugars or grains, said Dr. Lilian Cheung of the Harvard School of Public Health.

“The changes don’t buy you anything,” she said. “From a health point of view, I really can’t see the difference.”

Please, take these quotes and put them on the refrigerator! Pass them around the Internet! Write up an article in your school newsletter! Tell your pediatrician to post it in every waiting room and exam room! Tell everyone you know! This is the fundamental point that is lost on most of the populace! By just reducing sugar and keeping or adding carbs, the food is no healthier! And this is what the major food companies are trying to do to hoodwink low carb consumers! Don't fall for it!

My own son got me to fall for this.... once. We bought the 1/2 Sugar Fruity Pebbles as a dessert just on Saturday night. (I never give my kids cereal as a breakfast -- unless it is the Special K low carb.)

And one thing I want perfectly clear. I am not against junk food. If people want to eat junk food, that is just fine. But at least be as clear with nutritional information so people can make that choice with their eyes open. THAT is NOT happening in the US with that new food pyramid (please read the link for a full picture and then come back here.) Notice how the food companies with 1/2 sugar cereal offerings are playing up one of the two half-way decent points but by no means the whole story: One, whole grain is better than refined grain. Two, reduce sugar intake. General Mills moved to whole grain cereals. The other cereal makers cut sugar. I say, so what.

BECAUSE the US Food Pyramid did not state what that nutritionist stated above, the food companies are going to get away with this for another five years until the science is so overwhelming that it cannot be ignored. And if you or your children, if you have any, are susceptible to carbs, and you don't know the true facts, then you are just out of luck.

And this brings me to my next rant. While whole grain is better than refined grain, I look at the whole grain labels and see a minimal amount of fiber in most of these products. The food companies are trying to pull another one over on us, I'm sure. And the federal government is letting them get away with it with that flawed food pyramid. Government-sanctioned cover for selling low cost manufactured foods with a high gross margin that effectively keeps obesity levels high for a good section of the populace. Low carb food is just more expensive to produce.

Furthermore, by giving a one size fits all diet that is not based on an individual's metabolism, genes, and lifestyle, dietitians and doctors are basing those recommendations what they think is the "greatest good for the greatest numbers based on existing science." Forget about the new studies, forget about the individuals. It is the consensus. See! The consensus is there, right there, in the US Food Pyramid, holy writ! As Michael Crichton says:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

And the US food pyramid is the one of the biggest political footballs out there.

Dana Carpender's Common Sense View to "Meat Causes Cancer" Report

A new study comes out that screams, "eating meat causes cancer." Dana Carpender takes apart this study with aplomb:

First, there are many confounding factors in the study, "Meat Consumption and Risk of Colorectal Cancer." People who ate more red meat were less likely to exercise, more likely to smoke, drank more alcohol, ate more calories, were fatter overall, and were less likely to eat fruits and vegetables than people who ate less red meat.

People who ate less red meat were more likely to drink red wine and take a multivitamin, an aspirin or both daily. This accounts for the statement by the study's authors that "the association (between red meat intake and colon cancer) was substantially attenuated with further adjustment (for these factors)." Not surprising, one's overall lifestyle greatly influences cancer risk.

And this is only the first point! Please read the whole thing!