Help!

[Slapshot]

Ok, I'll play lawyer here. How about we all agree to say "bars and/or shakes" from now on?

[theredhead]

How about making some of your own treats. Linda Sue has some wonderful recipes here. The ones marked with an * are induction-friendly. I love protein shakes and make my own from scratch. That way, I KNOW what's in them.
Linda's Low Carb Menus & Recipes - Home

[LCer09]

Originally Posted by Georgiana

Maybe fewer people experience a stall in their weight loss from shakes than from bars because of those sugar alcohols missing, but many are still stalled by ingredients that are in the shakes. If this had not be the case, then Atkins Nutritionals would not have set a limit of 2 per day for both the bars and the shakes and instead they would have said you can eat only 2 bars, but 3 shakes.

Ketostix. Many people do not drink enough water at the beginning of their Atkins and then their ketostix may turn dark purple. This is why we remind people that dark ketostix are often a sign of dehydration and we tell them to make sure they drink enough water. Also, many people get very excited from seeing purple thinking "OMG, look how purple this is!!! I'll lose a bunch of weight in 2 weeks!", when in reality the color registered on the stix may have nothing to do with the results one sees at the end of the 2 weeks---you can have dark ketostix from eating butter all day or you can artificially darken the color by consuming coconut oil or other short- and medium-chain triglycerides.

Personally I don't give a whit what Atkins Nutritionals tells me to do. I mean, they limit the amount of Atkins bread one can eat during induction as well... kinda proving they are full of it. But reading the label on a shake (googled, I haven't had one in years) there really isn't much there to shake in one's boots over. The difference between the shakes and bars is staggering. So I'll have to stand by saying that they really shouldn't be considered even remotley similar.

I realize the intent. But like I said, I've been on a lot of these boards for a long time. And if I had a nickel for every time "My ketosticks turned purple!" was answered with "That means you're dehydrated!! (not might be, but ARE) ... well, add a nickle for every time the poor shakes are lumped in with the bars, and I'd have a giant pile of nickles. I understand it's all about good intentions. But even here, on the maitainance boards, moderators will be talking about the NEED for more "good carbs"... which is odd, since there isn't a single essential carbohydrate in existance. But... well, if everybody says it, it must be true!

[not2late]

Originally Posted by LCer09

Personally I don't give a whit what Atkins Nutritionals tells me to do. I mean, they limit the amount of Atkins bread one can eat during induction as well... kinda proving they are full of it.

Of course they are because Atkins bread contains ingredients that are not on the Induction Foods List. So it's apparent the motivation for labeling it "Induction" acceptable is purely monetary.

But reading the label on a shake (googled, I haven't had one in years) there really isn't much there to shake in one's boots over. The difference between the shakes and bars is staggering. So I'll have to stand by saying that they really shouldn't be considered even remotley similar.

Maybe the ingredients are dissimilar, but it's been the experience of the board that their effect on weight loss is similar to that of the bars. And therefore, we can't turn a blind eye to that because that will be contrary to the purpose of this board.

I realize the intent. But like I said, I've been on a lot of these boards for a long time. And if I had a nickel for every time "My ketosticks turned purple!" was answered with "That means you're dehydrated!! (not might be, but ARE) ... well, add a nickle for every time the poor shakes are lumped in with the bars, and I'd have a giant pile of nickles. I understand it's all about good intentions. But even here, on the maitainance boards, moderators will be talking about the NEED for more "good carbs"... which is odd, since there isn't a single essential carbohydrate in existance. But... well, if everybody says it, it must be true!

A "good" carb differs from a "bad" carb in terms of nutritional benefits. 4 grams of table sugar is a "bad" carb when compared to 4 carbs worth of pumpkin or legumes. Why? Because at least the pumpkin and legumes contain fiber, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients white sugar lacks. So again, it would be negligent of this board to tell anyone or to intimate that tables sugar has the same nutritional value as an equal amount of veg or fruit.