Where to eat low carb in dublin

Brian?

I was out and about in Dublin a couple of times last week and noticed that the options for eating low carb are terrible. One day I got a plate of scrambled eggs in the Jervis Centre. The other day I just went hungry.

Anyone else got any suggestions for a light meal?

dudara

Salads can be low carb - just go light on the dressings.

Steak with salad

Grilled chicken breasts with salad

You seem to be limiting yourself.

Edwardius

just order off the menu. I'm sure most places would be able to cook you a lump of meat, throw some broccoli/lettuce/spinach/carrot on it and top with olive oil. Or you could go to a deli, get some chicken, an apple or two and some nuts

mack1

Dead Ed wrote: »

just order off the menu. I'm sure most places would be able to cook you a lump of meat, throw some broccoli/lettuce/spinach/carrot on it and top with olive oil. Or you could go to a deli, get some chicken, an apple or two and some nuts

Exactly, have them replace the chips/spuds/etc with veg or salad and you're there!

El_Dangeroso

Milano's do a lovely salad nostrana, just order it sans potatoes and breadsticks and extra dressing on the side. There's no sugar in the dressing, I asked for the ingredients (I know, I know, I'm that person).

EileenG

The Food Emporium (corner of Abbey and Liffey Street) has a lot of low carb options. Lots of buffet places where you can fill up on chicken wings or chili chicken or meatballs or prawns etc. You can also go to any of the sandwich/bagel places and ask for a sandwich without the bread. They'll charge you less too.

Alternatively, go to Tesco or M&S and buy cold meat or chicken or fish and a bag of salad, or some cheees (M&S do single portions).

Holland & Barret do GG Scandanavian crisprbread which is very low carb/high fibre. All supermarkets do John West "Tuna with a twist" which is very handy for snacking. Also tins of sardines or mackerel or tuna or salmon. Tubs of cottage cheese.

Alto Foods in Abbey Street have pork rinds (ultra low carb). Most nuts are low carb, but watch quantities.

Fallon & Byrne have Lindt 99% chocolate, which is low carb (4g per 50g bar), and you can only eat a little at a time.

In Italian places, ask for a large plate of anti pasta, lots of cold meat, cheese, olives and veg.

Pizza places usually have good chicken wings.

Burger places; ask for a burger with salad instead of bun or chips.

All restaurants will do low carb if you just ask for it. Any steak/fish/chicken with salad or veg instead of rice/pasta/spuds. If there really is no suitable main course option, ask for a double sized starter.

Tapas restaurants are brilliant.

Brian?

I'm thinking maybe my eyes weren't open enough at all.

I just kept seeing my favourite high carb stuff and dismissing entire eateries.

I had a wander through the Epicurian food hall, god i love that place. I just need to look harder next time i think.

Thanks all

Piste

I'm going for an Indian tonight...any idea what I could have that wont be full of calories? I don't mind eating rice but I''ll only eat half the portion and I wont have naan. Or maybe I'll have Naan instead of rice...

mack1

Piste wrote: »

I'm going for an Indian tonight...any idea what I could have that wont be full of calories? I don't mind eating rice but I''ll only eat half the portion and I wont have naan. Or maybe I'll have Naan instead of rice...

Tandoori Chicken

jam_mac_jam

Piste wrote: »

I'm going for an Indian tonight...any idea what I could have that wont be full of calories? I don't mind eating rice but I''ll only eat half the portion and I wont have naan. Or maybe I'll have Naan instead of rice...

Dont go near a naan, they are one of the most fattening things you can eat. They are full of fat. have a small portion of rice or a roti/ chapati. Have tandori chicken or prawn for your main wrapped in a chappati, yum.

El_Dangeroso

Piste wrote: »

I'm going for an Indian tonight...any idea what I could have that wont be full of calories? I don't mind eating rice but I''ll only eat half the portion and I wont have naan. Or maybe I'll have Naan instead of rice...

Do you want low carb or low fat, because they're sort of incompatible.

Low carb - something creamy like a korma, with saag instead of rice or naan.

Piste

Ah jaysus didn't have time to look at this thread again before I went out for dinner




Jaysus I didn't know naans were that fattening Thank god I had no desert.

ApeXaviour

Piste wrote: »

Jaysus I didn't know naans were that fattening Thank god I had no desert.

Heh.. they're a type of bread, of course they're fattening!

Piste

Bread isn't full of fat though, apparently naans are.




Don't knock bread, it gives us sandwiches

ApeXaviour

Piste wrote: »

Bread isn't full of fat though, apparently naans are.

I'm from the school of thought that holds fat isn't really that fattening, in spite of the fact that words are nearly the same.

Bread on the other hand, is quite fattening.

Piste wrote: »

Don't knock bread, it gives us sandwiches

Don't knock fat... it gives us butter *nom nom*

cozmik

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Bread on the other hand, is quite fattening.

Statements like that are meaningless without reflecting on quantity. A sandwich a day isn't going to make you fat.

ApeXaviour

Of course a sandwich a day won't contribute significantly to making you fat, but it won't help, especially if one is trying to lose weight.

cozmik

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Of course a sandwich a day won't contribute significantly to making you fat, but it won't help, especially if one is trying to lose weight.

Complete nonsense. I eat peanut butter sandwiches everyday and they haven't caused any weight gain.

Honey-ec

cozmik wrote: »

Statements like that are meaningless without reflecting on quantity. A sandwich a day isn't going to make you fat.

+1 High quality bread is not fattening - it's what you put between the slices that counts.

rubadub

Bread is pretty high in calories in the portions I see most people eating. i.e. what is in the sandwich usually has less calories than the bread itself. Many are shocked to hear how many calories are in it. A burger typically has less calories than the bun. It usually doesnt sound too calorie dense, e.g. about 220kcal per 100g, compared to maybe 550kcal per 100g for peanut butter- BUT the bread weighs far more in most peanut butter sandwiches.

And that is just taking calories into account, not insulin, carb etc effects

But the vast majority of people have no idea how much they eat. I used to easily eat 1000kcal of bread a day.

Cooked chicken breast has about half the calories per 100g as bread, I just use iceberg leaves in place of bread.

I eat peanut butter sandwiches everyday and they haven't caused any weight gain

I eat bread and have not gained weight, he was more talking of aiding weight loss, in which case I would agree. While trying to lose fat I found giving up bread did let me shed fat well. If only by filling up on lower cal foods that gave the same filling effect.

Too much of most things will make you fat, and most peoples bread portions could well be viewed as "too much".

Honey-ec

Sorry, but I still refute this "bread is fattening" mantra. Let's take white, sliced bread as an example. Personally, I don't eat it, but for nutritional reasons other than calorific.

Two slices of Brennan's white bread contain 160 calories and 0.8g fat. That is simply not high in fat, whatever way you look at it.

If someone is having two slices of toast in the morning, then another two as part of a sandwich at lunch, and then has another 2-4 slices of bread and butter with their dinner in the evening, then yes, they are likely going to gain weight.

However, the weight gain is going to be as a result of their overall calorie intake as opposed to the fact that it's bread. If they replaced the bread with something else of an equal calorie content, they'd still gain weight.

corkcomp

Honey-ec wrote: »

Sorry, but I still refute this "bread is fattening" mantra. Let's take white, sliced bread as an example. Personally, I don't eat it, but for nutritional reasons other than calorific.

Two slices of Brennan's white bread contain 160 calories and 0.8g fat. That is simply not high in fat, whatever way you look at it.

If someone is having two slices of toast in the morning, then another two as part of a sandwich at lunch, and then has another 2-4 slices of bread and butter with their dinner in the evening, then yes, they are likely going to gain weight.

However, the weight gain is going to be as a result of their overall calorie intake as opposed to the fact that it's bread. If they replaced the bread with something else of an equal calorie content, they'd still gain weight.

+1 and the word "fattening" has to be the most over used word ever! Technically if someone is active and not exceeding their approx daily calorie requirement then bread is not goin to be fattening...

cozmik

rubadub wrote: »

Too much of most things will make you fat, and most peoples bread portions could well be viewed as "too much".

Precisely. It is not the food but the amount / calories. I find it completely disingenuous for anyone to suggest bread should be avoided when they know full well it's not a simple matter of will food X or Y make me fat.

Brian?

I honestly think you're arguing for the sake of it.

Simply put, advising someone who is over weight to stop eating bread is good advice.

cozmik

briankeating wrote: »

I honestly think you're arguing for the sake of it.

Simply put, advising someone who is over weight to stop eating bread is good advice.

If they are eating too much bread that would of course be good advice.

But let's be clear about what was said here.

ApeXaviour wrote: »

Bread on the other hand, is quite fattening.

Now that is simply not true. Eating a balanced diet that includes bread will NOT make you fat. If I were to say in the same manner that butter is quite fattening (which it is lol) without clarifying the quantity you can just imagine what the reaction from the low carbers would be.

People need to stop bad mouthing bread and carbs in general because just like butter or eggs they won't make you FAT if you don't over-indulge.

ApeXaviour

I'm only going to comment on the cogent points. To do otherwise is a waste time.

brinkeating wrote:

I honestly think you're arguing for the sake of it.

Simply put, advising someone who is over weight to stop eating bread is good advice

indeed. When I loosely said bread was fattening, I didn't expect people to actually disagree semantically. There are 3 reasons why I'd still stick by the assertion. a) it's high calorie b) people tend consume it in large quantities, and c), possibly the most important reason: it causes an insulin response (a very very bad thing) which makes it incredibly difficult to lose weight.

But bread should be avoided for a lot more reasons than merely causing fat,

corkcomp wrote:

+1 and the word "fattening" has to be the most over used word ever! Technically if someone is active and not exceeding their approx daily calorie requirement then bread is not goin to be fattening...

Fair point, it is a rather silly term without quantitative measure. Though if we had to label certain foods "fattening" over others, bread, and high density or refined carbohydrates would likely fall into the the category. All calories are not built alike. Some fill more for their amount, increase metabolism with a glucagon response, and contribute to lean tissue. Other's increase insulin and cortisol, prevent the burning of fat, contribute to diabetes, heart disease, obesity, cholesterol, stroke, high blood pressure, gout etc. Of course a small amount won't kill you, but neither will a small amount of arsenic.

Piste

So how much bread is too much in a day?

ApeXaviour

Well less is better. If you're like me, and you wouldn't miss it a whole lot, then 0 is ideal. If you're overweight and would like to lose some, again as little as possible to none.

If you really enjoy bread though, then by all means have some. These things are about balancing priorities. There's no point being thin and healthy if you're going to be miserable too. But at least try make it wholemeal, and try not let the portions or frequency get to any kind of excess. A bit of wholemeal bread won't do you much harm.

Piste

Ok my typical bread intake for the day would be either 1 slice of wholemeal bread (the one that comes in a sliced pan, don't have this for brekkie a lot) or two slices of proper brown bread (two slices because the loaves are teeny)

Then lunch would be a sandwich either in a brown pitta or with two slices of wholemeal (sliced pan) bread.

Is this too much?

I wouldn't normally have any rice/potatoes/bread/pasta forthe rest of the day, the rest of my carbs would come from fruit and vegetable or cheesecake.

cozmik

ApeXaviour wrote: »

A bit of wholemeal bread won't do you any harm.

Fixed that for you.

cozmik

ApeXaviour wrote: »

There are 3 reasons why I'd still stick by the assertion. a) it's high calorie b) people tend consume it in large quantities, and c), possibly the most important reason: it causes an insulin response (a very very bad thing) which makes it incredibly difficult to lose weight.

here again you are talking pure nonsense.

A new study shows people who followed a weight loss program incorporating whole-grain breads, cereals, and other foods lost more body fat from the abdominal area than those who ate only refined grains like white bread and rice.

In addition, those on the whole-grain diet experienced a 38% drop in C-reactive protein (CRP), an indicator of inflammation in the body linked to heart disease.

Researchers say the results suggest that incorporating whole grains into weight loss plans may help burn fat as well as reduce the risk of heart disease.

The results appear in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20080225/whole-grains-fight-belly-fat

El_Dangeroso

cozmik wrote: »

here again you are talking pure nonsense.



http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20080225/whole-grains-fight-belly-fat

What is pure nonsense about what ApeXaviour's post?

Noone is saying that the odd slice of wholemeal is going to make you balloon to 20 stone.

Carbohydrates cause insulin to be released and insulin is the main hormone in fat regulation. This fact has never been controversial since it was first stated in 1965. Why is that such a hard fact to accept?

That study! Please don't make me laugh my sides are hurting from the gym!:D Did you hear about that other study that says smoking heroin is good for you? Well they took 1000 people who injected heroin and 1000 people who smoked it and found out that the people who smoked were healthier (and thinner)! Wahey!

Also, I refute your point that macronutrient composition has nothing do with weight loss or gain. A study carried out in the 1950's proved this point. It was a metabolic ward study, so no silly questionnaires. The participants were given EXACTLY 1000 cals each a day. When the subjects consumed 1,000 calories a day with a diet consisting of 90 percent fat, they lost about a pound of weight per day. If the 1,000 calories consisted of 90-percent carbohydrates, they gained weight:


1. Kewick et al. “Metabolic study in humans obesity with isocaloric diets high in fat, protein, or carbohydrate.” Metabolism 6: 447-460 (1957)

Surprisingly, a calorie isn't always a calorie. Bread calories release insulin. Fat calories don't.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

What is pure nonsense about what ApeXaviour's post?

Noone is saying that the odd slice of wholemeal is going to make you balloon to 20 stone.

Carbohydrates cause insulin to be released and insulin is the main hormone in fat regulation. This fact has never been controversial since it was first stated in 1965. Why is that such a hard fact to accept?

That study! Please don't make me laugh my sides are hurting from the gym!:D Did you hear about that other study that says smoking heroin is good for you? Well they took 1000 people who injected heroin and 1000 people who smoked it and found out that the people who smoked were healthier (and thinner)! Wahey!

Also, I refute your point that macronutrient composition has nothing do with weight loss or gain. A study carried out in the 1950's proved this point. It was a metabolic ward study, so no silly questionnaires. The participants were given EXACTLY 1000 cals each a day. When the subjects consumed 1,000 calories a day with a diet consisting of 90 percent fat, they lost about a pound of weight per day. If the 1,000 calories consisted of 90-percent carbohydrates, they gained weight:


1. Kewick et al. “Metabolic study in humans obesity with isocaloric diets high in fat, protein, or carbohydrate.” Metabolism 6: 447-460 (1957)

Surprisingly, a calorie isn't always a calorie. Bread calories release insulin. Fat calories don't.

that study you mention above sounds like pure nonsense TBH .. Anyone loosing a pound per day is doing themselves serious harm, most of that will prob be either be water loss, muscle loss or both ... On the flip side, i cant see how ANYONE could gain weight on 1000 cals / day even if eating nothing but carbs ...

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

that study you mention above sounds like pure nonsense TBH .. Anyone loosing a pound per day is doing themselves serious harm, most of that will prob be either be water loss, muscle loss or both ... On the flip side, i cant see how ANYONE could gain weight on 1000 cals / day even if eating nothing but carbs ...

Sounds like pure nonsense? Did you read it? They took people locked them away and fed them specific diets and recorded their weight. Which part was nonsense? The 90% carb people did gain weight, I don't pretend to have an explanation. But that's what happened.

So eating carbs prevents muscle loss, is that what you're saying?

It was a relatively short term study, you're right, the spectacular losses were mostly water + glycogen weight. But you can't gain weight eating excess calories as long as carbs are low.. I can eat up to 3500 cals a day and not put on 1lb as long as carbs are low, most people can, how is that possible? Where do the calories go?

This is a longer (6 month) study for you:

Also

[FONT=arial, helvetica]Results Seventy-nine subjects completed the six-month study. An analysis including all subjects, with the last observation carried forward for those who dropped out, showed that subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost more weight than those on the low-fat diet (mean [±SD], –5.8±8.6 kg vs. –1.9±4.2 kg; P=0.002) and had greater decreases in triglyceride levels (mean, –20±43 percent vs. –4±31 percent; P=0.001), irrespective of the use or nonuse of hypoglycemic or lipid-lowering medications. Insulin sensitivity, measured only in subjects without diabetes, also improved more among subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet (6±9 percent vs. –3±8 percent, P=0.01). The amount of weight lost (P<0.001) and assignment to the low-carbohydrate diet (P=0.01) were independent predictors of improvement in triglyceride levels and insulin sensitivity.[/FONT]

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/348/21/2074

Are you really telling me that I lost 50lb of water weight eating an unrestricted calorie diet?:rolleyes:

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

Sounds like pure nonsense? Did you read it? They took people locked them away and fed them specific diets and recorded their weight. Which part was nonsense? The 90% carb people did gain weight, I don't pretend to have an explanation. But that's what happened.

So eating carbs prevents muscle loss, is that what you're saying?

It was a relatively short term study, you're right, the spectacular losses were mostly water + glycogen weight. But you can't gain weight eating excess calories as long as carbs are low.. I can eat up to 3500 cals a day and not put on 1lb as long as carbs are low, most people can, how is that possible? Where do the calories go?

This is a longer (6 month) study for you:

Also



http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/348/21/2074

Are you really telling me that I lost 50lb of water weight eating an unrestricted calorie diet?:rolleyes:

saying that people can eat excess calories (on an ongoing basis) and not gain weight as long as they are not carb calories is also nonsense, i dont believe in going overboard with calorie counting BUT if someone was to start eating twice their usual calories / per day they WILL gain weight even if no carbs are involved ...

i still stand by my original point that the study mentioned is BS

People might also want to read the following text:




Convinced that fluid balance, not diet composition, was the cause of the weight loss reported by Kekwick and Pawan, Pilkington et al. (74) repeated their studies for longer periods of time (18 or 24 days). His results were comparable with Kekwick and Pawan’s during the first few days on each of the diets. However, there was a steady rate of weight loss with each of the 1000-kcal diets thereafter, regardless of whether the calories came from fat, protein, or CHO. Although he did not measure fluid balance, Pilkington (74) concluded that temporary differences in weight loss were due to such changes. He stated "if the periods of study are long enough to achieve a ‘steady state’ the rate of weight loss on a diet consisting mainly of fat does not differ significantly from the rate of weight loss on an isocaloric diet consisting mainly of CHO." Oleson and Quaade’s (75) experiment, which lasted for 3 weeks, had a similar conclusion."

There's a counter-study to every study out there. 90% of all studies ever done are faulty. Too many biases. Plus, they don't apply to 100% of the population.

This is why you need to monitor your progress. If you're eating mostly carbs and you're not seeing changes, then you need to alter that, or something. If you aren't making progress, you need to alter your effort somewhere. You can't always rely on broad generalizations. Maybe the no-carb diet would work for you, maybe not. Maybe it would only work as long as you stuck with it. Do you want to do that for the rest of your life? These are the things you need to ask yourself. Try things out, experiment, and build your own plan based on personal knowledge".

El_Dangeroso

saying that people can eat excess calories (on an ongoing basis) and not gain weight as long as they are not carb calories is also nonsense, i dont believe in going overboard with calorie counting BUT if someone was to start eating twice their usual calories / per day they WILL gain weight even if no carbs are involved ...

Nope, they won't. Insulin isn't raised sufficiently to store fat. That's a biological fact. Find some studies to the contrary and I'll reconsider every scientific piece of research I've done up until now.

Also, I said the rapid weight loss is due to water and glycogen, wasn't it nice of me to preemptively point out your counterpoint for you?

I could provide you with loads more studies to prove my point but all I'll get back is ad hominem arguments. I don't mind you quoting other studies (not other peoples posts off other forums), but it should be to back up what you say, not make the point for you. I might as well be debating with Google.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

Nope, they won't. Insulin isn't raised sufficiently to store fat. That's a biological fact. Find some studies to the contrary and I'll reconsider every scientific piece of research I've done up until now.

Also, I said the rapid weight loss is due to water and glycogen, wasn't it nice of me to preemptively point out your counterpoint for you?

I could provide you with loads more studies to prove my point but all I'll get back is ad hominem arguments. I don't mind you quoting other studies (not other peoples posts off other forums), but it should be to back up what you say, not make the point for you. I might as well be debating with Google.

the reason i quoted another study was to make a very important point (which you unintentionally or otherwise) failed to point out - that over a longer period of time the people on the 1000 cal / day diet lost weight at a steady state whether 90% carb or fat ..

El_Dangeroso

You didn't quote it, someone else did.. and I rebutted that point earlier with a longer term study, sheesh buddy, read the posts

If you can gain weight with low insulin then why is rapid weight loss a side effect of type 1 diabetes?

You still haven't responded to the fact that carbs raise insulin which controls fat storage.. can we say we agree on that now then?

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

You didn't quote it, someone else did.. and I rebutted that point earlier with a longer term study, sheesh buddy, read the posts

If you can gain weight with low insulin then why is rapid weight loss a side effect of type 1 diabetes?

You still haven't responded to the fact that carbs raise insulin which controls fat storage.. can we say we agree on that now then?

you can split hairs all you like - the fact remains that the study you mentioned originally is nonsense due to the fact that over a longer period of time there was no significant difference in the weight loss reported by the subjects on either 90% carb or 90% fat diet, i cant see how that fact can be overlooked in this debate - period and yes carbs can raise insulin but the fact remains if you are not overdoing it in terms of calories you can still loose weight on a high carb diet...

mags16

People on this forum seem to be quoting "studies" left right and centre. If you have a particular point of view you can find studies to back you up. Are you all research scientists?

To find the real truth, interpretation is key. You need to take into account all the studies (or as many as possible), be open minded, examine the conditions, the reputations of the authors etc. Don't cherry pick and quote a random study just because it backs up your opinion.

cozmik

mags16 wrote: »

People on this forum seem to be quoting "studies" left right and centre. If you have a particular point of view you can find studies to back you up. Are you all research scientists?

To find the real truth, interpretation is key. You need to take into account all the studies (or as many as possible), be open minded, examine the conditions, the reputations of the authors etc. Don't cherry pick and quote a random study just because it backs up your opinion.

Thanks for assuming we don't have a clue. :rolleyes:

corkcomp

mags16 wrote: »

People on this forum seem to be quoting "studies" left right and centre. If you have a particular point of view you can find studies to back you up. Are you all research scientists?

To find the real truth, interpretation is key. You need to take into account all the studies (or as many as possible), be open minded, examine the conditions, the reputations of the authors etc. Don't cherry pick and quote a random study just because it backs up your opinion.

totally agree with that ....

Personally i would only ever mention a study if it related to another study mentioned elsewhere .... But your right, studies can be found to backup up any opinion .. on anything

Honey-ec

Lies, damn lies and statistics, anyone???

BoozyBabe

I try to lose weight the traditional way:- porridge for breakfast, eat fruit, wholgrain bread for lunch, small healthy dinner, lots of water, etc, etc.
I.e Normal carbs, low fat, traditional supposed healthy diet.
Add to that 4 gym sessions a week, 60 mins cardio, 30 mins weights each time & I lose NO weight. Not an ounce.

I change to low carbs & the weight falls off.

Over the past 5 years whenever I've wanted to lose a few lbs, the only way I've been able to is by cutting out those crappy carbs.

When I start eating them again the weight goes back on.

Our diets are based too highly on carbs such as bread, pasta, rice & potatoes, & as a result they DO make you fat!

What to you eat for breakfast?
Porridge, cereal, toast?
Lunch?
Sandwich, pitta, roll, wrap?
Dinner?
Pasta, rice, potatoes?
Supper?
Sandwich, cereal?
Snack?
Sweets, choc, biscuits, cake, crisps?

A bowl of porridge won't make you fat, a sandwich won't make you fat, hell even a bar of choc won't make you fat, but when you add them all together & the majority of your diet is carbs based, you WILL put on weight!

I've been the proof time & time & time again.
& how do I lose it?
I substitute low carb options for my high carb regulars.
So, in my personal opinion, carbs ARE the devil!!!!!
Your opinion can differ, I don't care.:p

mags16

That's great boozybabe, you've found a system that works for you.

But if you read through the food diaries in this forum, you'll see that the problem is that people aren't sticking to their eating plans. Some are eating crazily tiny amounts and then have massive splurges at the weekend. That is why their diets aren't working, not that fact that they are on a high carb diet or not.

I'm not pro carb or anti carb. I am trying to lose 5 lbs at the moment and have reduced my carb intake a bit.

All I want to know is how to eat out on a lowish carb diet.

olaola

In an Indian - meats & fish from the tandoor, mains made in tomato sauce and vegerian sides.

Chinese - peking duck? The pancackes are so wee, I dunno if they would really add many carbs to your diet? Just make sure they are really full of duck
Stir fried veg & meat minus the noodles/rice. You could always ask for iceberg lettuce leaves and roll the duck - or the stir fry up in them.

I'm just looking for a middle of the road menu - here is Brasserie Sixty6 - there are a good few things you could have there.

Italian - antipasti, and most of the meat dishes.

I think places that specialise in meat or fish are your friend. Steer your mates towards this kind of thing.

corkcomp

mags16 wrote: »

That's great boozybabe, you've found a system that works for you.

But if you read through the food diaries in this forum, you'll see that the problem is that people aren't sticking to their eating plans. Some are eating crazily tiny amounts and then have massive splurges at the weekend. That is why their diets aren't working, not that fact that they are on a high carb diet or not.

I'm not pro carb or anti carb. I am trying to lose 5 lbs at the moment and have reduced my carb intake a bit.

All I want to know is how to eat out on a lowish carb diet.

thats a good point, and another problem is people not being honest with themselves ... Someone told me last week how they were trying to loose weight and listed everything they had eaten for the past few days, it all sounded good so i said "is that all" and the reply was .. yeah but i was out saturday night so i had some pizza and chips after the pub so i wouldnt feel left out, and on Sunday had a tub of ben and Jerrys just to keep me motivated for the week ahead ... see the pattern? there is always some excuse ...

mags16

olaola wrote: »

I think places that specialise in meat or fish are your friend. Steer your mates towards this kind of thing.

That's good information.

I was in one of those Chinese places on Parnell St last night and just had the stir fry duck. No rice. Very tasty.

Just as well I'm not a veggie, though.

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

thats a good point, and another problem is people not being honest with themselves ... Someone told me last week how they were trying to loose weight and listed everything they had eaten for the past few days, it all sounded good so i said "is that all" and the reply was .. yeah but i was out saturday night so i had some pizza and chips after the pub so i wouldnt feel left out, and on Sunday had a tub of ben and Jerrys just to keep me motivated for the week ahead ... see the pattern? there is always some excuse ...

It's true, people under estimate their food consumption all the time, a handful of this here and there. But then again, who wants to be a person who is so neurotic that they journal every little gram.

My own personal happy medium is to have an allowed list of food that I can eat in unlimited quantities (meat, fish, leafy green veg, butter), food that's limited to once a day (cheese, root veggies, cream) and food that's once a fortnight (bread, sweeties, icecream etc). I think everyone can work out a similar system whether their doing low fat, low carb, low gi or Mediterranean. You have to follow a diet(or way of eating as I like to refer to it) for the rest of your life, so counting anything long term is a bit extreme.

corkcomp

neddas wrote: »

It's true, people under estimate their food consumption all the time, a handful of this here and there. But then again, who wants to be a person who is so neurotic that they journal every little gram.

My own personal happy medium is to have an allowed list of food that I can eat in unlimited quantities (meat, fish, leafy green veg, butter), food that's limited to once a day (cheese, root veggies, cream) and food that's once a fortnight (bread, sweeties, icecream etc). I think everyone can work out a similar system whether their doing low fat, low carb, low gi or Mediterranean. You have to follow a diet(or way of eating as I like to refer to it) for the rest of your life, so counting anything long term is a bit extreme.

i find a 70 / 30 split works best for me, i eat clean approx 70% of the time but i dont worry what i eat when eating out, getting lunch on the road once or twice a week etc etc ... When i was trying to loose weight though it was more like a 90 / 10 split .... Looking at my own peers, it always seems to be the ones who are most restrictive with their diets (in terms on calories, carbs etc) that really splurge ... i would consider a something like a 9" pizza and bowl of ice-cream as a treat meal, but a 20" pizza and whole tub of ice cream is a whole different story ... If people have a little of what they enjoy there may be less chance of a spectacular break out ... But most importantly people need to be honest with themselves!!

of course the best way of allowing more freedom with diet is to do enough exercise, especially once someone is around their desired weight, the odd meal of junk food isnt going to cause weight gain ..

El_Dangeroso

So true about the difference between treating yourself and binging.. that comes from eating too little food no doubt..

You'd be surprised how little calories exercise actually burns, most of those machines on the gym grossly over estimate how much cals you burn. Intensive flat out running on a treadmill for 30 minutes burns 300 cals(depending on BMR), but that includes how much cals you burn sitting on your backside (about 80 depending on BMR) and you can burn approx 300 cals an hour shivering!

The problem with calories is that the body doesn't use all food types in the same way, carbs can only be used for energy, but protein and fat are used in structural repair and maintenance of cells as well as being used for energy. So the 9 cals in some essential fatty acids don't really matter for energy balance as they are just used in repair. Plus you use an approx 240 cals a day extra in the process of gluconeogenisis (turning protein into the glucose your brain needs) if you follow a low carb diet.

The body has various homeostatic processes that will try and maintain the status quo. These systems keep your body temps constant, blood pressure constant and weight constant. Of course it's possible to override these systems (hypothermia from extreme cold for example) but the fact remains that if you reduce fat and protein and therefore overall calories, your body will slow metabolism to compensate. This effect isn't observed (beyond the reduction arising from weight lost) when people cut carbs and overall calories (the calorie reduction is usually spontaneous) for some reason, I don't pretend to know why.. no theories have been put forward that I know of.