KFC - Grilled Chicken at Kentucky Fried Chicken

[zip11777]

Has anyone tried the new Kentucky 'Grilled' Chicken at KFC yet?

I just read about this new menu item in Newsday (see link below), and according to the nutrtion information on the KFC website (second link below), it has ZERO Carbs!

Maybe I'll try it on my way home and write a review tonight, but if any of you have tried it, let us know what you think.



link to article:
http://www.newsday.com/news/health/ny-hs-kfc0415,0,6833944.story




link to KFC website:
http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/grilled.asp

[Karole]

If I read it correctly they said it wouldn't start til the 27th of April --or did they mean that was when they were going to give away free samples of the grilled chicken??

I'm glad to see they are finally going to try it.

[maxlharris]

http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/grilled.asp

It's zero grams of carbs.
Little light on fat...
The chicken I get at the Chicken Planet, simple grill with salt, pepper, oregano and garlic goes ~40g of fat. That's a half chicken, according to Fitday. 4 Pieces of KGC goes 21g of fat. How do you do that to a chicken, which is relatively lean to start with? Can't tell from the picture, but my first idea would be to skin it. I don't eat skinless chicken. I like things with flavor.

[Angie1313]

If only there were a KFC near me! Believe it or not the closest one from where I live is about 10 miles or so.

[Mal Lady]

This will be great!!! A fast food place that we can actually eat meat without it being breaded, slathered with ungodly stuff, or sandwiched between 2 slabs of white, tasteless fluff or concrete. Yeah for KFC!!!:cool:

Sharon

[steflou]

The free giveaway is April 27-the part of the chicken is up to the manager!!

[Spruce Goose]

Lee's Chicken has had something like this for a while. It's pretty good. Looking forward to trying the KFC version sometime.

[Tyrone Bill]

I've seen the ads on the TV, it really looks good. I'm anxious to try it.

[zip11777]

OK, I just tried it, it is GOOD!

[maxlharris]

Zip: Do you have a little more detail... is it skinless?

[zip11777]

Sorry for the short post over weekend, here are some more details:

The grilled chicken is not skinless, and it is not breaded at all. It is grilled on the bone, and they season it similar to their fried chicken, not too spicy, but plenty of pepper and other spices to keep it intersting.

I got the white meat, you can chose the dark if you want also. The pieces are kind of small, I cannot remember if that is normal for the KFC fried chicken as well...it has been a long time since I had it.

I chose the only two sides that looked low-carb cole slaw and green beans. The tough part was staying away from the biscuit - I love thier biscuits!

This makes it easy for me to go to KFC again, since my kids love the popcorn chicken, my wife loves the fried, and now I can get something there as well.

I think it is a free trial today the 27th, but I did not want to deal with a long line for a piece of chcien, so I broke down and bought a combo meal on Saturday - cost about $5 I think, including the 2 pieces of chicken (white: breast and wing, dark: thigh and drum); 2 sides; a drink - I got the diet coke.

Enjoy

[WildAngel6]

The ingredients make it a deal breaker for me.

Nice try KFC... close, but no cigar.

KFC® Grilled Chicken Fresh Chicken Marinated
with: Salt, Sodium Phosphate, and Monosodium
Glutamate Seasoned with: Maltodextrin, Salt,
Bleached Wheat Flour, Partially Hydrogenated
Soybean and Cottonseed Oil, Monosodium Glutamate,
Spices, Palm Oil, Natural Flavor, Garlic Powder,
Soy Sauce (Soybean, Wheat, Salt), Chicken Fat,
Chicken Broth, Autolyzed Yeast, Beef Powder,
Rendered Beef Fat, Extractives of Turmeric,
Dehydrated Carrot, Onion Powder, and Not More
Than 2% Each of Calcium Silicate and Silicon
Dioxide Added as Anticaking Agents. Contains Wheat and Soy.

http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/pdf/kfc_ingredients_april09.pdf (http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/pdf/kfc_ingredients_april09.pdf)

[zip11777]

What is the problem ingredient? The carb count is zero.

[laughingW]

Wish I had a PPLP book with me here, to check what it says about the icky ingredients.

I do know the "partially hydrogenated" is to avoid.
Also MSG.
Autolyzed yeast (another MSG)
Wheat flour, if purist.
Refined carbs in flour and maltodextrin

All these must be in small amounts but still, not exactly a whole unprocessed food which is where I like to be.
It might be an "occasional" for me.

[maxlharris]

If MSG was on the avoid list at some point, Dr. Mike has effectively taken it off:
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/uncategorized/savory-monosodium-glutamate/

I'm not saying eat it. I'm not saying don't eat it. I thank WildAngel for pointing out the ingredients so people can make an informed decision on the eat it/shun it choice. For me, the label advertises (if you know how to read a label) <.5g carbs per piece. I am not wheat sensitive, so I can handle that load of Maltodextrin, flour, and soy sauce. I am not sensitive to sodium either, so the yeast and the MSG are not a problem. It comes down to the transfats (The Partially Hydrogenized stuff) for me. I am not completely wigged about these, but considering I can go, at work, across the street and get half a chicken for $5.25 and it's ingredients are Chicken, Salt, Pepper, rosemary, garlic, oregano, fire... I'd say I'm not gonna restart any KFC habit soon. Others will do as they please.

[DarleenMB]

HA! I could have told you without looking they would have loaded it with MSG.

MSG is a NEUROtoxin. It kills your brain cells by overexciting them. PLUS it is addictive as all get out and the food industry knows and relies on that.

You know, a George foreman grill is not all that expensive. You can buy your chicken already cut up if you don't have the time or know-how to do it and Suzanne Somer's (http://www.youngevityonline.com/darleenmb) has some of the BEST meat rubs out there. I highly recommend the Memphis Barbque. YUM!

Why not grill up your own. It won't take but 15 minutes and you KNOW what you're getting.

Just a quick fyi, we went to Ireland last month for a one week tour. BTW it was GREAT! I ATE my way across the country eating bread, potatoes, and dessert at lunch AND dinner plus a pint of Guinness daily. I came home weighing exactly what I weighed when I left.

I was stunned. We spent most of the time on the bus with short bouts of walking. So it wasn't like a week at Disney World where you average 5 miles a day.

anyway. I came to the conclusion that the reason I didn't gain was because I ate regular meals AND it was all REAL food. The first night there we were served beef tips in gravy on rice. first words out of my mouth to the waitress were "does this have MSG in it?"

I get sicker than the proverbial dog if I ingest that poison. I get a migraine-like headache that lasts exactly 24 hours, am nauseated and (no polite way to put this) have the runs. ANyway.

She looked at me funny, asked "what's that?" I then asked if it was made from scratch and she said "of course!" with a look on her face like I'd insulted her. For some reason I realized that the food was safe and never worried about it again.

We feasted on good Irish butter, tea, beef, salmon and CHOCOLATE for 5 full days. YUM!!!

Moral of the story? American "food" is so overloaded with junk that it's making us sick and fat.

Skip the colonel. You'll be healthier for it.

[maxlharris]

DarleenMB: Your experience with travel is fairly typical. I eat way off plan on my two week trips to Europe, even eating packaged foods.

Your experience with MSG, otoh, is not uncommon, but not nearly universal. I would need some clinical studies on it being a neurotoxin or addictive. I have not seen that, and am dubious of annecdotal evidence, as should we all be.

As to Sommer's:
http://www.suzannesomers.com/SUZANNE153-Memphis-BBQ-Sea-Salt-Rub-P1836.aspx#
This has a link to nutritional information...
Here are ingredients:
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e248/maxlharris/Capture5-4-2009-102427AM.jpg

Ignoring SomerSweet, you have Autolyzed Yeast, which is basically MSG, and Natural Flavors, which could be anything derived from something that once lived. Not wholly from a lab, but could be 99% lab based.

If you're gonna go purist, get familiar with your local spice merchant (Penzey's is in many places and sells very high quality stuff) and you can blend your own or one of their house mixes... for comparison, here is BBQ - 3000, their house BBQ rub:
salt, paprika, black pepper, nutmeg, mustard, allspice, citric acid, garlic powder, ginger, sage, thyme, white pepper, cinnamon, and natural smoke flavor.

Sugar free the old fashioned way. If you are curious about "natural smoke flavor":
"It is made by condensing smoke from a wood fire, I.E. rapidly cooling it so it turns to liquid."
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080112131314AA8x5Pt

Lastly, I would not use a stock Foreman grill to do chicken parts. They do not get hot enough to cook the center of the big chicken pieces with the bones still in (IE thighs and breasts) on a reasonably sized bird. Additionally, most foreman branded grills don't get hot enough to properly sear the skin of the chicken.

I'm not saying I will do the KFC instead (I probably won't). I'm saying, if you want takeout, there is probably a family owned shop, run by Latin Americans or Middle Easterners near you (assuming you live in a reasonably sized city) who rotisserie grill chicken with either a chili rub (Pollo a la Brasa) or with a simple rub of salt, pepper, garlic, oregano, and maybe some thyme or rosemary. Nice low carb salsas with them. Crap, now I'm getting hungry for Chicken Planet... will wait another hour, then hit that hard.

[zip11777]

You all make valid points, and I agree that the KFC grilled chicken may not be the perfect food, but....that is not how I am considering it.

I have been doing low-carb for about 2 years now, but I have not convinced my wife and kids to go low-carb for themselves. Plus, I really like the KFC fried chicken, and used to have it (not very often - maybe a couple of times a YEAR) before going LC.

So for me, I like the KFC Grilled so that
1- I can get the flavor that at least reminds me of the fried KFC
2- have the convenience of a drive-thru
3- have dinner with my loved ones
4- not have the adverse reactions of eating higher carb food (as Darleen described)

[maxlharris]

Exactly, Zip. Exactly.
Like I said. I'm not saying eat it. I'm not saying don't eat it. You make your choices, you make your trade offs and you value your... uhm... er... values. If it works for you, well, it works for you. I'm curious to try it, but I'm a popeye's loyalist when I'm eating fried stuff, so I dunno if I could even tell you where my nearest KFC is. I think there's one kind of by work.

[DarleenMB]

max I have read that MSG is a neurotoxin from two different physicians. I think I'll just take their word for it. And frankly, my reaction to the stuff is FAR from uncommon. Just my 2 cents.

[Ammy]

I tried it tonight... got the two piece dark meat.

The taste was okay...tasted like it was grilled. Not too greasy.
However, it was very clear that the actual "meat" in the pieces of chicken is VERY SMALL!! Usually covered by a thick layer of crispy coating.
But when it's grilled, and no coating to cover the size, you can see how incredibly small the pieces of chicken are.
wing: 10g
drumstick: 10g
thigh: 15g
breast: 35g

My other struggle...no low carb sides. Coleslaw was an option, but otherwise my options were mashed potatoes, potatoe wedges, corn, baked beans, mac and cheese, corn on cob, and rice. Nothing really low carb, not even green beans.

[Anniesnan]

I tried it tonight... got the two piece dark meat.


My other struggle...no low carb sides. Coleslaw was an option, but otherwise my options were mashed potatoes, potatoe wedges, corn, baked beans, mac and cheese, corn on cob, and rice. Nothing really low carb, not even green beans.


that's why I stay away from KFC. I know that coleslaw is loaded with sugar - I could taste it even when I wasn't "on plan".

Even with the new chicken, unless I'm with a group and have to eat there, I won't even try it. KFC is one of my NEAN places.;)

[Ammy]

I'll do it again...but I'd get the bucket and take it home.

Oprah is giving out free chicken...
limited time offer...

http://www.fm1071.com/show_elements/link.php?entryID=3832&show=IM

[zip11777]

I get the green beans and cole slaw as sides....I wish I could do the mashed potato w/gravy and the bisket!

[laughingW]

Even with the new chicken, unless I'm with a group and have to eat there, I won't even try it. KFC is one of my NEAN places.;)
Boy, me too. I'm with the Scottish dad in "So I Married an Axe Murderer"...

Tony Giardino: So who's in this Pentavirate?

Stuart Mackenzie: The Queen, The Vatican, The Gettys, The Rothschilds, *and* Colonel Sanders before he went ***. Oh, I hated the Colonel with is wee *beady* eyes, and that smug look on his face. "Oh, you're gonna buy my chicken! Ohhhhh!"

Charlie Mackenzie: Dad, how can you hate "The Colonel"?

Stuart Mackenzie: Because he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, ***!

[isisrose]

This is just way too Frankenstein for me :mad: just reading the ingredients puts my stomach in knots (but that's me and I'm definitely a purist PP).

Don't think you see me eating this anytime soon, or ever for that matter. I'll just stick to grilling my own.

[isisrose]

Just a quick fyi, we went to Ireland last month for a one week tour. BTW it was GREAT! I ATE my way across the country eating bread, potatoes, and dessert at lunch AND dinner plus a pint of Guinness daily. I came home weighing exactly what I weighed when I left.

I was stunned. We spent most of the time on the bus with short bouts of walking. So it wasn't like a week at Disney World where you average 5 miles a day.

anyway. I came to the conclusion that the reason I didn't gain was because I ate regular meals AND it was all REAL food.

Personally I would just call you lucky! I've been eating 100% natural real food for more than a decade. My results: overweight, diabetes, cholitis, and fibromyalgia...what I used to eat: potatoes, breads, pastas, rice etc... But they were 100% natural. I ate no chemical additives (I even use 100% natural body products etc..)


Moral of the story? American "food" is so overloaded with junk that it's making us sick and fat.

I agree that our food is loaded with junk, but have disagree that natural foods can be good for you if they are carb laden. If you are carb intolerant, you are carb intolerant no matter how natural it is and it is still going to effect your blood sugar and insulin levels and cause you problems. I am living proof of that.

Again I think you were lucky, but then it was only a week. You may not have been so lucky if say it were a month or more. Your results may have been very different. You also have to factor in your level of carb intolerance to someone elses. If I were to have a week like that right now I wouldn't be fighting diabetes 100% naturally (what I love most about this approach) but would be on the drugs before I could convince my doc (who's approach is also very natural) to not put me on them.

Just MHO

[Frank Hagan]

max I have read that MSG is a neurotoxin from two different physicians. I think I'll just take their word for it. And frankly, my reaction to the stuff is FAR from uncommon. Just my 2 cents.

Dr. Mike's blog (linked above) has some more info on the neuro-toxin angle. He's changed his mind on the stuff since PPLP came out (I just read last night that he didn't recommend it). Now he puts it in the "choice" column.

FWIW, I get a slight throat irritation at some food additives (sulfites that used to be used in salad bars especially). Before I was on PP, I used to eat at a Chinese place. If I got the food without MSG I didn't get the slight scratchiness in my throat. I discovered it quite by accident, as my wife ordered her meal without MSG as per her cardiologist's recommendation, and the waiter confused the issue and brought both meals without MSG. I noticed the taste difference, and he confirmed both were without MSG. I realized later that I didn't have the throat irritation.

This could be a "placebo effect" working; while I tried the food with and without MSG over the next few meals and "confirmed" my suspicions, I knew what I was SUPPOSED to feel. I finally decided that trying to do a double blind study would be too difficult, and just accepted that the food was tasty enough and the extra sodium wasn't needed.

The ingredients in KFCs chicken are probably OK, but I think I'll avoid it. Too many other choices here that don't have as many additives.

[Tyrone Bill]

The ingredients make it a deal breaker for me.

Nice try KFC... close, but no cigar.

KFC® Grilled Chicken Fresh Chicken Marinated
with: Salt, Sodium Phosphate, and Monosodium
Glutamate Seasoned with: Maltodextrin, Salt,
Bleached Wheat Flour, Partially Hydrogenated
Soybean and Cottonseed Oil, Monosodium Glutamate,
Spices, Palm Oil, Natural Flavor, Garlic Powder,
Soy Sauce (Soybean, Wheat, Salt), Chicken Fat,
Chicken Broth, Autolyzed Yeast, Beef Powder,
Rendered Beef Fat, Extractives of Turmeric,
Dehydrated Carrot, Onion Powder, and Not More
Than 2% Each of Calcium Silicate and Silicon
Dioxide Added as Anticaking Agents. Contains Wheat and Soy.

http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/pdf/kfc_ingredients_april09.pdf (http://www.kfc.com/nutrition/pdf/kfc_ingredients_april09.pdf)

Thanks for the post. I won't be a customer any time soon. Looks to me like you get a little chicken with your chemicals!! Forget it KFC

[gitfiddle]

This reinforces my belief that if something seems too good to be true, it probably is. I don't get the rotisserie chicken at the grocery store for the same reason. (sigh)

[MarciaT]

KFC grilled does look good but their nutrition list is sketchy, at best, and I'm betting that the "secret ingredients" contain a load of MSG, which they can get away with by making it "secret" (probably "proprietary" in legalese) and sugar. As I understand it, if any ingredient comes in at under one percent per serving, "truth" in labeling allows processors to claim 0. Given the variety of sugars available to processors, if there are several different sugars in their "secret spices" and each one is under one percent of the total, they can STILL claim 0 carbs. Anyone know if that's right? (Not trying to rain on parades, here - just deeply suspicious of processed food . . .)

[Frank Hagan]

KFC grilled does look good but their nutrition list is sketchy, at best, and I'm betting that the "secret ingredients" contain a load of MSG, which they can get away with by making it "secret" (probably "proprietary" in legalese) and sugar. As I understand it, if any ingredient comes in at under one percent per serving, "truth" in labeling allows processors to claim 0. Given the variety of sugars available to processors, if there are several different sugars in their "secret spices" and each one is under one percent of the total, they can STILL claim 0 carbs. Anyone know if that's right? (Not trying to rain on parades, here - just deeply suspicious of processed food . . .)

Restaurants are exempt from most of the Federal guidelines for labeling, although some states have laws that are more restrictive. From the FDA site:
(http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/ucm053455.htm)

Because restaurant foods tend to be prepared or sold differently from foods from other sources, FDA has amended 21 CFR 101.10 to provide a number of flexibilities for restaurants in how they determine the nutrient content of a food (e.g., using data base analysis or other reliable sources of nutrient information) and in how this information may be presented to consumers (e.g., in various formats and by reasonable means, such as in a flier or notebook) January 6, 1993, 58 FR 2302 at 2410 (available in PDF, 22.87 MB).


If a restaurant makes a specific claim about the food, such as "low fat", "low sodium", then they are required to provide, upon request, nutritional information. But they have much more flexibility in providing it; they don't have to provide it in the standard format. In fact, the information can be provided orally by the server. The link above has a Q&A that answers a lot of these questions.

For the nutritional labels we see on packaged foods, there are "rounding rules". I don't have the source in front of me now, but I think the FDA requires that calories per serving under 50 calories total be rounded to the next 5 calorie increment, while if it's over 50 calories, it is rounded up or down to the nearest 10 calorie increment.

Calories can be counted for the fiber at the same 4-calorie-per-gram level as all carbs, or the manufacturer can state the net calories and net carbs (carbs minus fiber minus sugar alcohols). I didn't see the specific requirements for restaurants in terms of carbs, fiber and sugar alcohols.

I was surprised to find the Coco's "Three Meat Omelet", composed of eggs, bacon, ham and sausage, was loaded with carbs ... over 40 IIRC. Sheesh, with eggs, bacon, ham and sausage, why would you need ANY carbs added to it?

[Mal Lady]

I was reading about MSG at: www.wikipedia.org/wiki/monosodium_glutamate (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/monosodium_glutamate) and was surprised at what I read. MSG doesn't seem to be the culprit it was said to be while back. Anyone want to have a friendly and open discussion on their experiences with it?

Sharon

[maxlharris]

I use MSG in some things I cook in the form of Accent. It adds a flavor of umami to things, kind of like parmesan cheese (the good stuff, shaved off a block, not the crap in the green can). I like it in some rubs. I have no adverse effects from it, and neither does my wife. Nor has any guest in my house who has been served things with a dash or three of Accent in the rub.

A lot of the problem with MSG is, in my completely unhumble opinion, psychosomatic. I suspect I could make guests ill by telling them I use some MSG, even if I didn't. I have heard a lot of apocryphal stories about things of this nature being proved in other places. Now, if you title a post about MSG, I am sure you will get a lot of reports that it makes people here deadly ill. Like a lot of things, I think some posters here have anecdotal experience that doesn't weigh the entirety of the variables in their experience. But, if you suggest that, they will not give you the data to dig deeper. Prepare for the wave, Sharon, assuming they find the thread.

On the issue of label rounding...
We don't watch calories, mostly, so don't worry about that.
If you do watch calories, I will suggest that if a rounding error of 5-10 calories/meal is going to be the problem, you're not doing something else correctly.
Carbs, protein, and fat <1g but >.5g are rounded down to .5g or <1g. If the number is actually <.5g, in the US you can call that 0.
Again, if you are going to be thrown over your count by .5 of a gram of carb, you might need a more thorough contemplation of your entire menu for the meal and the day.

If there were a KFC near work, I'd probably be eating some form of this about 1/week. And I avoid most things with soy in the listing, unless I am sure it is fermented.

[Frank Hagan]

The only side effect I get from MSG is thirst. At least, something in Chinese food makes me thirsty, and if I tell them to hold the MSG I don't get thirsty. Could well be a placebo effect at work here. Since going on PP, I don't eat Chinese anymore! Too carby!

They used to put "sulfites" on salad bars, and I do get a reaction from them. Not too severe, but a scratchy, sore throat (or really, the soft palate in the back of the mouth).

Calories in entrees are probably not too much of an issue, but if you are counting carbs and using a ton of something, like a sweetener, then all those little pink packets at "less than one carb" can add up to a lot of carbs. Dr. Mike tells a story, either in his blog or in one of the books, about a patient that was getting an extra 30g of carbs from using 50 or 60 packets of artificial sweetener per day.

You could probably do as well by weighing food as by counting calories. 8 ounces of steak has more available calories if cooked well done than rare, but no one goes to the trouble of calculating that. When you find out how they determine the caloric content of a food, and that the method originated in the late 1800s (or early 1900s), you realize that the idea of humans "burning food" is ludicrous. We don't burn food, we digest it. The only advantage of counting calories is to reduce the amount of food you eat, but it leads to poor choices ("Eat This, Not That") based on how much ash is left behind when you burn a particular food. I had a blog post (http://www.lowcarbage.com/2009/10/05/bodies-and-bonfires/) on the article in New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.200-the-calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are-wrong.html?full=true) that includes this doozy of a comment from a nutritionist defending the lie about calories:


There will be errors, but not very serious errors, and nobody can do their calories anyway so what difference does it make?” says Marion Nestle, a nutritionist at New York University.


I have a very low opinion of nutritionists to start with, but her comment drops that opinion even lower.

[maxlharris]

The only side effect I get from MSG is thirst. At least, something in Chinese food makes me thirsty, and if I tell them to hold the MSG I don't get thirsty. Could well be a placebo effect at work here. Since going on PP, I don't eat Chinese anymore! Too carby!

They used to put "sulfites" on salad bars, and I do get a reaction from them. Not too severe, but a scratchy, sore throat (or really, the soft palate in the back of the mouth).

Calories in entrees are probably not too much of an issue, but if you are counting carbs and using a ton of something, like a sweetener, then all those little pink packets at "less than one carb" can add up to a lot of carbs. Dr. Mike tells a story, either in his blog or in one of the books, about a patient that was getting an extra 30g of carbs from using 50 or 60 packets of artificial sweetener per day.

You could probably do as well by weighing food as by counting calories. 8 ounces of steak has more available calories if cooked well done than rare, but no one goes to the trouble of calculating that. When you find out how they determine the caloric content of a food, and that the method originated in the late 1800s (or early 1900s), you realize that the idea of humans "burning food" is ludicrous. We don't burn food, we digest it. The only advantage of counting calories is to reduce the amount of food you eat, but it leads to poor choices ("Eat This, Not That") based on how much ash is left behind when you burn a particular food. I had a blog post (http://www.lowcarbage.com/2009/10/05/bodies-and-bonfires/) on the article in New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327171.200-the-calorie-delusion-why-food-labels-are-wrong.html?full=true) that includes this doozy of a comment from a nutritionist defending the lie about calories:



I have a very low opinion of nutritionists to start with, but her comment drops that opinion even lower.
1- Any sodium product can make you thirsty. They are moisture conserving. Salt works the same.

2- Do you have the same issue with wines, pretty much all of which contain sulfites?

3- Rounding errors compile. Again, if you are taking 50-60 packets of sweetener, you are doing something wrong that would require a more thorough critique of your menu. Dr. Mike's patient is the moron that proves the rule.

4- 8 ounces of steak only has more calories cooked well done than rare because, being cooked, it has reduced in size and moisture content. 8 ounces of steak, cooked well done (aka wasted) was more like 10 ounces raw. While the rare steak was 9 ounces.

5- Really, calories are numbers for a static, granular world. Unfortunately, we live in a dynamic, moving world. If you're in tune with your appetite, you can eat to your appetite and be fine, without counting anything more than carbs. So, while you throw said nutritionist under the bus, I actually think she's probably on to a second level of understanding that doesn't work for static, granular analysis.

In the end, if the small bits of calories around the margins are what you suspect to be the problem, you probably have bigger problems that are messing you up. Q.V. Dr. Mike's Splenda addict.

[Frank Hagan]

1- Any sodium product can make you thirsty. They are moisture conserving. Salt works the same.

2- Do you have the same issue with wines, pretty much all of which contain sulfites?


No, wine does not have the same effect. I think it is a question of degree; the sulfites on salad bars was much more concentrated than that found in wine. There may have also been a combination effect of the sulfites with other agents (vinegar in dressing, etc.) I was unaware of sulfites when it began, and found it only in research after trying to figure out why it was happening. Sulfites were banned for such use in California shortly thereafter.



4- 8 ounces of steak only has more calories cooked well done than rare because, being cooked, it has reduced in size and moisture content. 8 ounces of steak, cooked well done (aka wasted) was more like 10 ounces raw. While the rare steak was 9 ounces.


The explanation in the New Scientist story linked above refers to the ability of the body to digest cooked meats. Take two steaks with a pre-cooked weight of 8 ounces, cook one rare and one well done, and the steak that is well done has more calories that you actually digest (even though it is smaller). There are some theories that not only did meat eating jump start our evolutionary process toward becoming human, but that cooking the meat was an important step as well.

[maxlharris]

The explanation in the New Scientist story linked above refers to the ability of the body to digest cooked meats. Take two steaks with a pre-cooked weight of 8 ounces, cook one rare and one well done, and the steak that is well done has more calories that you actually digest (even though it is smaller). There are some theories that not only did meat eating jump start our evolutionary process toward becoming human, but that cooking the meat was an important step as well.
Hrm...

From your article:

"That's a significant decrease in the cost of digestion (with cooking and grinding)," says Secor. "It means that there are that many more calories that can be allocated to other activities, like glucose or fat storage."

Uhm, if you're here, you do not want fat storage or excess glucose.
You want to eat it at a higher metabolic cost.
That's the whole goal of low carb, in one frame of thinking.

And, again, the nutritionist, saved from the burden of her dated education and her long history of publication, might realize that her quote is really more about a second level understanding. Work a program where you don't worry about calories, only constituents (carbs), and learn to trust your body's request for food, not just in general, but at a more refined level. Get hungry, eat something (low carb), but stop when you are sated. Keep your carbs low, and eat to your appetite. F labels.

[Frank Hagan]

Yeah, my point was just that the "counting calories" method of dieting has the veneer of being scientific, but is no more accurate or precise than weighing food or making sure you don't eat more than what fits on a 9" plate (both are methods of portion control ... i.e., starvation mode dieting ... that work for some people. At least temporarily.)

So even if you don't buy into the LC philosophy that managing the micro-nutrients in favor of protein and fat is more important than the portion control regimens, there is still a lot of imprecision in burning a cake, weighing the ash left over, and calculating what effect that will have when you ingest it. The rounding of calories up or down 5 to 25 calories either way has very little effect because the system is so imprecise.