Been reading a bit more of the Weight Loss for Food Lovers book yesterday. This section introduces Low-GI foods. (Or Low-GL foods as the up-to-date peoples are calling it now.) I'm all for them and I think it's great that he mentions them. I know I certainly feel better and have more energy when I eat Low-GL. His explanation of what they are is easy to understand and he refers to some cookbooks and gives some suggestions of Low-GI items to eat. In line with this theory of Restriction, he says that it's OK to eat non-GL foods sometimes as well (in small amounts). I find this to be a bit contradictory, because in the first part of the book he says: you can eat whatever you want, you shouldn't ever feel restricted or deprived. But then he keeps on saying you should only eat small portions of your one chosen High Sacrifice Food (as he calls them), and only at certain times. And only your chosen one, not any others. And he sometimes refers to these foods (doughnuts, chips, chocolate etc.) as "suicide foods", which I find kind of disturbing. I thought we weren't supposed to think of some foods as 'good' and others 'bad'? I thought that sort of thing was unhealthy for our mental well-being? And now in this section, he seems to be extending the label of High Sacrifice to any food that has too many carbohydrates. The range of what we can eat and when is narrowing by the chapter!
It seems he starts almost every chapter out by asserting something sensible, but then draws a twisted conclusion from it. It's driving me nuts! Still, I read on.
I just got hold of an article from Choice magazine from about 6 months ago (a bit old, I know) on weight loss myths. I'll have a thorough read and report back soon!