Plugging the No S Life Style

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 7:50 pm

I was on the Livestrong.com forum this afternoon. They have a diet and dieting section. Or should I type: should I obsess over calories or carbs section...

So I posted the No S Diet. Told them it was great, and you don't have to be a food accountant to do it.

We'll see what the response is. But as I perused Livestrong.com, I saw a lot of evidence that people do micro-manage their health/ diet and probably do what Christiaan Barnard tells (told) us not to do: worry too much about it.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:07 pm

I noticed this in a completely different forum -- and it surprised me. It seems that more and more people eat for nutrients than pleasure. How sad.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:14 pm

There was already a post by a young woman who claimed she eats nutritious foods and can snack all she wants because the snacks are wholesome. (I am paraphrasing...) By the look of her avatar snacking might not be such a good idea.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 8:20 pm

wosnes wrote:I noticed this in a completely different forum -- and it surprised me. It seems that more and more people eat for nutrients than pleasure. How sad.

I think that is what seperates us from other countries. We're eating for maximum nutrition. They are eating for pleasure.

I was at the store this morning buying ingredients for tomorrow's "Big Game" meal: chili mac. you reduce the suet, then brown burger and ground pork in it with onions. Add consomne', spices and kidney beans. Serve it over vermicelli. A woman walked up, saw the items on the belt at the check out stand and asked, "What do you do with all of this?" "I mix it all together and serve it on spaghetti!" I told her. She made a face and asked if I wasn't worried about my cholestorol?

First I almost told her it wasn't any of her gd business. But thought better of it and told her "no".

Anyway, I digress. I am trying to enjoy food more for the taste and experience. The nurtrients will come. And they don't have to be in a "raw" granola bar.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:14 pm

Over43 -- your dish sounds delicious and somewhat like Cincinnati chili. Yum!

After I made the observation at the other forum, I was watching Lidia Bastianich. I can't imagine her or any good Italian cook (or Greek, French, Chinese, Japanese, etc) adding flax seed or oil or protein powder to a dish to boost the nutrients. They use real ingredients and cook to make things taste good. And so do I.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:30 pm

wosnes wrote:Over43 -- your dish sounds delicious and somewhat like Cincinnati chili. Yum!

After I made the observation at the other forum, I was watching Lidia Bastianich. I can't imagine her or any good Italian cook (or Greek, French, Chinese, Japanese, etc) adding flax seed or oil or protein powder to a dish to boost the nutrients. They use real ingredients and cook to make things taste good. And so do I.

I picked up the recipe from the now defunct "Best Life" magazine. They called it Chicago Chili Mac and claimed it was the favorite of Miles Davis.

The specifics are:

1/4 lb. suet
1 lb. of ground beef
1/2 lb. of ground prok (I often just use ground breakfast sausage...)
1/2 lb. of ground veal (I use 1 lbs. of ground pork...)
1 onion diced
2 tsp of gralic powder
1 teaspoon of cumin seed
1 tsp. of chili powder
2 cans of kidney beans drained
1 can of beef consomne'
1 drop of red wine vinegar
1 lbs. vermacelli

melt suet, remove solid pieces saute the onion
mix spices directly into the meat add meat to onions saute until brown
add kindey beans, consomne' and vinegar
simmer for an hour
cook vermacelli
spoon meat mixture over vermacelli
top with oyster crackers and parmesan cheese

(Best Life Magazine)

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:36 pm

Thanks! That sounds very tasty. I'll have to try it soon. It is pretty similar to Cincinnati Chili. There are some differences (Parmesan), but it's very similar -- kind of a variation.

Post by **reinhard** » Sat Feb 05, 2011 11:52 pm

I noticed this in a completely different forum -- and it surprised me. It seems that more and more people eat for nutrients than pleasure. How sad.

The really sad thing is that it doesn't even work. It's like C.S. Lewis's "first and second things."

To sacrifice the greater good for the less and then not to get the lesser good after allâ€“that is the surprising folly. . . Every preference of a small good to a great, or a partial good to a total good, involves the loss of the small or partial good for which the sacrifice was made. Apparently the world is made that way. If Esau really got his pottage in return for his birthright, then Esau was a lucky exception. You canâ€™t get second things by putting them first; you can get second things only by putting first things first.

librarylady · Post by **librarylady** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:54 pm

I took a look over there. It is funny how so many of the posters refer to it as a "fad diet" - which of course No S is the absolute opposite of! They are particularly horrified by the idea of no snacks! Apparently none of these people could exist on 3 meals a day. However did their grandparents, great grandparents, great great grandparents etc. ever manage to live and reproduce? On top of everything else all those ancestors almost certainly exercised a good deal more than their descendents - who MUST have their snacks - do you hear me!!

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:10 pm

Over43 wrote: Add consomne', spices and kidney beans. Serve it over vermicelli. A woman walked up, saw the items on the belt at the check out stand and asked, "What do you do with all of this?" "I mix it all together and serve it on spaghetti!" I told her. She made a face and asked if I wasn't worried about my cholestorol? First I almost told her it wasn't any of her gd business. But thought better of it and told her "no".

Good heavens, you actually get challenged about what is in your grocery cart? Holy Mackerel, if that happened to me, I'd be freezing that impertinent imbecile solid with an icy, well-placed remark so fast I'd be making the Snow Miser look like the Heat Miser.

What appalling manners!

amake616 · Post by **amake616** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:59 am

I checked it out. This chick:

"I'm sorry, but anything that limits you to eating only a few times a day, one serving each regardless of how hungry you are is a fad diet to me."

I have a sneaking suspicion would drive me nuts IRL. Nothing like making a sweeping judgment about one person's three sentence description of something solely based on your vast psychic knowledge and admirable skill at Assumptions and Presumptions.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:05 am

I'll have to go back and look at her post. It is the same individual, in another thread, who was wondering if she should buy $60 bottles of spirolina. (dried kelp...)

amake616 · Post by **amake616** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:22 pm

Over43 wrote:I'll have to go back and look at her post. It is the same individual, in another thread, who was wondering if she should buy $60 bottles of spirolina. (dried kelp...)

...and this same person calls a three meal a day eating plan a fad diet?

If only Reinhard had known that adding in a twice a day dried kelp snack would have kept No S from being a gimmicky fad diet.

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:53 pm

Fad diet, my word...

Though if the person was born after 1985, chances are very good that not snacking WOULD look like a fad diet to her. I know that three meals and two snacks (like a piece of fruit) was pushed at the diet center where I was a counselor in the late 80s/early 90s. Keeping the blood sugar level was the reason given. (And yeah, at 900 calories a day, if you're not nibbling fairly frequently, you WOULD have a dizzy spell occasionally).

But the whole "Three meals, two healthy snacks" has been pushed since at least 1980 that I know of. Something that's been normal for 30 years is NORMAL, you know?

Nicest of the Damned · Post by **Nicest of the Damned** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 3:57 pm

amake616 wrote:I checked it out. This chick:

"I'm sorry, but anything that limits you to eating only a few times a day, one serving each regardless of how hungry you are is a fad diet to me."

The problem with taking how hungry you are into account when determining how much to eat and when to eat is that other feelings sometimes masquerade as hunger. It can be hard to tell them from real hunger. Thirst can do it, so can boredom and other emotions.

If hunger really were based only on when you need food, you wouldn't get food cravings from seeing someone else eat, from smelling food, or from seeing food ads. Seeing or smelling something doesn't use up a significant amount of nutrients, so it doesn't make you need food. In the real world, those things do make people feel hungry. We've all experienced it.

No S is good because it doesn't require you to be able to tell genuine hunger from other feelings.

Aleria · Post by **Aleria** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:25 pm

I think this girl needs to learn the lesson we No-S'ers have: Hunger isn't bad, or dangerous. It's not going to kill you to wait a few hours to eat.

Sienna · Post by **Sienna** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 5:48 pm

NoelFigart wrote:Fad diet, my word...

Though if the person was born after 1985, chances are very good that not snacking WOULD look like a fad diet to her.

I was born in 1984. I can't fathom while someone would call this a fad diet. I was raised on 3 meals a day plus one afternoon snack when I got home from school. But it wasn't so much snacking as it was a single planned snack (aka a teeny tiny scheduled meal) and as a child it was necessary because school lunch was at 10:40 am and my dad didn't get home from work until 6:30-7pm. 8 hours is a long time for kids!

It wasn't until much later in life - middle school/high school/college that I started snacking. Now snacks are everywhere. It's like denying someone a snack is like the ultimate form of punishment. Maybe it's probably part of our current "must have now" culture. "I can't wait to check my email until I get home - Must Have Blackberry to Check Email Now!" or "I can't wait to eat until dinner - Must Have Blackberries Now!" It's kind of the same.

I understand the *theory* behind snacking being good for you to maintain blood sugar levels. But one could do NoS with 6 half-plate sized meals pre day and achieve the same result. I don't think it's about the number of meals or whether carrots are good or bad for you, but about defining set times during the day where you eat/think about what you are eating so that you aren't *constantly* eating or thinking about what you will put in your mouth next. I don't even think the times have to be specified in advance (mine aren't). You just need to be able to separate "eating time" from "not eating time".

I have a friend who wanted to lose weight and knowing that I had had success on NoS, told me that her new diet was very similar to my NoS diet. She didn't think she could do without snacking, so she would do NoS, but would allow snacks as long as they were healthy snacks. For the first week or so, I think this actually worked okay. She went 3 meals a day and usually had some carrot sticks or celery or an apple once or twice in the afternoon (and then whatever she did at home). Then the healthy snacks changed to nuts or pretzels or low fat chips. Then to those 100 calorie packs of cookies. She actually said to me (unprompted, I promise, I'm not the diet police - she just likes to talk a lot about her food and her dieting) that she considered 100 calorie packs a healthy snack because they were only 100 calories. It was maybe a month total before she was back to grabbing cookies at work meetings. After having been on NoS since June, I actually think the No Snacking rule is the most liberating. No more am I a slave to random food paraded around me and making judgement calls about whether something counts as healthy or not. Just "Is it meal time?"

Sorry, that got long, but mostly, I am just so confused that anyone - even young'ns - would see this as a "fad". But maybe if I'd been born 2 years later, it would all seem different to me

amake616 wrote:
I checked it out. This chick:

"I'm sorry, but anything that limits you to eating only a few times a day, one serving each regardless of how hungry you are is a fad diet to me."

Wait, who said you could only have one serving? I can fit way more than 1 serving on a plate, and I use small plates. Sure maybe you can't fit eight servings of lasagna, six bread sticks and a 3 serving side salad on one plate, but surely no calorie counting diet would allow that anyhow? And two servings of lasagna, 2 bread sticks and a small side salad would fit fairly easily, even on a small plate. [/quote]

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:15 pm

Sienna wrote: I understand the *theory* behind snacking being good for you to maintain blood sugar levels.

With some exceptions, that's exactly what it is -- a theory. Diabetics on medication will need to eat to keep blood sugar from getting too low. Hypoglycemia is equally as dangerous -- and more quickly -- as hyperglycemia. For the rest of us, abstaining is probably better than frequent feeding.

At holiday meals I've proven that one can get a LOT of food on one plate. I've managed to get a serving of everything on my plate. In some cases they were pretty small servings, but it all added up to a lot of food. And I certainly didn't need to snack later!

amake616 · Post by **amake616** » Tue Feb 08, 2011 1:55 am

Sienna wrote:
Wait, who said you could only have one serving? I can fit way more than 1 serving on a plate, and I use small plates. Sure maybe you can't fit eight servings of lasagna, six bread sticks and a 3 serving side salad on one plate, but surely no calorie counting diet would allow that anyhow? And two servings of lasagna, 2 bread sticks and a small side salad would fit fairly easily, even on a small plate.

I think she was jumping to a lot of assumptions which is what made me roll my eyes over her post in general. I don't understand being totally dismissive of something when you don't even know what it is yet really.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:00 pm

I need to go back and revisit the thread at Live Strong. I have been busy. I think some of you touched on the issue above. The people ate Live Strong think that feeling hungry is something abnormal. Obviously it is not...We don't need to be satiated constantly. In fact, there is at times a pleasant feeling with a touch of hunger going on.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 2:27 pm

Went back and visited last evening the Living Strong forum. I fail to understand the dogmatic approach that people have toward food, diets and what it takes to "be in shape".

As logical as No S seems to me, it is just as offensive to others.

That is the way it goes I guess.

I thought that the simplicity of the whole No S process would be appealing. Apparently not.

NoSRocks · Post by **NoSRocks** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:06 pm

I know what you mean - guess it rings true when they say "Each to their own!"
Well, at least WE know we have made the right decision by following the No S Plan and perhaps they will come to their senses and see the light one of these days.

amake616 · Post by **amake616** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:07 pm

I went and checked it again.

"Not for me...too many arbitrary rules to remember."

Yes, because limited amounts of sugar and calorie input opportunities is wildly arbitrary. These crazy dieters! What radical concepts for trying to lose weight!

librarylady · Post by **librarylady** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 3:12 pm

And a number of them are just horrified by the no snacks (on N days) rule! It is amazing how snacking just permeates the entire country's thinking these days. When I was a little kid in the sixties mothers would always say - "don't snack, because if you do you won't eat your dinner" What they didn't realize was that what actually winds up happening is that people both snack AND eat their dinner (then dessert, then snacks in front of the TV at night, then . . . )

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:36 pm

amake616 wrote:I went and checked it again.

"Not for me...too many arbitrary rules to remember."

Yes, because limited amounts of sugar and calorie input opportunities is wildly arbitrary. These crazy dieters! What radical concepts for trying to lose weight!

Thirteen words are quite arbitrary?

Maybe had Reinhard been able to say it in 12 words, it would be less confusing.

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:27 pm

LMAO.

That's all code for, "I don't want to do it that way."

I often how much freer we'd be if we'd actually have the guts to SAY, "I don't want to do that" rather than try to concoct a logical reason...

Nicest of the Damned · Post by **Nicest of the Damned** » Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:30 pm

amake616 wrote:I went and checked it again.

"Not for me...too many arbitrary rules to remember."

There are three rules. I think my cats manage to follow at least that many rules that must seem arbitrary to them.

Over43 · Post by **Over43** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 5:17 pm

I don't think I can ever go back to that forum...

I didn't expect such a negative reaction to something I see as so simple. (Hence the aka: Why Didn't I Think of that Diet?

)

Reminds me a bit of "Back to the Future": You are my density.

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:27 pm

Nicest of the Damned wrote:
amake616 wrote:I went and checked it again.

"Not for me...too many arbitrary rules to remember."
There are three rules. I think my cats manage to follow at least that many rules that must seem arbitrary to them.

And if cats can manage that many...That's a statement!

Imogen Morley · Post by **Imogen Morley** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 6:51 pm

Sienna wrote:
I was born in 1984. I can't fathom while someone would call this a fad diet. I was raised on 3 meals a day plus one afternoon snack when I got home from school. But it wasn't so much snacking as it was a single planned snack (aka a teeny tiny scheduled meal) and as a child it was necessary because school lunch was at 10:40 am and my dad didn't get home from work until 6:30-7pm. 8 hours is a long time for kids!

It wasn't until much later in life - middle school/high school/college that I started snacking.

I was born in 1985, and I double all that you wrote. Though Polish cuisine is heavy, full of white flour and/or grease (my skinny American friends ALWAYS have stomach problems after sitting down to a traditional Polish dinner), we're fairly slim as a nation.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:31 pm

Over43 wrote:Went back and visited last evening the Living Strong forum. I fail to understand the dogmatic approach that people have toward food, diets and what it takes to "be in shape".

As logical as No S seems to me, it is just as offensive to others.

That is the way it goes I guess.

I thought that the simplicity of the whole No S process would be appealing. Apparently not.

I understand that dogmatic approach; I just don't believe it for myself. They're all into being in shape, nutritionism and scientific reductionism -- and I'm into common sense. Eat some, walk some, sleep some -- good enough for me,

Nicest of the Damned · Post by **Nicest of the Damned** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 7:33 pm

librarylady wrote:It is amazing how snacking just permeates the entire country's thinking these days. When I was a little kid in the sixties mothers would always say - "don't snack, because if you do you won't eat your dinner"

My mother said that, in the 80's when I was growing up.

My sister now allows my niece (who is four and a half) to not eat much at meals, and snack whenever she wants to. This irritates my mother when she sees it. I think it's a bad idea, too, because I think she will eventually end up eating at meals and eating snacks. My sister and I, and my brother-in-law, all have struggled with our weight. Genetics are not in this kid's favor here.

librarylady · Post by **librarylady** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:00 pm

As I walked the five blocks from the train to my library, I passed wrapper after wrapper - candy, chip bags, fast food, empty soda cans, Chinese food containers, coffee cups etc. The saddest thing though is to see the little kids on the train with their moms - all of them eating up a storm, cheetos and coke and cookies for breakfast. People don't seem to be able to do anything anymore without a snack! We had finally to allow students to bring food into the library - they were doing it anyway, and policing it took up all our time. Since Barnes and Noble introduced the idea of coffee and snacks with books the connection has become hardened in people's minds. We are actually one of the few library's in our area which does not have a coffee and snack bar - how long that will last I don't know!

I do know that when I first cut out snacking altogether, both in my original weight loss and now with No s, I craved a snack at certain times (like 10 AM) for only about a week. Then the cravings stop - what I need to be careful of is boredom. Eating to do something different is dangerous for me - and the complete banning of ANY snack between meals is just the guideline I need!

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 8:36 pm

I've noticed the "gotta be munching" thing. Part of what I do is computer applications instructor, and it's like people can't take a three hour class without their widdle nibbles. It makes me twitch some --crumbs in the keyboards, or the potential for a spilled drink on the CPU.

Lot of 'em aren't overweight, mind. Certainly not as overweight as I am.

Still, after awhile it does seem strange to watch people eating so often out of mealtimes.

As far as eating and reading? I've found that pleasant for years, but found that No-S was easier when I stopped that. Not giving up sipping coffee or tea while reading, though.

librarylady · Post by **librarylady** » Tue Feb 15, 2011 9:19 pm

It makes me twitch some --crumbs in the keyboards, or the potential for a spilled drink on the CPU.

Some of our keyboards get pretty nasty! We are thinking of banning food from the terminals, but again somebody has to enforce it. I'm supposed to be helping them with their research, not being mommy!