Good Housekeeping magazine, June issue, had an short but interesting article by Gretchen Rubin, entitled, "When to Say 'Never'." Subtitle is, "Sometimes not giving yourself a choice is the best choice of all."
She goes on to speak about diet "Abstainers", who like herself, have a weakness for particular foods so they never eat them, as this is easier for them then trying to become "Moderators" who are able to happily eat treats only occasionally or in small amounts.
She says one is usually trying to convert the other, with comments from Abstainers like, "Why do you even keep that in the house?" Or from Moderators, "Life's too short not to eat a brownie!"
Personally, solely doing the moderator thing frustrated me to no end repeatedly as I just couldn't eat "normal" like some folks, wondering what's wrong with me. And the abstainer thing? Forget about it!
I love No S because the N days teach both camps. And the S days teaches moderation: A sugar headache or heartburn or a sick gut could teach you moderation for the next S day (hopefully). I'm still working on that even after a year on No S (second time), and the occasional moderate weekend gives me hope for more in the future.
abstainer or moderator?
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
So, did the article actually say how to decide it for yourself? Personally, I don't trust anyone else's experience unless she has been following it for two or more years because the odds show that certain behaviors have a likely of failing by then. Baumeister of Willpower (one of them) advises not going on a traditional diet and not swearing off any food. One of the things he does recommend is determining what one will do in situations. And he is big on defeating the WTH effect.
I think that's what No S advocates. I can imagine that a person might let certain foods drop out of her life after experimenting on S days for quite a long time if she finds that no situation really lends itself to eating, say, chocolate, in a way that is actually satisfying. I do know that researchers have found that men are more likely to have success just looking at their worst offenders and jettisoning them. And if someone can do it without a lot of sturm und drang, good for them.
I think that's what No S advocates. I can imagine that a person might let certain foods drop out of her life after experimenting on S days for quite a long time if she finds that no situation really lends itself to eating, say, chocolate, in a way that is actually satisfying. I do know that researchers have found that men are more likely to have success just looking at their worst offenders and jettisoning them. And if someone can do it without a lot of sturm und drang, good for them.
Count plates, not calories. 11 years "during"
Age 69
BMI Jan/10-30.8
1/12-26.8 3/13-24.9 +/- 8-lb. 3 yrs
9/17 22.8 (flux) 3/18 22.2
2 yrs flux 6/20 22
1/21-23
There is no S better than Vanilla No S (mods now as a senior citizen)
Age 69
BMI Jan/10-30.8
1/12-26.8 3/13-24.9 +/- 8-lb. 3 yrs
9/17 22.8 (flux) 3/18 22.2
2 yrs flux 6/20 22
1/21-23
There is no S better than Vanilla No S (mods now as a senior citizen)
"oolala53" So, did the article actually say how to decide it for yourself?
Yes, Oolala, she did: "You're an abstainer if: 1. You have trouble stopping yourself from doing something (eating, drinking,etc.) once you've gotten started. 2. You aren't tempted by things once you've decided they're totally off-limits.
You're a moderator if: 1. Indulging in something only occasionally satisfies your craving and strengthens your resolve. 2. You get panicky at the thought of never doing something again."[/quote]
Yes, Oolala, she did: "You're an abstainer if: 1. You have trouble stopping yourself from doing something (eating, drinking,etc.) once you've gotten started. 2. You aren't tempted by things once you've decided they're totally off-limits.
You're a moderator if: 1. Indulging in something only occasionally satisfies your craving and strengthens your resolve. 2. You get panicky at the thought of never doing something again."[/quote]
