Everyday Systems

reinhard

At long last, I found time to squeeze out another podcast segment:

http://everydaysystems.com/podcast/episode.php?id=28

Reinhard

Jammin' Jan · Joined: 05 May 2005 Posts: 1886 Location: Minnesota

Congratulations on the expected baby!!!

florafloraflora · Joined: 16 Jan 2007 Posts: 219 Location: Washington, DC USA

Congratulations from me too. And thanks for the podcast. I've been struggling with my commitment to No-S lately, and I found a lot of encouragement there.

shamrockmommy · Joined: 15 Dec 2006 Posts: 876

Ooooooh a new baby Smile

I love 'em !! Smile

Congratulations to you both.

Great podcast, thank you!
Tiff
_________________
~*~Tiffani~*~

mimi · Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:37 am Post subject:

Thanks for the great poscast. What could be more wonderful than a new baby?! We have TWO coming! My daughter's first in August and my son and daughter-in-law's third in September! Babies everywhere!
_________________
If you start to slip, tie a knot and hang on!

reinhard · Posted: Fri May 25, 2007 11:41 pm Post subject:

Thanks for the kind wishes!

I was stunned to find that 90% statistic about snacking, and from such an authoritative source. I guess I'd always had a hunch, and knew it made a big difference to me personally, but it's great to have this kind of quantitative backup.

Reinhard

J Ellis · Joined: 21 Feb 2006 Posts: 53 Location: LaGrange, GA

Reinhard,

Great post, again. I thought this podcast was particularly superior. It is certainly in the top five. Simple. Logical. Powerful. Convincing.

Congratulations on the baby. My wife and I are expecting another one too, very soon.

Joel
_________________
www.fitness-solution.blogspot.com

KCCC · Joined: 27 Oct 2006 Posts: 2729

Congrats on the new baby, the book, and the podcast. Smile

Good podcast, too. Snacking is the hardest part to "defend" when I'm explaining No-S. I've just been saying that "for me," it works because I eat healthy meals, and when I cut out snacks I end up cutting out most of the junk. Plus, fewer "food decisions" = fewer places to make bad choices.

Nice to have real data, though.

When is the baby due?

TigerCrane · Joined: 27 Mar 2007 Posts: 28

That's astounding!!! Snacking was the weirdest part of the diet for me as well...I'm flabbergasted to find that it makes so much difference.

stevecooper · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 124

I always thought the No-S diet was over-long, and mostly padding. Now you admit it. Fourteen words indeed!

I liked this one. I've read the start of the paper you recommended -- so far it looks very accessible, and I'd suggest people go off to the source and have a read.

Snack-Meal Independance; What's very interesting to me is the idea that snacks don't affect how much you eat later. I'm not quite sure how to account for that, but it's a key idea. It definately ties up with my behaviour when I'm not dieting.

It does intrigue me, though. Why don't snacks make you guzzle less at mealtimes?

reinhard · Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject:

stevecooper · Joined: 26 Jan 2006 Posts: 124

Reinhard wrote: "Why don't snacks diminish our appetite beyond an immediate few minutes? I suspect that our bodies simply don't really register them because they make no sense"

Gastric Emptying

I had a look for ideas around the net about the way the stomach clears itself. The medical phrase seems to be 'Gastric Emptying.' Mmmm....

Anyway; I found this, which describes the way our bodies process food over time.

Have a look at the first graph on the page;

there's a blue line showing what happens when you eat a meal -- there's a little time before you start clearing it out, then you get rid of the food in a roughly linear way. I wondered if you only get that if you've eaten a big meal; maybe, if you only eat a snack, you immediately begin digesting - the graph goes up but immediately descends. Maybe something special happens for Big Food...

Big Food and Fattynol

And now I have a half-baked theory...

What if that half-an-hour marked something the body does only with big meals? Some kind of 'i have eaten well' signal -- maybe a burst of neurotransmitters that latch on to your hunger glands and says 'whoa, there, big fella!' I'm gonna call this theorised neurotransmitter Fattynol. Wink

Next time you come to eat, you eat based on how much Fattynol is sloshing around. Low Fattynol == lots of food.

If you snack, you don't get properly full. That means you never get a Fattynol release. Because your Fattynol levels are low when you next eat, you eat loads -- even though you've eaten the extra calories.

Et voila! A perfect explaination. There's no actual evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.

The Snack That Would Be Lunch.

A few more thoughts.

We seem to have two types of eating event;

1) small eating events, or snacking
2) big eating events, or meals

if Meal-Snack Independence is true, then there must be a threshold, between snack and blow-out meal. The Snack That Would Be Lunch.

That threshold is just enough to count as a meal. Anything over that, and maybe you're eating too much. Below that, and it counts as snacking. The one-plate-that-doesn't-look-stupid rule seems to be a guideline for finding that threshold.

Note how, in this model, it's much worse to eat a slightly too small meal, that doesn't satisfy and makes you feel hungry for hours, than it is to eat a slightly-too-big meal that stops you snacking or feeling hungry as the day wanders on.