No Snacking?

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:37 pm

I am starting on the No S Habit today. I'm not quite clear, however, on the "no snacking" rule. To be honest with you, it doesn't seem very clear to me at all when I think about it. So I have decided it would be better to replace it with two equally simple rules:

No Salty
No Strain: Eat only when you're hungry

Which I intend to do, with a minimum of at least one meal a day. And no, don't waste your time telling me one meal a day is not healthy- I've heard it enough times. I'm used to it and I really don't need much food to begin with, being very, very sedentary (I do walk extensively however- a necessity of not having a car).

Perhaps if some other people on here can tell me what they understand by "No Snacking", however, I might readopt the rule.

Steve · Post by **Steve** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:51 pm

Snacks are simply anything you eat outside of breakfast, lunch, or dinner. (With the usual disclaimer that people with certain medical conditions may need more than 3 meals a day.)

Of course, if you're having one "meal" and two "snacks" a day, then you're basically having three meals, two of which are very small.

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:59 pm

Exactly Steve, that is why I think the rule is not that good, if you're going to follow it strictly. Sometimes I don't really have lunch but just have a few bites of something (like an hour ago I had a few bites of beef noodle, and I might have a couple more). I don't consider that "snacking".

Nielsio · Post by **Nielsio** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:08 pm

A fact of the human body and mind is that it adapts to our eating habits. So if we eat a lot, then the body will expect a lot. Now we can use this trait to eat less as well, but it's not easy changing habits. What you can do is first getting into the habit of only eating three times a day (in sufficient portions). This alone will make you very aware of the times that you are eating outside them; and that's called snacking. And you can also slowly start eating smaller portions. The body adapt to the time you eat as well, so try to regulate that too.

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:25 pm

So it's about not eating beyond certain times. I understand that, although I'm not sure I would integrate that specifically in my eating habits.

Nielsio · Post by **Nielsio** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:26 pm

Francois Tremblay wrote:So it's about not eating beyond certain times. I understand that, although I'm not sure I would integrate that specifically in my eating habits.

It's a good way of having insight and control over your habits. If you eat whenever you're hungry, you'll never eat less.

gratefuldeb67 · Post by **gratefuldeb67** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:30 pm

Well then that's your lunch...
The point of the rule, and I feel its very good, is to keep people accountable for what they eat.. Most "snackers" are people who don't really stay accountable, and will eat their meals and snack, as well...

Just because you chose to pick a little instead of actually eat a more substantial lunch, doesn't make the rule bad, it just doesn't seem to work for you.. I guess..

What are your personal goals here, if you don't mind me asking

Peace and Love,

Deb

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:43 pm

My personal goal? Mostly to look better. I'm too fat.

gratefuldeb67 · Post by **gratefuldeb67** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 8:45 pm

LOL

Good luck!

pangelsue · Post by **pangelsue** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:47 am

Maybe for you, eating "no more than" 3 times a day might work. The description after your name sounds like you are a person who doesn't like rules and there are very few here. Eating no more than 3 plates of food a day is really the only one. That and having freedom on weekends which should appeal to anyone. Freedom is good. Doesn't exist in any other diet that I ever tried. You'll find your stride if you stay here and mind the one simple rule.

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:48 am

Oh I like rules, just not arbitrary ones.

Yes, that's what I already do, so I don't expect to have any problems at that level.

pangelsue · Post by **pangelsue** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:55 pm

I totally agree on arbitrary rules. My boss is always saying if Sue doesn't question a new rule, no one will. Ever see V for Vendetta? That's me or actually my husband and me. The more freedoms we toss away the less we all are. Not the forum but we were just wondering this morning what a market anarchist is??

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 3:15 pm

pangelsue wrote:I totally agree on arbitrary rules. My boss is always saying if Sue doesn't question a new rule, no one will. Ever see V for Vendetta? That's me or actually my husband and me. The more freedoms we toss away the less we all are. Not the forum but we were just wondering this morning what a market anarchist is??

Well, V for Vendetta was reported as a movie with market anarchist themes, although I haven't seen it.

Market anarchy is basically the position that the state should be abolished and replaced by freedom of trade, even for services typically claimed by the state such as police, law and military force. Market anarchists believe that the monopoly of force of the state (whatever its form) and the monopoly of law lead to fundamental moral and economic problems which can only be solved by competition, and that everyone should be free to live their lives as they desire, as long as they don't attack other people's freedom. For a good intro that answers most of the basic questions, see my web site Simply Anarchy.

Niels, who posts on the shovelglove section, is also a market anarchist and a good friend of mine.

Anything beyond that should probably go in the off-topic section...

Post by **reinhard** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:55 am

Francois,

"No snacking" means no eating between meals. I think it's actually a hugely important "S," and not at all arbitrary.

If you don't keep your input opportunities discreet, you're never going to be able to monitor them without a whole lot of math (fun for a week or too, boring as hell for longer periods). People barely eat meals at all today, they permasnack. They don't even have to actively deceive themselves about what they're eating: they simply have no idea what's going on.

If the "no math" aspect doesn't convince you, consider the abundant historical precedent: snacking is a relatively new, fat society behavior. "Mealing" is how we ate when most of us were thin.

Little picture, sure, it's dumb to starve yourself if your meal was too small. But you've got to think big picture. If your meals are too small to see you through to the next without snacking, eat bigger meals.

As for eating "only when you're hungry," hunger wasn't designed for the totally unnatural condition of superabundance that we live in today. Hunger exists to deal with "not enough," it's useless when dealing with "too much." "Too much" isn't a problem we've ever had to deal with until very, very recently. We don't have instinctive tools to deal with it.

That being said, if you want to skip this S, the other two should still be a great help. I'd just strongly recommend giving it some more consideration...

Reinhard

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 1:56 pm

Hmm. Well, I may be inclined to agree with you. From now on I will have light lunches even if I'm not hungry.

gratefuldeb67 · Post by **gratefuldeb67** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:31 pm

And you could wait a little longer till you are hungry if that's possible.
I usually eat my lunch very late in the day, more like around 3 or 4 pm..
Actually, I usually eat breakfast fairly late as well..
I am sure that if I was a nine to fiver who got up and out by 7:30 every day, my body would crave fuel much earlier.
My hunger is often linked directly to how busy I am.

Have a good weekend all

Peace and Love,

Deb

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:08 pm

Yea, like I said before, I am very sedentary (apart from all the walking I have to do), so I don't figure I need a lot of food.

Donna O · Post by **Donna O** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:08 pm

i think that i know how you feel, francois-- i can remember when i first heard " 3 moderate meals a day, no snacks in between and 1 day at a time"- i was struggling horribly with bulima and i was sure that this plan would not work for me

but i tried it, anyway- because i have faith in the all of the others that have tried it before me, and it is working in their lives

i also discoverd that after years and years of binging and purging, starving
and binging and starving that i had completely lost touch with what hunger feels like-- so to eat only when i am hungry would be like trying to depend on a broken gauge ( whatever they are called) in my car to tell me when i need to put in gas..

what works really, really well for me is 3 meals a day with no snacks..

i would encourage you to try it for at least 3 weeks-- look at the number of people on this site who are ding so well, if it helps you to know-
by having 3 meals a day- i am able to maintain my weight between 130 and 135 lbs ( i am 5'8") i also walk 3 miles 4 to 6 times a week

very moderate diet and exercise, considering all of the craziness out there ....

... i am thinking that you are going to be very pleased with your progress

XOXO
Donna O

Francois Tremblay · Post by **Francois Tremblay** » Sun Jul 02, 2006 2:24 pm

Yea, I figure my metabolism will get back to a normal state in the long term... I'll just have to be patient. As long as I'm improving, right?

Everyday Systems

No Snacking?

No Snacking?

finding hunger again