My experience...maybe maintenance is as good as it gets?

[CGB]

Hello -

I've read many posts on this board with great interest over the last three months, read the book, listened to all the podcasts, and wanted to share my experience with No-S thus far. I'm hoping this post will be a springboard to further discussion about underlying reasons for overeating.

A quick bit of background: I'm in my late 40s with a rather unfortunate genetic makeup as it relates to bodyfat. I have "fought" this all my life by pursuing fitness, in the form of weightlifting and cardio, and doing my best to eat healthfully. Despite my fitness pursuits and generally healthful eating, I have always carried an extra 15-25 pounds. In the past, counting calories at around 1500/day has resulted in about a 1-pound weight loss per week, which of course always returns when the counting stops. I had hoped that No-S would give me the same result, without the counting. On any given day that I'm not eating within a structure, I have no easily identifiable sources of excess calories, such as soda, gooey coffee drinks, lots of restaurant meals, etc.; of course, that still leaves room for just enough extra sneaky calories -- I'm guessing in the form of slightly too-large portions and even healthy snacks -- that my "usual" eating does not result in any weight loss.

I have followed No-S faithfully for two months total, with a 2-week break during vacation, in which I did not gain. Though I certainly did not expect No-S to be any kind of quick fix -- especially since I'm not majorly overconsuming in the first place -- I was surprised that I haven't lost anything. Yes, maintaining is great -- but I maintained before I started No-S with, I dare say, just a bit more fun (read: sweets) in my weekly diet. I didn't start No-S to maintain; I started it to lose, albeit slowly.

The observation I want to make is that, for those of us who are not prone to consuming a serious excess of calories before starting No-S, it might be an unreasonable expectation to lose on this plan. At least for me, my appetite seems to be directly tied to my current weight; hence, my long-term maintenance of my weight. Yes, my current weight is more than is optimally healthy for my frame -- but my appetite seems to be set at a point that supports maintaining this exact weight. When I put food on one plate for a meal, I'm take portions that I know will leave me comfortably satisfied until my next meal...and those portions are not so large as to cause weight gain, but apparently they're not small enough to cause weight loss. This seems like a losing battle, because in order to *want* less, it would seem I need to *weigh* less in the first place.

Though the first four days of the plan were an exercise in discipline for this perpetual snacker, after that I had no trouble at all with 3 one-plate meals a day with no snacks and no sweets on N days. S days, on the other hand, have not been N days with a few treats...they look very different. Not garbage-mouth type days, but obviously the S-day indulgences, calorie-wise, have equaled any N-day "savings". Bringing me right back to my theory that you can try to tame an appetite any way you want, but in the end it's very tied to maintaining a current weight...and possibly underlying issues about why one eats even slightly too much to cause the constant carrying around of an extra 15-30 pounds.

As so many of us hope when we encounter a new eating system/strategy/plan, I had hoped that No-S would be my answer to a common-sensical slow weight-loss (and eventual maintenance) strategy. Looking at Rinehart's experience and success, my guess is that he had just plain been taking in too many calories for a number of years before he devised this eating system, and that his overeating wasn't necessarily driven by any underlying psychological issues (Rinehart, please correct me if I'm wrong or over-simplifying)...he just plain ate too much. Then he stopped. As for myself, I can remember way back at age 6, using food as a feel-good buddy...it's always available, always legal, and more dependable than any other thing or other people in providing a full/good/satisfied feeling. I know I share this with many others. And for that reason, I don't think No-S or any other structure is going to be a permanent weight-loss answer for me and many others until we deal with -- whatever that means -- the issues that caused us to overeat (however slightly) in the first place.

Thanks for reading -- comments welcome and encouraged .

[wosnes]

I'm curious -- are you male or female and what is your height and weight?

[CGB]

I'm female, 5'5", and 170 pounds, with probably 15+ pounds of muscle over and above average females of that height.

[sophiasapientia]

With rare exception, I don't think maintenance has to be as good as it gets with No S. However, especially for those who came into No S with moderate habits to begin with or have less to lose, some tweaking may ultimately be required.

The good news is that you are maintaining your weight with your current habits. The bad news is that your current habits are not creating enough of a deficit to lose weight and some tweaking is probably required, especially since you've given No S a solid try. Either you need to eat less and/or you need to move more ... Personally, as a shorter woman who is within her healthy weight range, I have to do both of these things in order to lose weight on No S. Since I love the simplicity of No S and appreciate how well it fits into my family life, I don't mind making some adjustments to make the system work for me. I have found that my body has adjusted to smaller servings of food over time and I don't think this is atypical of many No Sers' experiences.

[marygrace]

CGB, I'm the same height as you, though I began NoS with only about a dress size's worth of vanity weight that I wanted to lose. It took a couple of months--but I did it. I definitely think NoS is capable of much more than helping people maintain their weight.

First, as sophiasapientia mentioned, exercise is probably a must for most women following NoS, at least for those with only a moderate amount of weight to lose. I've followed NoS for almost two years and have found that when I slack on the exercise, my weight goes up, even if my eating habits are perfect. Further, I think this is OK, and I don't think it's evidence that NoS doesn't work for weight loss. Humans aren't meant to be sedentary--we evolved to be moving around most of the time searching for food.

Another benefit of NoS that I think might be even more important than weight loss, though, is an improved relationship with food. You mention that you don't think NoS can work as well for people with underlying psychological issues with food. In fact, many of the people on this message board have struggled with food issues and yo-yo dieting for years or even decades, myself included, and have finally been able to break free from that cycle thanks to NoS. Have I become perfect in my eating habits? Far from it--but nowadays, I rarely turn to food for comfort or relief from boredom, because that is no longer my habit. And because I don't do that, the cycle of binge-guilt-diet has been eliminated. I don't have to think about food in terms of good or bad anymore and I don't have to bargain with or berate myself in accordance with my food choices. In short, my food choices no longer determine my self-worth--this has led to a more positive psychological state and greater acceptance of my body.

NoS is a simple tool that yields great rewards. I hope you can find a way to make it work for you!

[oolala53]

Have you had your bodyfat determined? Although it is expensive, I highly recommend that you find a place that uses a machine you lie down on and let read your body for about 20 minutes. It is the new gold standard, but hard to find.

Would you be willing to trade a weight number for a bodyfat %? it's well-known that the BMI is considered incorrect for those who carry more muscle than the norm. If you are a mesomorph, you are likely at a healthy weight for your body.

I think the recommended bodyfat % are awfully low in our culture, too. I suspect they are driven by those who can then try to make a buck off trying to help people who are at a perfectly health bodyfat % to drive it down.

I wish i could find the information I read once that the bodyfat of indigeneous women was about 25%. No processed food, no looking at magazines to pollute their sense of what their body should look like, etc.

It may be hard in a culture in which the magazine models are so slim, where commercials tout the joy of a woman going from a size 8 to a size 2 to accept that you are in your perfect body, but it may be true. If you are, then No S is not going to thwart that.

Anyway, it may not be worth it to you to stick with Vanilla No S. I have a feeling you will because you feel the inherent sanity of it, but if you really believe you won't get carried away by eating sweets during the week, I can see why you might choose to revert to less rigor.

I affirm for you peace with your body and eating.

[connorcream]

There really is no secret to weight loss. It is achieved by creating a calorie deficit. Anyone can do it if the desire is strong enough.

The question only you can answer for you is, "If weight loss is desired, how do you plan on creating this deficit?"

Best wishes on whatever you decide to do.

[wosnes]

There really is no secret to weight loss. It is achieved by creating a calorie deficit. Anyone can do it if the desire is strong enough.

The question only you can answer for you is, "If weight loss is desired, how do you plan on creating this deficit?"

Best wishes on whatever you decide to do.

I agree. This morning I was looking at information about an anti-inflammatory diet and came across this on Dr. Andrew Weil's web site:

If you are eating the appropriate number of calories for your level of activity, your weight should not fluctuate greatly.

I think many people eat enough snacks and/or sweets and/or seconds that eliminating those on N days is going to be enough to cause weight loss. If you're not consuming many snacks, sweets or seconds, then you do have to look at what and how much you're eating at your meals and your level of activity.

Years ago I read that if you're sedentary you should consume 10 calories/pound to maintain your weight. If you're moderately active, it would be 15 calories/pound. Very active would be 20 (or more) calories/pound. So if your weight is 140, for instance, your daily calorie consumption should be 1400, 2100, or 2800 calories daily depending on your level of activity.

I don't think any of us are more than moderately active. If you want your weight to be 150, your calorie consumption should be 1500-2250. I don't think you need to be a calorie accountant to do this -- just have a general idea of what meals consist of at a given calorie level. This probably would equal slow weight loss -- to achieve faster weight loss one would have to decrease calories more or increase activity more. But slow steady weight loss tends to be more lasting.

[oolala53]

Barbara Rolls of Volumetrics reported that her research showed that people tend eat the same weight in food most days, so if people replace some of the denser foods they eat with less dense ones--fruits and veggies--they would take in fewer calories and lose weight. Paradoxically, the author of the Fat Fallacy claimed that when his mother-in-law ate more rich foods but in smaller amounts while living in France, she lost quite a bit of weight. It's all about hunger and satiety. I do think a person can slowly learn to be satisfied with less than her body needs to support higher weight if the amounts cut are moderate and stable before progressively decreasing. And I imagine it's easier when she eats delicious food and savors it.

In any case, though, I don't agree that the only question is how to cut calories if a person wants to be thinner. Anorexics want to be thinner and cut calories very well, but it's not in their best interest. I realize that is an exaggerated example, but it's to push a point. It seems just as important to ask what your motivation is and how you want to live life.

In terms of weight loss and No S, I'm pretty sure even Reinhard wouldn't look as lean if he didn't combine No S with walking and Shovelglove. Who knows if he would eat much less if he quit those activities?

I guess I 'm just pushing my prejudice: sanity. Being thin doesn't necessariiy equate to living a sane life. I have yet to figure out how to get thin on No S, but I'm sticking with it because I feel sane. Someone else may not find that much solace in it. So be it.

Enjoy every bite today, folks!

[connorcream]

How anoxeria and counting calories is connected is beyond me. I am so tired of this red herring and starvation mode scares too. It hindered me on my path to a healthy body for far too long and I hope others don't fall for it as well.

I clearly said that a calorie deficit results in weight loss. This is an established fact. The question, again, for one and all, is to decide if one wants to attain this deficit and how. Only each person can answer this question.

My life is quite sane. My weight is healthy and I am having a blast at this weight. I also enjoy each bite I take because I know it gets me closer to my second goal. Right now, I am off to have Central Market's Chocolate Anthony's Cake, thin slice with fresh strawberries. Totally on plan, totally within my calorie limits.

I also walked 2 miles today (WATP) and shovel glove.

Sanity is establishing a goal and defining objectives to reach it.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a different result. This was me before CC and vanilla NoS.

[oolala53]

Nobody said calorie deficits don't cause weight loss. Nor did anyone say counting calories causes anorexia. I stand by my statement that a satisfying lifestyle is the real goal. I'm glad you've found your way to a body and life you're happy with.

[CGB]

Lots of excellent points to ponder.

Clearly, I haven't been creating a calorie deficit. I am sticking with No-S for the sanity it provides, and I'm contemplating a modification (eliminating walnuts, posted in another threat); but not before doing something else that I've steadfastly resisted my entire life: eating at a table without distractions. I've come up with many reasons why doing so would not create a calorie deficit, but to be fair, I've never given it a try. And to be honest, there could be a huge connection between feeling satisfied before I've distractedly shoveled in more food than I truly need to feel satisfied.

With that said, I sat at my table this morning for breakfast. I arranged slices of apple on my plate, portioned out a serving of yogurt & walnuts into a ramekin, had a small bowl of (Reinhard's favorite brand of) oatmeal, and about 2 ounces of juice. I gave a few seconds' thanks for my food, then proceeded to chew each bite thoroughly, swallowing before taking another bite, not drinking until I was finished with my meal. It seemed to take FOREVER...so much so that I passed my Lab my last half apple slice. In reality, it took less than 15 minutes, and though I probably consumed 400 calories or less, I felt full...and now, 15 minutes later, I feel really full. I had music on, but no TV, no reading material, nothing...just looked out the window while I ate. At first I was annoyed with having no distractions, but after a few minutes that subsided. We'll see how it goes at lunch. I'm committed to trying this method of mindful eating in an attempt to feel satisfied on less food, before implementing any mods. News at 11.

[~reneew]

I always say that if you're following it to a T and not loosing, use smaller plates. Or try smaller plates for smaller meal times.

[oolala53]

I forgot that what some might call a "modification" that I do on No S has contributed to a ball park of calories for each meal that I know has led to weight loss for me. This I already did even before No S. My servings of meat and starch add up in volume to half of my meal. The rest of it is in less dense vegetables and a fruit. This is just wht my preference had become and has stayed. My issue was never big, greasy meals. I wouldn't call my issue snacking either. It was outright gorging on sweets most days of the week. I still eat a lot of them on weekends. I have lost weight but have stabilized. I know the next place to work will be the S days. I feel I may be moving to have them be more like N days without specific rules to make them that way. If they haven't become like that on their own in a month or two, but definitely by the first day of summer, I will institute more specific rules, such as no snacking between meals on S days. However, I will never make it a rule that my meals have to match N day meals, though they may end up that way.

[clarinetgal]

oolala, I do that same thing. I give myself a ballpark figure for calories to eat at breakfast and lunch, and I use strict portion control for dinner. When I follow this plan, I'm very successful at losing weight. It's just following this plan on a more consistent basis. I don't 'need' to lose any more weight, but I wouldn't mind losing about 5 more pounds.

[mmarchin]

I always say that if you're following it to a T and not loosing, use smaller plates. Or try smaller plates for smaller meal times.

Excellent suggestion.

[OT]

Hi CGB,

Sorry it's taken me so long to post a reply!

I agree that if you already have a healthy diet and exercise regularly, it can be very hard to lose those last few pounds just following No S.I just wanted to share my own experience with you.

I have been following No S on and off for about a year. I was always a healthy eater and really into my sports/exercise(I play rugby and go to the gym every morning and I love it), so I was never overweight,however I did want to lose a few pounds (vanity weight!).Although I have always had a healthy diet,my problem was that I still ate too much of the healthy stuff and too often! I could eat 5 apples in one go,just because I love them! So when I discovered No S it all made sense straightaway.I was a permasnacker,always grazing on fruit,nuts,cereal bars etc-in addition to eating very substantial albeit healthy meals! Following No S I went from 145lbs to 135lbs (I am a 5ft5 female) over the course of about 8 months after which my weight pretty much stabilised at 135lbs and I found I couldn't lose those last few pounds without drastically reducing the amount of food on my 3 plates and depriving myself which I didn't want to do.

Then I discovered intermittent fasting and I can't recommend it highly enough.I have been combining No S with 2 x24hr intermittent fasts a week Eat Stop Eat style for the past 4 months with great results. I have lost an additional 4lbs and got my bodyfat down to 17%-my goal is 14%.So I think what it comes down to is your personal goals-if you just want to be a normal healthy weight then you can't go wrong with No S and a bit of exercise.However if average just won't cut it, you have to accept that you have to work just that little bit harder.I know the concept of intermittent fasting may sound a bit extreme but I highly recommend that you read up on it-all I can say is that it works and it pushed me out of my maintenance zone I was in with No S.

[CGB]

OT, I appreciate your reply. I just sent you a personal message. Look forward to hearing from you. CGB