Fab article

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
Mustloseweight
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:04 pm
Location: UK

Fab article

Post by Mustloseweight » Thu May 08, 2014 9:47 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/artic ... s-day.html

Really good article in today's paper.
September 2017 - Starting weight: 19st 9lbs
March 2018 - 17st 2lbs
July 2018 - 16st 4lbs
July 2020 - 17st 10lbs 😟
Target Weight: 11 stones

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Thu May 08, 2014 11:38 am

Maybe it was for the study, but I don"t think three big meals are ideal or even necessary.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."

Mustloseweight
Posts: 160
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:04 pm
Location: UK

Post by Mustloseweight » Thu May 08, 2014 12:12 pm

Isn't that No S, though? Three meals a day, no snacking, in the beginning you probably have some pretty big plates, but that's ok just no vertical stacking? It is in the book.
September 2017 - Starting weight: 19st 9lbs
March 2018 - 17st 2lbs
July 2018 - 16st 4lbs
July 2020 - 17st 10lbs 😟
Target Weight: 11 stones

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Thu May 08, 2014 3:49 pm

MustLoseWeight wrote:Isn't that No S, though?
Three meals a day, no snacking,
in the beginning you probably have some pretty big plates,
but that's ok just no vertical stacking?
It is in the book.
Although 3 meals a day is the suggested number,
Reinhard is fine with people having a different specified number,
2 or 4 or some other number is acceptable if this works better.

A meal is limited to one full plate with no vertical stacking,
but there is no limit to how empty that plate can be.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

oolala53
Posts: 10059
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Thu May 08, 2014 10:06 pm

I think wosnes meant most people-women- don't need three BIG meals. Slim cultures that eat three meals usually have only one sizable meal. At least one meal is often quite small, such as a small bread item and coffee for breakfast.
Last edited by oolala53 on Fri May 09, 2014 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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)

noni
Posts: 613
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:01 pm

Post by noni » Fri May 09, 2014 11:53 am

This study confuses me. Were the two groups eating the exact foods and amounts, but one ate their junk-food with the meal and the other ate their junk, not with the meal, but consumed it later as a snack? There are so many variables to this as there are people.

A real useful study would be to use identical twins-one in the 3-meal camp and the other in snacking camp.

I would probably not benefit with 3 Large meals everyday considering my age, short stature and sedentary nature (the turbulent trio).

However, the study promotes the No-S non-snacking rule.

oolala53
Posts: 10059
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Fri May 09, 2014 1:32 pm

I don't think they were recommending three large meals, but just pointing out that even when eating large meals, people accumulate less abdominal bodyfat eating three meals.
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)

eschano
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:20 pm

Post by eschano » Fri May 09, 2014 3:07 pm

As I understand it they are saying your BMI aka weight goes up either way if you eat fatty/highly caloric food.

So either way you will gain weight. However, if you eat it as a snack rather than as part of the meal your liver will get fatty and you'll have more belly-fat.
eschano - Vanilla rocks!

July 2012- January 2016
Started again January 2021

oolala53
Posts: 10059
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Fri May 09, 2014 9:33 pm

Apparently where you carry your fat makes a big difference. No matter how much women are influenced to dislike fat thighs, I don't think they've ever been linked to degenerative disease.
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)

automatedeating
Posts: 5305
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:16 pm

Post by automatedeating » Fri May 09, 2014 10:29 pm

Exactly! :)
Month/Year-BMI
8/13-26.3
8/14-24.5
5/15-26.2
1/16-26.9; 9/16-25.6
8/17-25.8; 11/17-26.9
3/18-25.6; 8/18-24.5; 10/18-23.8;
3/19-22.1; 10/19-21.8
6/20-22.5; 7/20-23.0; 9/20-23.6
4/21 - 25.2

oolala53
Posts: 10059
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Sat May 10, 2014 4:47 pm

Unless you consider body dysmorphia a degenerative disease.
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)

heatherhikes
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2011 5:57 pm
Location: uetliberg

Post by heatherhikes » Thu May 15, 2014 1:17 pm

What oolala meant about the fat thighs...yes-sir-y-bob :lol:
_____
h

leafy_greens
Posts: 426
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 8:18 pm

Post by leafy_greens » Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:36 pm

wosnes wrote:Maybe it was for the study, but I don"t think three big meals are ideal or even necessary.
The article was saying a "big meal" to mean a No-S-style traditional meal (as opposed to a 6-meal-a-day-mini-meal.) It doesn't mean gorge yourself on triple-serving massive meals. While "big" can mean different things to different people, I interpret this article as clearly validating No S.

What's entertaining to me is reading the comments where the peanut gallery insists that "X diet is the only one that works!!" We have the last laugh, don't we? :twisted:
"No S IS hard... It just turns out that everything else is harder." -oolala53

Post Reply