fantastic set of articles

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
Marianna
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:57 am

fantastic set of articles

Post by Marianna » Sun Jun 15, 2014 4:23 pm

http://kidneylifescience.ca/general/pre ... esity-xii/

http://kidneylifescience.ca/general/the ... sity-xiii/


I am posting these two in particular because of the relevance to the NoS lifestyle, but I highly highly recommend reading the entire series.

jellybeans01
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: San Antonio

Post by jellybeans01 » Mon Jun 16, 2014 6:01 am

Wow! I sure enjoyed these!! Thank you for sharing.

Mustloseweight
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:04 pm
Location: UK

Post by Mustloseweight » Mon Jun 16, 2014 11:14 am

Great stuff! Thanks for sharing!
September 2017 - Starting weight: 19st 9lbs
March 2018 - 17st 2lbs
July 2018 - 16st 4lbs
Target Weight: 11 stones

Total loss so far: 47lbs

eschano
Posts: 2632
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2012 2:20 pm

Post by eschano » Mon Jun 16, 2014 1:57 pm

Very interesting!
eschano - Vanilla rocks!

July 2012- January 2016
Started again July 2018

User avatar
>:jess:<
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2014 9:44 pm

Post by >:jess:< » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:53 pm

Those were SO good! Thank you for sharing.
>:jess:<

oolala53
Posts: 9661
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Tue Jun 17, 2014 10:28 pm

I appreciate the articles, but I went to elementary school in the 60's and all the children even then brought a snack with them to have at recess mid-morning. I walked to school, so I had breakfast around 6:45 a.m. I'm guessing that lunch was over around 12:30 p.m. It was typical even then for children to be given a snack between the end of school around 2:30 p.m. and dinner. What wasn't typical was meals as big as we often have now and having big snacks. There was no sitting around with an open (big) bag of potato chips and dip or anything like that.

I'm not sure children become obese from eating three moderate meals and even two small snacks a day, but maybe they do. My eating problems were not in the frequency but in bingeing. I ate two cookies in public and ten more in private when it first started, and it went up from there. But eating fewer times a day has helped that, too.
Count plates, not calories. Three a day. 9 years & counting
Age 65
SBMI Jan/10-30.8
Jan/12-26.8
Mar/13-24.9 Stayed at +/- 8-lb. for three years Sept/17 22.8 (but more fluctuation)
Mar/18 22.2

There is no S better than Vanilla No S.

Marianna
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:57 am

Post by Marianna » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:30 pm

I think oolala that the three meals and two snacks you speak of were pretty small by comparison to today's standards. I also think you were expected to grow out of needing snacks. I remember repeatedly being told I needed to wait until dinner and not ruin my appetite.

As for adults, I think this snacking phenomenon is very recent. I love Jason Fung's entire series of blog posts and recommend reading them from the beginning. Even if you eat carbs for your three meals, you are leaving enough time between meals for any insulin spike to be utilized. That seems to be the key to weight control. Some of us who are more insulin resistant (like me sadly) have to be more vigilant about the sources of sugar in our foods. I do eat carbs in the form of fruit, starchy veg, etc at night, but I also do intermittent fasting til 11 the next day (and eat my 3 meals at 11, 3 and 7) which gives my body enough time to use any excess sugars.

Snacking and sugar and excessive portions, the very things that NoS seeks to control are the things that drive excessive insulin in the blood. I thought this set of articles truly supports the message of NoS.

User avatar
MamieTamar
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

Post by MamieTamar » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:30 pm

Marianna, I went through the whole series, and I was more than a little puzzled by the Calorie section. OK, I don't count calories, I feel that I can't do it ever again, but he seems to be saying that as long as you watch the quality of your food, quantity is totally irrelevant, which goes against both our "three plates" rule, our lifelong experience, and plain common sense. I followed once a program based on overfeeding for weight loss (the guy himself had apparently lost weight on it), and I don't mind telling you that I was not thrilled by the results...
My body is like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I don't think about it, I just have it. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)

age 74
SBMI:29
CBMI: 27,7

oolala53
Posts: 9661
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 4:47 pm

I'm not sure children become obese from eating three moderate meals and even two small snacks a day
It seemed to me he was saying it is not how big the meals are but the frequency of eating. I agree with you that if the eating events are bigger, it is going to compound the problem. As a child, I intuited that adults might have eaten differently, certainly not expecting candy as often as children wanted it. It's funny to me now that I didn't really think much about how the adults I knew were eating when I wasn't around, but I was pretty sure they weren't sneaking to the store to eat Snowballs. But then I thought it was just sad for them that they didn't get to eat more fun foods. I knew they weren't doing what I grew to do as an adult, which was more like a bad version of a child!

Yes, grownups can definitely wait to eat, hopefully with more aplomb than children!

Out of curiosity, are you actually stomach hungry for your dinner? Or do you just eat then to keep to a rhythm, really hungry or not? These days, I often am not hungry for meals, but still have a great desire to eat. I'm opting for two very light meals a day and a denser third one on N days.
Count plates, not calories. Three a day. 9 years & counting
Age 65
SBMI Jan/10-30.8
Jan/12-26.8
Mar/13-24.9 Stayed at +/- 8-lb. for three years Sept/17 22.8 (but more fluctuation)
Mar/18 22.2

There is no S better than Vanilla No S.

automatedeating
Posts: 4023
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2013 2:16 pm

Post by automatedeating » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:44 am

I think growing children are a different situation than adults. I really do.
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; 1/19-23.4; 2/19-22.7; 3/19-22.1; 10/19-21.8

oolala53
Posts: 9661
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:56 am

Agreed.
Count plates, not calories. Three a day. 9 years & counting
Age 65
SBMI Jan/10-30.8
Jan/12-26.8
Mar/13-24.9 Stayed at +/- 8-lb. for three years Sept/17 22.8 (but more fluctuation)
Mar/18 22.2

There is no S better than Vanilla No S.

Dale
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:27 am

Post by Dale » Sun Jun 22, 2014 8:37 am

MamieTamar wrote:Marianna, I went through the whole series, and I was more than a little puzzled by the Calorie section. OK, I don't count calories, I feel that I can't do it ever again, but he seems to be saying that as long as you watch the quality of your food, quantity is totally irrelevant, which goes against both our "three plates" rule, our lifelong experience, and plain common sense. I followed once a program based on overfeeding for weight loss (the guy himself had apparently lost weight on it), and I don't mind telling you that I was not thrilled by the results...
It's possible ... if "watching the quality of your food" restricts your diet enough that you eat less calories, then you could lose weight by doing it. I've lost weight this way on other diets like Slimming World or Atkins - there's no restriction on the quantity, but it becomes inconvenient for you to eat a lot, so you lose weight. It's not that quantity is irrelevant, but that changing what you eat can sometimes reduce the quantity without you deliberately adjusting it.

I agree with you, though: I have also at other times gained weight by "watching the quality of my food". If it's "healthy" I tend to eat more of it!

User avatar
MamieTamar
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

Post by MamieTamar » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:31 pm

All you said is true, but it s not what I was talking about. Read the series on "Calories" in Marianna's link, you'll see he's speaking about calories not counting at all, even in great quantities. And I've myself read posts by someone who lost an amazing number of pounds by overfeeding (something like 6000 calories or more, if I remember well).
http://www.billycraig.co.uk/blog/does-c ... -down-work
However, he's got a forum somewhere and it did not seem to work for most of the people there. Interesting why something extreme might work for some but not for others.
My body is like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I don't think about it, I just have it. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)

age 74
SBMI:29
CBMI: 27,7

Dale
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:27 am

Post by Dale » Mon Jun 23, 2014 3:27 pm

Thanks for the explanation, MamieTamar! I did read your post, but thought I must have misunderstood the bit about overeating to lose weight. I've gone back and read about the calories and I'm still not understanding how overeating would lead to weight loss, rather than just returning to the original (overweight) "set point". It's interesting that you've tried it. How did you find it? Apparently it can be very difficult to overeat to that extent? (I remember watching a TV programme where naturally slim people were overfed and some found it hard to do. I remember Morgan Spurlock finding it unpleasant in Supersize Me).

User avatar
MamieTamar
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2013 8:12 pm
Location: France

Post by MamieTamar » Mon Jun 23, 2014 4:21 pm

The idea is to boost your metabolism. And somewhere, the same Billy Craig states that his overeating triggered hyperactivity of his thyroid.
I didn't try it (or almost not) the Billy Craig way, but more like Matt Stone's Diet Recovery (see for instance his interview in :
http://eatmore2weighless.com/matt-stone ... etabolism/)
, he's also got a blog, one free e-book and a few other cheap ones, all very interesting, informative and thought provoking. He says our metabolism has been destroyed by dieting and to restore it we have to "refuel", and then eat according to hunger, having hopefully reached your real set point, whatever it might prove to be. Mine proved to be 6 kilos more than when I started to "refuel", which I also know not to be really true. After a few months of vainly trying to see my weight go down spontaneously as he predicted, but also conscious that calorie counting was not the solution for me, I wandered around some, until finding No S through Jonathan Bailor's interview of Reinhart.
The more systems I see, the more I am convinced that everyone is unique and should find whatever works for him/her, in the face of all science and theories.
My body is like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I don't think about it, I just have it. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)

age 74
SBMI:29
CBMI: 27,7

oolala53
Posts: 9661
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

Post by oolala53 » Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:48 pm

I remember 20 years ago at least reading of a guy who advocated increasing calories (3000-5000/day, but they were all WHOLE foods. No flour products.). And he recommended greatly upping aerobic exercise. Problem to me: just losing weight is not my ultimate goal. It took hours and hours to cook all the foods myself and to complete the exercise. And I had to worry about and eat the "right" snacks every time. Can anyone find a slim, middle class culture that lives that way? If millions of people aren't doing it, or something close to it, I'm not even going to try it.

I do believe that in order to learn to be satisfied with less over time, it can be an advantage to start by eating too much in a purposeful way. I'm not sure what makes the difference between those who eat more as a habit and just end up eating more and more, and those who eat more but find it releases them from wanting to more, but it definitely goes both ways.
Count plates, not calories. Three a day. 9 years & counting
Age 65
SBMI Jan/10-30.8
Jan/12-26.8
Mar/13-24.9 Stayed at +/- 8-lb. for three years Sept/17 22.8 (but more fluctuation)
Mar/18 22.2

There is no S better than Vanilla No S.

Dale
Posts: 144
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2012 7:27 am

Post by Dale » Mon Jun 23, 2014 9:11 pm

Yes, I do think it's different for everybody. I know that other people have found things that worked for them that I don't think would work for me and vice versa. When I started dieting/NoS, I was morbidly obese and seemed to be naturally staying at a set point while eating to hunger, so I wasn't in quite the same position as somebody who had been dieting for years. My metabolism was probably OK, but my set point was wrong. Thank you for the link!

Marianna
Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 1:57 am

Post by Marianna » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:22 pm

I think he was talking about calories not counting if you aren't eating carbs. He didn't allege that weight loss happened that way, he said weight gain did not happen. He talked about two experiments where the individual ate 5000 calories a day of fat and protein. He gained a pound but lost body fat and gained muscle. Then he reversed the experiment and ate 5K a day of carby sugary foods and gained a huge amount of body fat very rapidly.

I think the point of that article was that the body (at least maybe the male body, I think ymmv) tends not to store excess calories in the absence of insulin stimulating carbs.

His point is that if you are eating carby foods at all, you need to let the bloodstream clear them by eating 3 times daily without snacks. He also treats diabetics, so he is recommending lowish carb food (not really lowcarb if you look at his diet recommendations--fruit and grains are included--but no flours and sugars).

I don't think he was at all saying that calories don't count--I think he was saying that the quality of those calories counts more. And ultimately he is saying if you read the whole series, that fasting between meals (eg no snacks) is necessary to regulate our sensitive, hormonally driven metabolism.

P.S. I know what forum you are talking about and that dude's theories of overeating to stimulate metabolism. What a bunch of horsepucky. I do not think this is what fung is suggesting in the least.

He is suggesting three meals a day without snacks. He is saying that if you are diabetic or insulin sensitive, you need a long period between eating sessions in order to clear insulin from the blood. He is saying that obesity is epidemic because that is not happening--between permasnacking and constant exposure to fructose.

LoriLifts
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: new mexico

Post by LoriLifts » Tue Jun 24, 2014 11:12 pm

Super interesting thread, thanks for posting the articles.

My eating patterns have evolved over the years too. I am currently doing the 18 hour fasting/6 hour feeding plan. In an ideal day, the 6 hours would include 2 meals and no snacks. Sometimes it's 2 very light meals with a regular sized dinner. No Snacks! I'm working on it!
Habits are at first cobwebs, then cables.

Post Reply