Everyday Systems

Sorry if this is off topic, I've just watched the 3 BBC Horizon programs made recently about reasons for overeating, this article sums it up

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30709297

There's a quiz and video clips here (and the episodes) http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02ddsd9

I doubt people outside the UK can see the videos, but look out for them on Youtube, they tend to appear on there after a while.

I found it interesting that No S addresses all 3 of the overeating categories, for example:

Feasters (once they start eating, they can't stop) - No seconds is obviously the rule this type needs most, but will also find most challenging.

Constant cravers (feel hungry all the time) - No snacks is obviously the rule this type needs most, but will also find most challenging.

Emotional eaters (self explanatory) I guess the no sweets applies here as the program said emotional eaters will seek high reward foods (usually sweets) when under stress.

The quiz gives you an idea which category you fit, but I'd also say the S you struggle with most will give you an indication!

Hi Bonnie! Thanks for the links - they look very interesting. I wasn't able to access the programs in Arizona, so I'll look for them on YouTube.

I already know that I'm an emotional eater. I went through a breakup this week, so I have LOTS of red on my HabitCal! Maybe these articles/programs will give me some good pointers.

I always love a good link. Thanks!

bonnieUK wrote:Feasters (once they start eating, they can't stop) - No seconds is obviously the rule this type needs most, but will also find most challenging.

Ding ding ding ding! We have a winner!

I've been watching the programme. It recommended three basic diets:

Constant cravers: 600 - 800 calories on two days a week, normal eating the rest of the week (to promote compliance)

Feasters: high protein/low GI diet (to promote satiety)

Emotional eaters: low calorie combined with support such as CBT or group support (to deal with issues in the relationship with food)

I should be in the constant cravers group but I've previously tried having low calorie days and didn't feel it worked well for me. Howver 600-800 is higher calorie than I'm trying and could easily be combined with No S. In fact all could be combined with No S (I think one of the strengths of No S is that there's scope to do your own thing on it!). I might experiment with it, but starting at the high end (800 calories) on low activity days.

Neat article. I find myself in all three categories but when I took the quiz I was mostly constant craver. I'm also not sure how the low calorie days would work for me as I like to exercise. As you say No S addresses them all!

I'm a constant craver, it says I should do an intermittent diet". Good news, I already am! It's called No S, and I have 5 N days and 2 S days a week

I found it interesting that the intermittent diet they recommend for constant cravers is basically the No S diet in reverse - 2 severely restricted days and 5 unrestricted days. Personally I think compliance is easier with 5 moderately restricted days and 2 unrestricted days - the restriction isn't so severe and the 5 days helps establish the habits. The weekday / weekend thing fits neatly with most people's lives too.

ABooth wrote:Neat article. I find myself in all three categories but when I took the quiz I was mostly constant craver. I'm also not sure how the low calorie days would work for me as I like to exercise. As you say No S addresses them all!

I was mostly a constant craver too, with zero emotional eater (I kind of knew that) and a little bit feaster.

I find any kind of severe calorie restriction or fast quite difficult for the same reason, I like to exercise and I find fasted workouts somewhat tortuous!

A strategy I found helpful for not breaking No S and having energy to exercise is to eat a small part of breakfast before a morning workout (like a banana or a smoothie) and the more substantial part after (like toast or oatmeal).

ZERO emotional eater. Holy moly. Yet it is possible. I think Reinhard would have put himself in that category. He states that he knows nothing about it.

Goes to prove what I've been saying on my other eating site: previous dieting and emotions are not the only reasons humans overeat.

No matter what they say, I think No S (plus the real faith in it to see it through) would actually take care of most of the problems. In fact, we kind of know it does, given the stats of countries where most of the eating is meal-based. Can those people really be so different from us? Are there really no people who might be constant cravers underneath but it is kept in check with cultural practices that limit random eating AND supply delicious full meals? And feasters are curtailed by cultural serving size standards. One-thrid the rate of obesity of the US, approximately. So, if a year of No S doesn't make someone feel s/he is on the right track, s/he can request permission to try something else. Same with the poor outcasts in those societies who can't keep to the cultural rules. They obviously need something else, but let's keep the medicine for the 20% who really need it.

I am continually surprised that the 5:2 things works. (It's basically much the same as Brad Pilon's Eat Stop Eat. Two days a week of fasting for 24 hours- lunch to lunch or dinner to dinner or etc.) What the heck is "normal" eating for most people? I know for me, normal was bingeing every afternoon/evening. Would two days a week of restriction really have cured that? Possibly, over time, I would have gotten to something like N days. But it just doesn't sound likely. Yet Brad claims he has people who say they were cured of bingeing by it. I just know I could hardly ever stick to any diet for more than two days, and I compensated by gaining. I never ate "normally" after two days of dieting! Or before.

I can't believe emotional eaters were recommended low calorie! Yah, that's worked. Isn't that what WW is? And that has only an 16% success rate FOR THOSE WHO STICK IT OUT. I guess they're saying the missing link is the support. I actually agree to some extent, except that I don't think it's the issues with food people need support for. They need to SEPARATE dealing with eating and their emotions. Surrender to three meals; get help to establish the pattern, but stick with help to face and develop life in between. Eventually deal with cutting down on the food when life feels more tolerable.

It's so nice to know what's right for the world.

BTW, just took the test as if I hadn't done No S. 38% Constant Craver. 37% Emotional Eater.

Then I took it again answering what's true now after 5 years of No S. Result: "you are not in any diet category."

Hi Oolala,
I thought it was really interesting to try to answer as before NoS and after. I was mainly an emotional eater before and now, like you, I fall in no diet category.

I completely agree that society rules keep all those things in check. Unfortunately those rules are breaking down in most Western societies now.

I actually thought the programme was quite good - it wasn't really about promoting any particular diet, but about choosing a diet that suits your own needs and will work for you. I think that's clearer in the Q and A - these diets were just suggestions for these particular groups. And they were specially selected groups, I believe - I think they chose people who were strongly one thing or another - not the inbetweeners!

For emotional eaters, I think the main point was getting support to deal with their relationship with food - CBT, group support, etc. Beyond that, the actual diet didn't matter so much, so just reducing calories was fine.

For the feasters, they concentrated on foods that would provide satiety.

The constant cravers had a regime where they ate 600 - 800 calories on two consecutive days a week. On the other days, they ate healthy food (including higher fibre food) but didn't count calories.

All ways seemed to work, but I think there's the recognition that there might be better options out there, and these just happened to be diets that they thought would suit the particular groups they'd chosen. I suppose the takeaway message was to find what suits you - some diets will work better for some people than others.

I think this is true. I had a friend who wasn't happy on No S, but 5:2 was very successful for her. I'm the other way round.

And one thing I REALLY liked was they did recognise these different reasons for overeating. Not every overweight person is an emotional eater (I'm almost the other way around - I tend to lose weight if I'm very stressed or unhappy!). We're not all bingers. We don't all sit around eating fast food, as some of the TV diet programmes would have it. So I really liked the change on focus from "Oh my goodness, look at how much food these fat people eat!" to looking at the eating styles and how best to deal with them.

One little test that I found quite interesting - two groups were given a slices of cake to eat. One group were told how many calories were in it, and the other group were told a much lower figure. They later were offerred more cake as part of an activity - the people who knew how many calories they'd eaten ate eight times as much as the people who were told their cake was low-calorie. I suppose that was predictable, but I didn't expect such a huge difference. It really underlined for me the importance of moving past any "mistakes", instead of feeling you've failed and might as well give up for the day.