Everyday Systems

MIa, I like this decision because it will help you reinforce the new habit of no snacking. Yes, you'll need to do the seconds for awhile, but I think that's so much better than allowing the snacking to worm its way back in and eventually you end up eating more than you should. Starting with just eating 3 meals per day is great. I know for the first week or so, I really piled on a lot of food on my plate because until I had physically adjusted to eating less, any hunger in between meals would have me snacking again. One S at a time is not a problem!

I am the same, Mia, the no snack rule is the one I break the most. But this is how I see it. I eat each meal until I am fully satisfied. I don't particularly pay attention to "seconds" because fully loading a plate to the extreme is the same thing as taking a smaller amount, and then taking more if needed after. In fact, I think it would be less food overall to take a little more seconds in that instance.

I understand many people need the structure of the "one plate", but for me I know when my stomach feels good and ready to end the meal. I cannot work with a dictated one plate, because what if what I'm eating is really low fat or really high fat -- that all makes a difference. It is about common sense, I think. In any case, it's what works for me but I definitely understand the point of the rule to begin with.

Sounds like you are doing great I think it's worth it to try your new plan. No Stupidity indeed!

Thanks for the responses, all! I just finished dinner, a HUGE salad loaded with fresh veggies from he Farmer's Market, grilled chicken breast, bacon and topped with balsamic vinegar and olive oil. I skipped the cheese, (dairy at night is not my friend.) I was still a bit hungry, so I ate a small bowl of strawberries. That's the no stupidity part- I chose to keep eating something healthy!

I could have eaten a sleeve of crackers, I could have gone to Rita's for a giant gelati- I would have walked the 1/8 of a mile and tried to justify it- I could have eaten french fries, I could have eaten ice cream, I could have eaten candy bars, yeda yada yada...

The no stupidity is not being stupid in the choices I am making to satisfy my hunger and avoiding the temptation to snack. ~Mia

Yea, I agree that the No Seconds rule is arbitrary. It's meant like that- as a habit. But I don't consider it "seconds" if, for instance, I eat a couple bites of something while I'm cooking something else. It's not a good habit, but the quantity is so low that it might as well be on my "one plate" and still be fine. I mean, you've gotta use some judgment here.

Hello all. I've been a lurker for a while now but I was compelled to add my thoughts here.

I find it very telling that even with this diet, a diet which has fewer rules than any I've ever encountered, people are still compelled to try and get around the rules. I feel like if I created a diet called the "No Fudge diet" which somehow worked and all you had to do was not eat fudge, people would start saying, "Is it okay to have just a little piece of fudge?"

I understand how Mia feels because I was very tempted to snack when I first started a few weeks ago. But I'm not sure how breaking one rule in order to keep another one is very beneficial. What if your plate of seconds has 800 calories but the snack you were trying to prevent only has 400? And neither method (seconds or snacking) allows you to learn to accept and appreciate the hunger.

I'm not sure I understand Francois' comment about the "no seconds" rule being "arbitrary," which is a word he also applied to the "no snacks" rule (and I didn't understand it there either). Everytime you have seconds or snacks you're taking in extra calories. Any diet ultimately comes down to limiting your calorie intake (relative to your output). So I'm not sure how anything that would put a limit to the number of calories you could take in could be seen as arbitrary.

Getting back to Mia, my advice would be to pile a little more on your plate at dinner, nix the seconds and the snacks altogether. I know first-hand how hard it is, but if nothing else it will serve to exercise the power of your will.

Well, at least that has been my experience and I've lost 18 pounds in a matter of a three weeks.*

*Results not typical blah, blah, blah.

Oh my God!!!
Melmac!!!
Thats wonderful!!!!!

Fantastic news and thanks for de-lurking

Please stick around!
Peace and Love,
Deb
ps.. Nice post

I agree with Melmac. The only arbitrary quantity/quality in this diet is the number of meals, and that's defined largely by society. This does not mean that people who dislike societal values get to eat more often.

I'd say that half the point of the no seconds rule (completely different to the three second rule) is to make you aware of how much you are eating. I have some difficulty refraining from seconds as a lot of my meals are of the 'chuck it all in the middle of the table and help yourself'(TM) variety, but I tend to stick to a sensible quantity of food. On the upside, I don't have much of a sweet tooth and I can avoid snacking by not taking any food to work. If it's not there, I can't eat it (though I may start gnawing on the desks).

Having said (typed) all that, if you're going to have a roast dinner and fresh fruit, you probably don't want them on the same plate. The gravy would make your strawberries taste strange, and bananas probably don't go with cabbage. Pork and apple is nice, though.

I think if one disallows two of the three esses that it is useful IF that's what you are consciously doing. If your goal is to consistantly avoid snacking and sweets but allow seconds then that can be a useful step to "full on" No-S. In other words, I think it's better to have a structure one can manage rather than a structure within which one is constantly "cheating." Ideally, the eventual goal could be a full No-S eating style.

--david