re Differences - Don't be an Idot

[BrightAngel]

I've been thinking about a No S diet issue Reinhard doesn't talk much about.

Reinhard makes it clear that excess food (i.e. excess calories) is the problem
(of losing weight or maintaining a normal weight),
and leaves it up to the individual exactly what kind and how much food one should eat.

However, in doing No S, DON"T BE AN IDOT.
Keep in mind that there are energy burn differences
between individuals of different sexes, heights and weights,
and that Reinhard formulated his food plan based on his own body.

Because I'm a small, older female,
I use the example of the differences between medium size males and a small females.

A lightly-active 45 year old male, 5'9", weighing 170 lbs
has a daily energy burn of approx 2400 to 2500 calories.
A lightly-active 60 year old female, 5'0", weighing 115 lbs
has a daily energy burn of approx 1400 to 1500 calories.
That is a 1000 calorie difference.

However, for BOTH of these individuals.
3 meals is 3 meals, and a 10" plate is a 10" plate.

If both of these individuals put the SAME TYPE and SAME AMOUNT of food
on the SAME SIZE size plate for 3 meals every day,
there will be big differences in each of their Results.

For the sake of this example,
assume that both male and female are at their ideal weight, and maintenance is their goal.

If the food is basically low-calorie,
the female will maintain her weight and the male will drop weight,
because the male is taking in less energy than he burns.

If the food is basically high-calorie,
the male will maintain his weight and the female will gain weight.
because the female is taking in more energy than she burns.

So, I say to all you other short, older, females....
DON'T BE AN IDOT..
We can follow the basic guidelines of the No S Plan,
but remember,
we can never eat the same amount and same types of food that Reinhard does
and lose to or maintain a "normal" BMI.

I'm hoping everyone just takes this as a friendly reminder of the obvious.
I would also love to hear some input from Reinhard on this subject.

[blueskighs]

Bright Angel,

I think that what you are speaking to with such eloquent detail is something like ...
REALITY

it is true we are all different shapes and sizes and require different amounts of food input to maintain and/or shrink our physical sizes,

the reason I think that No S works so well for me is that ... according to my size and physical appetite I can adjust my "plate" no matter what the actual dimensions of the physical plate are ... for me it is pretty straightforward ... am I getting hungry for each meal ... if the answer is No then I am eating too much for ME ....

Blueskighs

[CrazyCatLady]

I think that there are many ways to approach this. Many many diets go with the calorie counting. But even then, there are assumptions about how many calories a certain size and activity level person will need to consume to either lose or maintain weight.

Reinhard never says how much food to put on the plates, or what type of food. For me, No S is allowing me to know hunger, fullness, and satisfaction with food. For me, the diets where I focus more on food, and on counting calories or portions, did not work long term. I'm very happy for you BrightAngel, that it seems to be working for you. You have posted that you enjoy tracking the calories. I hated it. It caused me to make deals with myself that were unhealthy. I felt that I was continually battling my urges to eat, especially sweets.

Since starting No S, I find that I can bypass most of the excessive urges to eat. I can skip past many temptations. I'm not saying that I don't have temptations anymore, but so many of them are gone now.

Everyone is different, and different plans may work for different people. For me, vanilla No S is my plan. I hope that I can continue to build good habits, and continue to feel healthier, and continue to lose weight. I hope that I can continue to enjoy satisfying meals, and then not think about food again for a few hours. I hope that as I try to nourish my body, instead of stuffing it, my body will show me what it needs to reclaim a healthy weight.

[wosnes]

There's another solution for the less active, smaller, older woman: become more active. This doesn't necessarily mean going to the gym -- it just means moving more.

Some years ago I read an article about The China Study. One of the researchers said that the people they had to call sedentary, typically the elderly and infirm, walked or biked 2-10 miles daily. Imagine being sedentary and walking/biking 10 miles daily!

We don't even need to do that - just make life a little less convenient and move more!

In regards to food -- no matter how or what one eats, if you stop snacking, taking seconds and eating sweets daily and save them for S days, your calorie consumption will automatically be reduced. It may or may not be enough to result in weight loss. Then you may have to look at the meals and either eat less, eat more of the less calorie dense foods or a combination of both. This is addressed in the book (page 154-155).

[wosnes]

There's another solution for the less active, smaller, older woman: become more active. This doesn't necessarily mean going to the gym -- it just means moving more.

Some years ago I read an article about The China Study. One of the researchers said that the people they had to call sedentary, typically the elderly and infirm, walked or biked 2-10 miles daily. Imagine being sedentary and walking/biking 10 miles daily!

We don't even need to do that - just make life a little less convenient and move more!

In regards to food -- no matter how or what one eats, if you stop snacking, taking seconds and eating sweets daily and save them for S days, your calorie consumption will automatically be reduced. It may or may not be enough to result in weight loss. Then you may have to look at the meals and either eat less, eat more of the less calorie dense foods or a combination of both. This is addressed in the book in chapter 7, specifically pages 154-155.

It could be that the reason Reinhard hasn't dealt with this more thoroughly is that this isn't his area of expertise. No-S is about something most diet authors ignore -- the habits.

[Buffalo Gal]

Wow! All of this seems a little like some of the other diets I have been on. Too complicated!

Nosing works for me because it is simple. Three meals a day, one plate each meal, no snacks, no sweets with a bit of common sense on the side.

If I had to start weighing food and calculating calories and trying to decide if I am short, old, medium, fast, slow and how many calories that burned...I would give up.

Our bodies were created with basic instincts which kick in when we are in danger, in pain...etc. Our bodies will tell us when we have had too much food. The problem with people who struggle with weight is that they do not always listen to what their bodies are saying.

Let your body get hungery...then feed it. Then listen when it says it is full...not stuffed...full. Throw in some movement once in a while and the rest will take care of itself.

Buffalo Gal

[BrightAngel]

If I had to start weighing food and calculating calories and trying to decide if I am short, old, medium, fast, slow and how many calories that burned...I would give up.

Our bodies were created with basic instincts which kick in when we are in danger, in pain...etc. Our bodies will tell us when we have had too much food. The problem with people who struggle with weight is that they do not always listen to what their bodies are saying.

Let your body get hungery...then feed it. Then listen when it says it is full...not stuffed...full. Throw in some movement once in a while and the rest will take care of itself.

Buffalo Gal

Buffalo Gal,
Thanks for your comments.
I very much understand where you are coming from.

That said:
Everyone's body doesn't operate the way it should.
What you describe is "intuitive eating",
which in his book, Reinhard, said he found too "vague" to be of use.
If that kind of eating, combined with "vanilla" No S works for you,
I congratulate you.

The reason I started this Thread was I wanted to call attention
to the fact that many short, older women may gain weight
if they choose to follow "vanilla" no s, without keeping portion size or lower-calorie foods in mind.

It's easy to know one's height, weight and age.
Those are all the numbers necessary to find out one's basic energy burn rate.
There are many links on the internet that run the formula.
Here's one of them.
http://health.discovery.com/tools/calcu ... basal.html

You say, "throw in some movement once in a while",
and the link below makes it easy to see how movement affects
one's basic energy burn.
http://www.pcollins.com/upload/DP-Goal/ ... ity%25.gif

The calorie numbers of the male and female in my above example,
included "light activity" which involves exercise of "walking up to 2 hours a day".
I've found that it's difficult for the average short, older woman to do more than that amount of exercise.

Also, there's a big difference between keeping an eye on portion size, and choosing more low-calorie foods
than the process of weighing food and counting calories.

Although, I will say that over time, I have been able to turn weighing and measureing my foods
into an easy, rather unconcious HABIT.
Counting calories as well has become easy for me
because of my HABIT of recording all my food into a computer food journal.
It takes me about 5 minutes a day,
and has become just another one of my normal daily activities,
much like brushing my teeth and making my bed.

I agree that a computer food journal, and weighing and measuring food isn't for everyone.
However, I began this thread because I feel there needs to be a place here
that addresses this to short, older women,
and help them understand that they may need to do a bit of additional work
in watching the contents of their meals, and weekend treats, than larger, younger, males.

[Nichole]

Does this mean I'm going to have to keep eating less and less as I get older and older? (I'm only 23) That's so depressing. Ugh.

[wosnes]

Does this mean I'm going to have to keep eating less and less as I get older and older? (I'm only 23) That's so depressing. Ugh.

Probably -- but it really isn't depressing. Most of my friends and I have found that we're satisfied with less. So, it's not depressing and doesn't feel like deprivation. You just choose things that satisfy you more -- not a lot unlike the principles of No-S.

[NoelFigart]

Does this mean I'm going to have to keep eating less and less as I get older and older? (I'm only 23) That's so depressing. Ugh.

Well...

Sorta.

What happens is that you lose muscle mass as you get older. Less muscle means you need fewer calories to maintain your weight. (It also puts you at greater risk of osteoperosis and all kinds of fun things).

If you've done a lot of hard core yo-yo dieting, you've also lost a WHOLE BUNCH of muscle mass and yes, that means you need fewer and fewer calories to maintain a healthy weight.

Sucks.

However, you can actually reverse that by resistance training. I'm training harder than a sane person might because I'm trying to undo nearly 30 years of yo-yo dieting (and I'm only 39).

You wouldn't have to train that hard to deal, young as you are. Shovelglove would work out great for you. At least, if I compare the workout to the studies done by Dr. Neelson in Strong Women Stay Young, shugging would certainly fit the bill well.

[BrightAngel]

Does this mean I'm going to have to keep eating less and less as I get older and older? (I'm only 23)

Yes. Unless you want to weigh more.
However, if you consistently use resistence training all throughout your life
it can help to avoid the natural age related muscle reduction,
which will allow you to eat similiar to the way you can now while you're young.

[CrazyCatLady]

I am not trying to be argumentative. However, when I think back to the tiny older women in my life, I know of so many who never dieted, never counted calories, and never joined a gym.

My Great Aunt Florence, who was very tiny, maybe not even 5 ft tall, is one example. When she served meals, if the meat was a little tough, she would say that it was good exercise for your jaw! LOL! We had fabulous family reunions at her house, with piles of food everywhere. No one considered calories or portion sizes, but at the same time no one was gluttonous or wasteful. We simply enjoyed the food, and mostly the company of others.

My goal for me is not to be a certain weight or certain size. I want to have a healthy relationship with food. I want to be more like my Aunt Florence, who would have laughed at the idea of someone selling a book based on the No S plan. (No offense intended, Reinhard! A big reason that I love this plan is that it makes intuitive sense to me!) I want to have less of the eating habits of my Mom, who struggled with diets and had a fluctuating weight pattern of ups and downs. If my Mom was still alive, I would send her the book. It would have saved her (and my Dad) some aggravation! Like the time Mom, Dad and I went on a salad diet, where for lunch you ate as many veggies as possible on a salad....I mean cups and cups of them! I can remember laughing together because our jaws got sore from so much chewing!

I'm currently not at a place where I am eating totally healthfully. No S is not second nature to me yet. But it is working well, and I think that for most people, it will be an answer to years of struggling with their weight.

[Buffalo Gal]

BrightAngel,

I am happy this works for you but still way too much for me.

The reason I was so attracted to the No S Diet is because I believe I have failed at every other diet. Diets that encourage me to limit or eliminate certain foods, count and log, weigh in, measure, eat, don't eat.....etc.

THe real beauty of this diet is that it takes away guilt and replaces it with common sense.

A lot of the messages I read and my experience is that there is usually weight GAIN in the first couple of weeks. As I progressed I knew I had to adjust the amount of food I ate and the kind of food I ate. I did not eat or stop eating based upon intuition. I eat three meals a day (basically at the same time each day) and I do not go back for seconds. This is becoming a habit.

Of course you will have to try to strive for healthier meals by adding fruits and veggies and limiting french fries and gravy! However, the simplicity of this diet works. It may work better for you with the charts and graphs but it does work w/o them.

Either way it's really helpful to have everyone's insights and ideas and a forum to express them.

Thanks BrightAngel!

Buffalo Gal

[wosnes]

I am not trying to be argumentative. However, when I think back to the tiny older women in my life, I know of so many who never dieted, never counted calories, and never joined a gym.

I'm currently not at a place where I am eating totally healthfully. No S is not second nature to me yet. But it is working well, and I think that for most people, it will be an answer to years of struggling with their weight.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, either and what I'm going to say isn't based on anything scientific -- just my observations. When I think back to my mother and other female friends and relatives (all gone now) -- none were significantly overweight. None counted calories and there were no gyms. Even after menopause -- no significant weight gains. What was diifferent?

They were all active and their levels of activity didn't change much as they aged. They did what they'd always done -- and most of it was related to homemaking. They swept and mopped and vacuumed and dusted and some mowed lawns and did other gardening. They usually hung their laundry outdoors and climbed stairs. The carried their groceries. Things weren't so convenient as they are now.

My aunt and my great-aunt cleaned other people's homes as well. Neither of them ever drove a car, so they walked most places. Oh, and when they mopped floors, it was done on their hands and knees.

No worries about middle-aged spread or loss of muscle mass. It just wasn't an issue!

[NoelFigart]

You're right, Wosnes. We're nowhere nearly as active in our daily lives as our grandmothers were.

I never thought about laundry, but those wet baskets of clothes can be heavy!

Then there was Nanny's cast iron skillet in which she cooked just about everything.

They didn't walk as much as I do, though. They were thrilled to be affluent enough to HAVE a car!

[wosnes]

I meant to add...

I'm all for eating healthfully, but I think we worry about it too much. My mom and all those other women didn't worry about it at all. I'm not even sure they knew about "balanced" diets.

[fkwan]

The reason I started this Thread was I wanted to call attention to the fact that many short, older women may gain weight
if they choose to follow "vanilla" no s, without keeping portion size or lower-calorie foods in mind.

I'm another short, older woman, and BrightAngel is, unfortunately, correct in what she says.

I'm 5'0" and most sources agree that my "ideal weight" is between 95-105 pounds. I'm 53. I weigh 107 and would like to weigh 95. To do so, even following No S vanilla religiously, I would still have to measure every damn thing and go extremely easy on starches (my new "enemy" even though I have conquered Demon Sugar) or other calorie-dense foods (there aren't any!) to get anywhere near that weight and stay there. My hormones do not want me to be thin. My sedentary job, my two hour commute, my sedentary vocation (photographer, sitting at computer AFTER job to work with Photoshop), my lack of time and arthritis also further contribute to the difficulties. The most I can walk on weekdays is an hour and a half cumulative, and the most I've ever managed on weekends so far is two and a half hours running errands. Ditto weights; I'm thrilled if I can get 20 minutes in 5 days a week.

I hope and pray every day I make it to retirement (TWELVE MORE YEARS! TWELVE MORE YEARS! TWELVE MORE YEARS!!), so that I can MOVE to someplace where I can walk all day long and have a more old fashioned lifestyle.

But intuitive eating simply won't cut it. Bloat always trumps intuition.

f

[Buffalo Gal]

fjwan,

Please do not take this the wrong way but unless you are six months old 107lbs is not overweight...at least not by very much! My mother is barely 5 feet tall and looks great at 110 lbs!

I started this just about 30 days ago. I have 100 lbs or more to lose.

I am 51, short and a woman. I lost 6 lbs in the first 30 days. I did not measure or count anything. There is some truth in the fact that it's harder to lose weight as you get older but I don't think it should be used as a reason not to go for it.

I know that as I get closer to my ideal weight I will have to be more careful about what and how much I eat.

I just do not understand why we have to make things so complicated. Reinhard gave us some very simple and sensible guidelines. Ones that do not require monthly fees or huge investments in groceries we will never be able to get our family to eat. Guidelines that for once make sense.

If measuring and recording are the best way for you to keep on track ... then go for it. For me...if it smells like WW and feels like WW and looks like WW....then it's WW.

Buffalo Gal

[kccc]

What an interesting thread, and what a variety of opinions and preferences.

I love it that No-S will "flex" around most of the preferences.

While it's true that big active young guys do burn off weight faster than tiny inactive old ladies (life is not fair), I still think No-S can work very well for those of us on the unfair side of the continuum. For me (not-so-tiny, older, medium activity, female, family prone to over-weight - whether genetic or habit), I can maintain on No-S with almost no thought, which I could NOT do on WW.

Losing does takes some thought, but not a lot - as long as I'm willing to be patient. Really sticking to the rules and NOT being an idiot on S-days, making good food choices (I know what they are... and aren't), perhaps more exercise, especially of the muscle-building variety. It is a bit hard for me to lose because I'm really in a healthy BMI range, so we're talking "vanity pounds" here.

But some people LIKE to count, or have learned to follow it as habit. I saw people in WW like that. So, it's nice that they can combine No-S and counting...

... and it's nice that I don't have to.

[kccc]

fjwan,

Please do not take this the wrong way but unless you are six months old 107lbs is not overweight...at least not by very much! My mother is barely 5 feet tall and looks great at 110 lbs!

Your mom ought to look great. According to the BMI calculators I have seen, 110 at 5' is very healthy. 107 is moving toward the lower end of the range, and 95 is borderline underweight. (In fact, if you put in 94 lbs, it comes up underweight.)

Here's some links:
http://www.nhlbisupport.com/bmi/
http://www.consumer.gov/weightloss/bmi.htm

It's a range. The goal is HEALTH.

[BrightAngel]

KCCC
You are, of course correct.

According to the Charts:
The healthy weight range for a 5'0" woman is between 127 and 95 lbs.
For a 5'0" woman:

• Under 95 lbs is considered underweight.
  Overweight begins at 128 lbs,
  and Obesity begins at 153 lbs.

I am 5'0" tall.
Here I am at 115 lbs.
http://www.pcollins.com/upload/DP-Goal/DP-Jeans.gif
http://www.pcollins.com/upload/DP-Goal/DP-Gaucho.gif

Here I am at 105 lbs.
http://www.pcollins.com/upload/DP-Goal2 ... 7-3-07.gif
http://www.pcollins.com/upload/DP-Goal2/DP-Goal2/pc.gif

[blueskighs]

fkwan ...

you are so short

5 feet tall is TINY!

Blueskighs

[Beckycan]

A good rule of thumb for an "average" ideal body weight that I learned in nursing school --

5 ft. tall = 100 lbs. then add 5 lbs. for every inch over 5 ft.
Of course this will fluctuate according to how you are built.

So for me, at 5'8", I should be weighing about 140, which is very close to what I weighed when I graduated from high school. (145)

(For men, I think it was 120 for 5 ft. plus 5 lbs. per inch cause men are have different BMI than women.)

[blueskighs]

Beckycan,

this is a good rule of thumb for me too ... I am 5'3' I am pretty much happy with anything under 125 ... i.e 124.5 to 115,

Blueskighs