Surfing...
found a good one:
decently flattering for Reinhard
http://www.conversiondiary.com/2008/06/ ... ttony.html
Some interesting No S related links
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
-
BrightAngel
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
- Location: Central California
- Contact:
Hi, I also thought that was an excellent artcile.
Interestingly, I randomly came accross No-S getting another mention in a blog, albeit a very short mention, but at least there are links for people to follow!
http://arlinghaus.typepad.com/blog/
(I randomly clicked on the link from another blog, but funny how all blogs seem to interconnect eventually
)
Interestingly, I randomly came accross No-S getting another mention in a blog, albeit a very short mention, but at least there are links for people to follow!
http://arlinghaus.typepad.com/blog/
(I randomly clicked on the link from another blog, but funny how all blogs seem to interconnect eventually
)-
OrganicGal
- Posts: 481
- Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 8:08 pm
- Location: Peterborough
The blogger of that article had some remarkable insights about No-S, all of which I share. Here's a quote that I found especially insightful:
"Also, as a somewhat "emotional eater," I've found it a lot easier to honestly answer the question 'Is it mealtime?' as opposed to the question 'Am I really hungry?' With the latter, there's a surprising amount of gray area depending on my mood. With the former, it's perfectly clear."
This is EXACTLY why No-S works better for me than straight intuitive eating.
Here's another quote that I thought was great:
". . . . Gluttony almost always involves lies.
This was a huge realization for me, and the main reason that this system of eating has changed the way I think about my relationship to food: unless I was counting carbs or calories (which is impossible for me to keep up with for the long haul), snacks and seconds allowed me to spread out my consumption and unintentionally lie to myself about how much I was really eating. Without snacks and seconds, there are no more lies. Without any counting or measuring, I can see with my own eyes (as can anyone else who's around me) that I am eating huge quantities of food at each meal."
Right! It's corny, but this reminds me of Dr. Phil's line---"Own it." I think so many overweight people (myself included) tend to find ways not to own up to how much they are eating. For example, I always preferred eating snack-size candy (e.g., snack-size Snickers, Butterfinger, etc.) because I could lie to myself about how much I was eating. If I simply ate a regular sized candy bar, I would have to acknowledge that, but eating the snack-sized versions throughout the day was easier for me to swallow (pun intended). It's absolutely illogical, but it's true (for me at least).
"Also, as a somewhat "emotional eater," I've found it a lot easier to honestly answer the question 'Is it mealtime?' as opposed to the question 'Am I really hungry?' With the latter, there's a surprising amount of gray area depending on my mood. With the former, it's perfectly clear."
This is EXACTLY why No-S works better for me than straight intuitive eating.
Here's another quote that I thought was great:
". . . . Gluttony almost always involves lies.
This was a huge realization for me, and the main reason that this system of eating has changed the way I think about my relationship to food: unless I was counting carbs or calories (which is impossible for me to keep up with for the long haul), snacks and seconds allowed me to spread out my consumption and unintentionally lie to myself about how much I was really eating. Without snacks and seconds, there are no more lies. Without any counting or measuring, I can see with my own eyes (as can anyone else who's around me) that I am eating huge quantities of food at each meal."
Right! It's corny, but this reminds me of Dr. Phil's line---"Own it." I think so many overweight people (myself included) tend to find ways not to own up to how much they are eating. For example, I always preferred eating snack-size candy (e.g., snack-size Snickers, Butterfinger, etc.) because I could lie to myself about how much I was eating. If I simply ate a regular sized candy bar, I would have to acknowledge that, but eating the snack-sized versions throughout the day was easier for me to swallow (pun intended). It's absolutely illogical, but it's true (for me at least).
-
connorcream
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 9:57 pm
- Location: San Antonio
I *adore* the last person's comment.
I'm starting to feel very intolerant of the mountain of excuses I see around me, everyone seems to have one that allows them to eat whatever and whenever they want, sweet jebus, people, pull yourselves together and stop being mindless glutons!.
For every good review I see of the NoS book, I see a stream of comments along the lines of "oh, I dunno, my glucose will go to 0 if I don't eat those chips and the cookies within an hour of having breakfast, what's that?, if I'm diabetic?, uuh, no..."
It's embarrasing.
Er, this is not addressed to anyone here, in case I didn't make that clear!.
I'm starting to feel very intolerant of the mountain of excuses I see around me, everyone seems to have one that allows them to eat whatever and whenever they want, sweet jebus, people, pull yourselves together and stop being mindless glutons!.
For every good review I see of the NoS book, I see a stream of comments along the lines of "oh, I dunno, my glucose will go to 0 if I don't eat those chips and the cookies within an hour of having breakfast, what's that?, if I'm diabetic?, uuh, no..."
It's embarrasing.
Er, this is not addressed to anyone here, in case I didn't make that clear!.
-
BrightAngel
- Posts: 2093
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
- Location: Central California
- Contact:
There may be good reason for that.vmelo wrote: Here's another quote that I thought was great:
". . . . Gluttony almost always involves lies.
An interesting illustration can be found in the previous thread.
http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic ... ght=#37226
Look at the negative reactions that even No S forum members have
to someone telling the truth (see below) about Gluttony.
I Accept that I am Greedy, and a Glutton.
What does that really mean?
Webster definesWell, That IS me.
- "Greedy" as "having a strong desire for food or drink";
"Glutton as "one given habitually to greedy and voracious eating and drinking";
"Voracious" is having a huge appetite: Ravenous; or excessively eater: Insatiable;
. . . . . . .Voracious applies especially to habital gorging with food or drink.
. . . . . . . .Synonyms:
- "Gluttonous" applies to one who delights in eating...especially beyond the pont of necessity or satiety.
"Ravenous" imples excessive hunger and suggests violent or grasping methods of dealing with food.
"Rapacious"often suggests excessive and selfish acquisitveness.
So....is it a bad thing?
I don't think so.
It's just part of who I am, and what I need to deal with in my life.
along with my other personality characteristics and physical appearance.
I Accept these character "defects",
just like I Accept physical things about me such as:
my height, age, eye-color, strech marks, wrinkles, less than taunt skin..etc. etc. etc.
Acceptance gets me out of Denial,
and gives me the freedom to do what I can
to reduce negative side effects produced by the condition...
...if I choose to.
Acceptance of Truth is a starting place.
.....and the Truth is that all of those definitions apply to me....
I am a Glutton. Does it mean I have to be fat?
Not necessarily.
Obesity is a "negative side effect" of Gluttoney,
and in order to avoid that side-effect,
I have to work to control, direct, and tame my eating desires.
Will new Habits "tame the wild animal"?
And can I develop those Habits?
I hope so.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com
See: DietHobby. com
I LOVED the following blog comment as this is exactly how I feel:
RedSalamander said...
I am trying to pinpoint exactly when everyone became brainwashed that we cannot possibly go more than 2 hours without eating. When I was a kid, in the early '70's, we were rarely given snacks between meals -- everyone knew those led to Cavities, Getting Fat, and Ruining Your Dinner. Also, food was only available from your kitchen (where your mom controlled the source), or from certain food-selling edifices like supermarkets or restaurants, or perhaps a vending machine if you were lucky. Bookstores did not sell food. Gas stations did not sell food. Stores that were not supermarkets did not sell food, except for Woolworth's lunch counter (where you had to sit down and order your food).
Nowadays, you cannot go 20 feet without being confronted with a display of candy, chips, pretzels, etc., positioned exactly at kid height. Snacks are served at EVERY social function; my children would start salivating on their way to Sunday school because they knew their good behavior would be rewarded with copious amounts of Goldfish crackers (thus eliminating any chance that they would eat lunch after church).
I think we had snack time in kindergarten, when we were given two graham crackers and a Dixie cup of Kool-Aid, but now even my third-grader gets snack time -- an hour before lunch, no less, with the predictable result that she never eats her sandwich and apple!
I attend a ladies' Bible study that starts at 9:30. Every week, someone is assigned to bring a snack. "A snack?" I groaned. "Why on earth do full-grown adult women, most of whom are trying to lose 10 lbs on any given day, require a snack two hours after breakfast?" Indeed. And everyone seems to try to outdo each other with the scones, the muffins, the coffeecakes, etc.. It's fairly obvious why some of us have so much trouble losing weight.
I don't generally pack snacks for my kids when we go out, unless we are going to be out, say, at the beach for five hours. Even then, I pack minimal food, because I've noticed that picky eating is in direct proportion to how many snack items they have ingested during the afternoon.
It drives me nuts when we go to the playground, and other moms start pulling out giant sacks of chips, crackers, cookies, fruit roll-ups, etc., and then my kids stop playing and ask me plaintively what did WE bring. "Nothing...you just had lunch thirty minutes ago!" Then they go and give the puppy-dog eyes to anyone with a crinkly package. Everyone is glaring at me like I'm some sort of child-starving monster, and I'm growing increasingly annoyed with everyone for making what should be an opportunity for fresh and and exercise into an all-you-can-eat buffet.
I totally think the No S guy is right on with this. Check out the rest of his site; he has some great "duh!" solutions to things like slothfulness, drunkeness, and gluttony!
RedSalamander said...
I am trying to pinpoint exactly when everyone became brainwashed that we cannot possibly go more than 2 hours without eating. When I was a kid, in the early '70's, we were rarely given snacks between meals -- everyone knew those led to Cavities, Getting Fat, and Ruining Your Dinner. Also, food was only available from your kitchen (where your mom controlled the source), or from certain food-selling edifices like supermarkets or restaurants, or perhaps a vending machine if you were lucky. Bookstores did not sell food. Gas stations did not sell food. Stores that were not supermarkets did not sell food, except for Woolworth's lunch counter (where you had to sit down and order your food).
Nowadays, you cannot go 20 feet without being confronted with a display of candy, chips, pretzels, etc., positioned exactly at kid height. Snacks are served at EVERY social function; my children would start salivating on their way to Sunday school because they knew their good behavior would be rewarded with copious amounts of Goldfish crackers (thus eliminating any chance that they would eat lunch after church).
I think we had snack time in kindergarten, when we were given two graham crackers and a Dixie cup of Kool-Aid, but now even my third-grader gets snack time -- an hour before lunch, no less, with the predictable result that she never eats her sandwich and apple!
I attend a ladies' Bible study that starts at 9:30. Every week, someone is assigned to bring a snack. "A snack?" I groaned. "Why on earth do full-grown adult women, most of whom are trying to lose 10 lbs on any given day, require a snack two hours after breakfast?" Indeed. And everyone seems to try to outdo each other with the scones, the muffins, the coffeecakes, etc.. It's fairly obvious why some of us have so much trouble losing weight.
I don't generally pack snacks for my kids when we go out, unless we are going to be out, say, at the beach for five hours. Even then, I pack minimal food, because I've noticed that picky eating is in direct proportion to how many snack items they have ingested during the afternoon.
It drives me nuts when we go to the playground, and other moms start pulling out giant sacks of chips, crackers, cookies, fruit roll-ups, etc., and then my kids stop playing and ask me plaintively what did WE bring. "Nothing...you just had lunch thirty minutes ago!" Then they go and give the puppy-dog eyes to anyone with a crinkly package. Everyone is glaring at me like I'm some sort of child-starving monster, and I'm growing increasingly annoyed with everyone for making what should be an opportunity for fresh and and exercise into an all-you-can-eat buffet.
I totally think the No S guy is right on with this. Check out the rest of his site; he has some great "duh!" solutions to things like slothfulness, drunkeness, and gluttony!
SW: 154