Everyday Systems

1) Did some people find they had to have fattier meals when they started? I'm used to eating higher volume foods at my meals, but like many have said, I get very hungry between meals. I felt today like I could hardly get home fast enough to have dinner at 5:15! I can't eat much more at meals without being stuffed, but fats are so dense, it's easy to eat more without the bulk. Is that preferable to resorting to "snacks?"

2) I haven't perused all the boards, but Overeaters Anonymous, at least years ago, called abstinence "three moderate meals a day and nothing in between." So there is some precedence for this as a tactic to curb overeating. There were no S days. Maybe that's why a lot of people didn't make it!?

oolala53 wrote:1) Did some people find they had to have fattier meals when they started? I'm used to eating higher volume foods at my meals, but like many have said, I get very hungry between meals.

I have to eat more protein. I read somewhere that folks who ate the same amount of calories with different proportions of fat, carbs, and protein tended to be the least hungry several hours later if they ate the higher portion of protein.

It works for me.

Thanks for that suggestion. I've been having lean protein at most meals for years, for mostly that reason. A pretty big chunk, too! But I still get very hungry. I just can't fit in more at mealtime. Three ounces of chicken is about 120 cal. One tablespoon of fat is about the same, but takes up much less room in the tum-tum. (Who would have thunk I'd be looking for foods that didn't fill me up so much? but that do satisfy for a long time?) I guess I could eat fattier meat. I know we're not supposed to worry so much about what we eat, but I'd rather have lean protein and more omega-3's or monosaturated fats, if I'm going to have heavier meals. I guess I should just try it instead of waa-waaing here!

oolala53 wrote:I get very hungry between meals.

Not that I'm any expert (have only been No-S-ing for 2 months) but starting out, I really had to play around with how much and what kind of food would keep me satisfied until the next meal. I was so used to eating in a "diet" manner at meals, then relying on "diet" snacks to get me through, that I found I really had no concept of how to eat 3 meals a day, or really, how much food to eat in one day. (And by the way, all that "diet" focus for meals and snacks periodically left me crazed, digging into an ice cream container, and not stopping until I hit cardboard!)

For me, I had to add more volume to meals, and I wouldn't say eat "fattier", but I started using some olive oil on my salads, added more beans to soups, put some wine in the fresh tomato sauce for my chicken, some walnuts in my cereal ... just little changes that seemed to make a difference. I wouldn't characterize them as "fattier", but I did include some foods and oils that in my "diet" mentality would have been "forbidden".

I'm also wondering, aside from the physiological adjustment between protein/carbs/fat, if there is also some mental component in adding things that you have completely omitted on past diets, (e.g. "it's good to have some olive oil" vs. "I am a very bad person, I had some fatty olive oil").

Everyone is different, of course, but, for me, I do think a big part of a successful No-S kickoff was realizing (and that realization came gradually) that (1) switching to three meals would involve some adjustments, (2) I wouldn't necessarily get it first bounce, and (3) I had to have a willingness to experiment to find what would comfortably get me from one meal to another. I was so used to "starting a diet" that I thought I'd be perfect immediately, but this way of eating is so not about that ... it's something people like me with that diet mentality really have to come to grips with -- it's a process!

I'm not sure I've completely "got it", but I know I am making progress from when I first began -- for my money, I'd rather deal with tweaking the composition of my three meals to get me from meal-to-meal in a healthful manner vs. fighting all day with calorie-counting (can I "afford" to have that snack?) -- what a relief!

Just my own experience -- don't worry about "waa-waaing". As far as I can tell, that's what these remarkably supportive boards are for! Hope this helps ...

2) I haven't perused all the boards, but Overeaters Anonymous, at least years ago, called abstinence "three moderate meals a day and nothing in between." So there is some precedence for this as a tactic to curb overeating. There were no S days. Maybe that's why a lot of people didn't make it!?

There's thousands of years of precedent! It's more of less how most people in most places used to eat.

In terms of the details of No S. vs what Overeaters Anonymous recommended, I think you're right that one key difference is the safety valve of s-days. The other is a little more clarity about what "moderate" means: one plate.

I never think about fat or carbs at meals, so I can't comment on that. I just think of taste and variety and visual balance. I eat a fair amount of whole grains and vegetables partially because they're healthy but mostly because I like them (well prepared), but I don't skimp on the butter and oil either.

Reinhard

To me, the idea behind one plateful is that you see how much you are eating. I'm only on Day 33, so I'm new to this, but my second grader was very skeptical that I was following the rules of no seconds, no snacks, and no sweets. She pointed to my one plateful of dinner and said there are two snacks (an apple and a carrot) and there is seconds (the second burrito). The little sweetie sure noticed a change in how much I ate at meals!

Of course, I realized a long time ago that I usually ate more before dinner than I ate at dinner.

Kathleen

Funny how perceptive those little twirps are, huh!

I saw this explanation here somewhere-I think it was Reinhard's words that points out that, at least in terms of No S, that SNACKS are defined by WHEN they are eaten (like between your meals) and that SECONDS are what you didn't put on your one plate initially but you added after you finished the first plate. So if your reasonable sized plate holds two burritos, rule-wise, you're still legal! This is where your realization that it has to do with SEEING what you plan to eat. . . if we really pile it on, it does look gluttonous like Mr. No S says.

And the only sweet you are 'ALLOWED' is your little 'SECOND GRADE SWEETIE' and that should be enough for now! Yeah, tell her that! I'm always "stealing sugars" from my three year old granddaughter (you know. . . kisses) --but they're kind that enrich my heart and my life! Those SWEETS are non-negotiable!

Happy S days coming up!

I definitely considered the two snacks and one seconds on one plate at dinnertime to be legal and labeled the day a SUCCESS! It was just the perception of my little sweetie that showed I had really increased my eating at mealtime to help in compensating for eliminating between-meal snacks.
Kathleen