I haven't been doing too great on No-S lately, and the siren call of calorie counting is becoming strong as I am losing patience about getting into last year's summer skirts. So, I really started thinking about some of the mental garbage I carry around with me that makes it so that I don't stick with such as sensible plan s No-S. I realized that one of the almost subconscious irrational 'fears" I have is that if I eat only three, healthy, reasonable portioned meals a day, I'll be eating so few calories that my metabolism will slow down. I guess what has attracted me all these years to calorie counting diets is the fact that I recognize an inherent limitation in myself: I don't have a good sense of balance. (I wonder if this is common to many people who struggle with their weight). It's as if I eat too little or too much, never just enough. That's why S days are so difficult for me. Oddly enough, my timing in life is the same way. I arrive far too early to everything because I'm so afraid of being late.
It's like I'm missing some internal mechanism that normal eaters have that tells them when "enough" is "enough." Can anyone relate to this?
Irrational "fears"
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
-
StrawberryRoan
- Posts: 461
- Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:39 pm
- Location: United States
I can understand what you are saying.
If one is given a set amount, say 1200 calories, charts them - eats that amount, one is finished eating.
But, is that any way to live - forever?
I think we, as a society, have just forgotten what a normal plate of food looks like.
Say you are having dinner - just picture one piece of meatloaf, a serving of mashed potatoes, a serving a corn, perhaps a dinner roll.
Or lunch, a bowl of soup, a sandwich, maybe a piece of fruit
Or breakfast, scrambled eggs, toast, juice.
It is really simple, it is just that we have WAYYYY too many choices today and we want to eat them all - at the same time.
Like Dolly Parton said when asked how she managed to successfully keep off her weight all these years (she was much heavier earlier in her career)
She said, I realized that I can have anything I want to eat -
just not all at the same time.
I do understand your post and can totally relate. But, three meals a day, normal meals, is how people used to eat. And just look at any newsreel from the forties, fifties, even - before so much fast food and packaged low cal meals - it was RARE to see an overweight person. Look at a yearbook from that era. Sad as it is to say, they used to have fat people as circus attractions, it was so rare. Hopefully, that sad era of our society has passed. I do think that the more we come up with ways to stay thin, the heavier we have gotten.
How many hours a day do you think your greatgrandparents spent trying to figure out the best weightloss plan?
SR
If one is given a set amount, say 1200 calories, charts them - eats that amount, one is finished eating.
But, is that any way to live - forever?
I think we, as a society, have just forgotten what a normal plate of food looks like.
Say you are having dinner - just picture one piece of meatloaf, a serving of mashed potatoes, a serving a corn, perhaps a dinner roll.
Or lunch, a bowl of soup, a sandwich, maybe a piece of fruit
Or breakfast, scrambled eggs, toast, juice.
It is really simple, it is just that we have WAYYYY too many choices today and we want to eat them all - at the same time.
Like Dolly Parton said when asked how she managed to successfully keep off her weight all these years (she was much heavier earlier in her career)
She said, I realized that I can have anything I want to eat -
just not all at the same time.
I do understand your post and can totally relate. But, three meals a day, normal meals, is how people used to eat. And just look at any newsreel from the forties, fifties, even - before so much fast food and packaged low cal meals - it was RARE to see an overweight person. Look at a yearbook from that era. Sad as it is to say, they used to have fat people as circus attractions, it was so rare. Hopefully, that sad era of our society has passed. I do think that the more we come up with ways to stay thin, the heavier we have gotten.
How many hours a day do you think your greatgrandparents spent trying to figure out the best weightloss plan?
SR
Three full meals a day is plenty -- I really wouldn't worry about it messing up your metabolism. If there's an unnatural behavior that might mess up your metabolism or other biological processes, it's the opposite: the constant permasnacking that no one every did until the last few decades that has now become that status quo for most people.I realized that one of the almost subconscious irrational 'fears" I have is that if I eat only three, healthy, reasonable portioned meals a day, I'll be eating so few calories that my metabolism will slow down.
But in a way, those calorie counting diets indulge this limitation: they require an unbalanced, unsustainable amount of attention. No-S doesn't just impose balance by its explicit rules, it trains you to regain an instinctive sense of balance.I guess what has attracted me all these years to calorie counting diets is the fact that I recognize an inherent limitation in myself: I don't have a good sense of balance.
S-days can be hard. So is taking the training wheels off your bike. But there's no teacher like a few hard spills, and no reward greater than the feeling of freedom when you finally can keep yourself going without external support, if only for a short stretch. Moderation isn't completely like riding a bike, you can forget it, so the training wheels have to keep going on again. But I think those S-days without, besides being a pleasure, are critical for really, deeply instilling that sense of balance. They'll help your N-days as much as vice versa.
Exactly. And they didn't have a scale, and never heard the term "calorie."How many hours a day do you think your greatgrandparents spent trying to figure out the best weightloss plan?
Reinhard
Believe me, you can get plenty of calories in 3 meals daily. In fact, I think it's easier than 3 meals and 2-3 snacks!
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
French women apparently don't think much about it, either:vmelo wrote:StrawberryRoan wrote:How many hours a day do you think your greatgrandparents spent trying to figure out the best weightloss plan?
SR
What a great point! Thanks for your response.
http://www.katheats.com/jenna-eat-live-run/
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
Thanks to everyone for your encouragement! I've recommitted to No-S, but before I did, I really gave some thought to what was holding me back in previous attempts. So, here's my plan for this time around:
1) I won't lose weight unless I use my common sense. I know this is probably self-evident to all those reading this, but for me, common sense is, unfortunately, not common (as it concerns weight loss). On my previous No-S attempts, I was eating extremely fattening meals, so that would slow down my weight loss tremendously. This time around, I plan to use common sense at meal times. I will eat a reasonable portion of a fairly healthy meal. This shouldn't be too much of a sacrifice since I really, really like healthy stuff. The main difference between this and calorie counting will be that I'm not going to stress if I cook my veggies in a bit of olive oil. Also, if I'm in a situation where my only option is to eat something fried or otherwise calorie-laden, I'm going to go ahead and eat a reasonable portion of it without feeling guilty. I'm still within the No-S guidelines if I do this.
2) In past attempts I never actually weighed myself, so I wasn't sure the plan was working for me. (Although during the last attempt, I did feel as if I lost some weight the first week). Since the typical weight loss on No-S is quite slow (2-3 lbs. a month), I realized that I have to weigh myself. I did that this morning (after not weighing in for about 2 years), and I'm 168. That's about where I thought I'd be. I'll weigh in again in another month to see how much I've lost. A part of me (the bad, discouraging part) keeps thinking "This can't really work. It's too easy!" I'm hoping to prove myself wrong.
3) On S days, my only S will be sweets. I know that many people say it's best not to restrict S days, but I find that I go hog wild on S days and it feels as if I'm undoing any good habits that I was beginning to acquire. Besides, it's easier for me to give up snacks and seconds. Sweets are something I cannot live without, so I'll allow myself a couple of sweet treats on each S day.
4) Finally, I'm going to try vanilla No-S (with the #3 mod) for 21 straight days. My goal will be to get all green days for 21 days, and then I'll think about whether I should modify anything. A modification that I've been thinking about is allowing myself to have a certain number of sweet treats throughout the week rather than just confining them to S days. However, that's dangerous to me right now, so I'll think about it again after 21 days.
So, that's where I am right now. I'll let everyone know how it's going.
1) I won't lose weight unless I use my common sense. I know this is probably self-evident to all those reading this, but for me, common sense is, unfortunately, not common (as it concerns weight loss). On my previous No-S attempts, I was eating extremely fattening meals, so that would slow down my weight loss tremendously. This time around, I plan to use common sense at meal times. I will eat a reasonable portion of a fairly healthy meal. This shouldn't be too much of a sacrifice since I really, really like healthy stuff. The main difference between this and calorie counting will be that I'm not going to stress if I cook my veggies in a bit of olive oil. Also, if I'm in a situation where my only option is to eat something fried or otherwise calorie-laden, I'm going to go ahead and eat a reasonable portion of it without feeling guilty. I'm still within the No-S guidelines if I do this.
2) In past attempts I never actually weighed myself, so I wasn't sure the plan was working for me. (Although during the last attempt, I did feel as if I lost some weight the first week). Since the typical weight loss on No-S is quite slow (2-3 lbs. a month), I realized that I have to weigh myself. I did that this morning (after not weighing in for about 2 years), and I'm 168. That's about where I thought I'd be. I'll weigh in again in another month to see how much I've lost. A part of me (the bad, discouraging part) keeps thinking "This can't really work. It's too easy!" I'm hoping to prove myself wrong.
3) On S days, my only S will be sweets. I know that many people say it's best not to restrict S days, but I find that I go hog wild on S days and it feels as if I'm undoing any good habits that I was beginning to acquire. Besides, it's easier for me to give up snacks and seconds. Sweets are something I cannot live without, so I'll allow myself a couple of sweet treats on each S day.
4) Finally, I'm going to try vanilla No-S (with the #3 mod) for 21 straight days. My goal will be to get all green days for 21 days, and then I'll think about whether I should modify anything. A modification that I've been thinking about is allowing myself to have a certain number of sweet treats throughout the week rather than just confining them to S days. However, that's dangerous to me right now, so I'll think about it again after 21 days.
So, that's where I am right now. I'll let everyone know how it's going.