Everyday Systems

In one of the threads -- I forget which one -- Reinhard said something about doing vanilla No S and getting some moderate exercise and then just see where the weight falls.

I think this is very good advice. Instead of relying on weight charts, BMI charts, etc., just see what turns out to be normal for ME.

He always comes up with something good!

I am a week in to eating this way. I am wary of setting a goal weight for myself. I know what I used to weigh when I was younger and I know what the charts say, but what if it isn't the right weight for my body at this time? I don't want to get discouraged and lose sight of what I may have accomplished just because I didn't reach a certain number. I do want to be thinner, though.

Harmony: Sounds like a smart thing to do.

J Jan: I had to grin when I saw the title of this thread, even before opening it. . . I thought, "Well of course, Reinhard said something interesting! He always does!"

Good advice indeed. Reinhard knows his stuff.

According to weight charts, at 5 foot 4 or so I should weigh about 120.

I remember a hospital report once reading very thin female at 118 pounds.

(Trust me, that was a long time ago.)

My best weight is 140.

The older we get, we learn our bodies. The more we exercise, of course, the more we can weigh and still be a "smaller" size.

I have FINALLY decided to let my body determine what its weight will be. I'm tall (5'9") and large boned - the least I've ever weighed was between 130-135 and I looked sickly - really sickly, much too thin - although according to weight charts and my age at the time, I wasn't...
Now I'm older and wiser (ha!) and it's about time that I quit aiming for a *number* rather than a weight that is healthy and attractive for my body. Now I'm ready - and kind of excited to see what will happen. I'm willing to take as much time as my body needs to get there too.

Mimi

Yeah, people shouldn't rely on the BMI charts to determine what is their ideal weight ... that doesn't take into consideration your muscle mass, all that ...

I was just reading an article on that the other day and according to BMI chart numbers nearly all the quarterbacks in the NFL would be considered OBESE based on the BMI chart, their BMI would be 28-30-32.

They have more muscles so they weigh more, but that doesn't mean they are not healthy and in good shape of course ... quite the opposite.

I think 190 is a good number for me, so I'd like to be around that weight even if according to the BMI chart, considering my height, I would ideally weigh 15-20 pounds less than that ... but then if I weighed 170,
I'd be like 'Poindexter' in Revenge of the NERDS ... puny legs and arms, weak, no buns of steel I prefer to weigh more and work on building stronger muscles, all that weighs more on the scale.



Cheers !

Marc

Disclaimer : I am following a more extreme version of the 'No-S' diet.
I made my own personal modifications to the original plan (Diet & Exercise)
What I am doing should not be misinterpreted as being a typical 'No-S' diet experience.
11/01/2008 : 280.0 pounds
07/22/2009 : 202.8 pounds
( 8 months 22 days / -77.2 pounds )
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goal : 11/01/2009 : 190.0 pounds ( 1 year / -90.0 pounds )

mimi wrote:I have FINALLY decided to let my body determine what its weight will be.

I need to do this too, I'm on No S as a maintainer, as the logical part of my mind knows that I don't need to lose more weight. However, every time I weigh myself I feel bad for being 6 kgs heavier than I was at the age of 20, even though at 20 I was slightly underweight & didn't have much muscle mass. The fact that I can still wear some of the clothes I wore at 20 indicates that my size hasn't changed much either (aside from one pair of "skinny jeans" which I can only wear if I don't plan on eating, moving or breathing )


I think I should just throw the scales away, or maybe only weigh myself once a month, and I should probably give those skinny jeans to my teenage neice

^ That's a good plan.

BMI says this is obese. The Australian Government health initiative is pushing hip to waist ratios as a much better indicator and I agree.

Glad you think so, Jan!

I just did a search to find the exact quote and it looks like I've said it quite a number of times over the years! (unfortunately it looks like I neglected to stick it in the book)

This seems to be the first instance:

From:

http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic.php?p=22675

The official No S Diet way of determining your ideal weight:

1) eat moderately

2) see what happens.

I'm semi-serious. Actually I'm totally serious. People were much thinner before they had household scales. These numbers tend to just freak people out, and it's very hard to come up with meaningful, realistic goals. I used the above method and I wound up 15 pounds below what I thought was my ideal weight. Behavior is the problem, behavior is the solution. Weight is just a side effect.

Then again here:

http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic ... 1389#41389

Eat moderately. Move moderately. See what happens.

That's your "ideal" weight.

My guess is that most people will actually wind up weighing a lot less following this rule than by striving for some semi-arbitrary number based on crude metrics like BMI. And they'll certainly wind up feeling a lot better about themselves.

And here:

http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic ... 3283#43283

No-s will "work" if you currently overeat.

If you don't, if you already eat moderately, then it won't do anything except merely increase your enjoyment of food and ensure that you don't slip into overeating in the future. Not too terrible, I think, but perhaps not what you're looking for.

No-s isn't about hitting some arbitrary goal, but about taking concrete steps to eating moderately. The idea is to focus on behavior rather than results. Eat and move moderately, see what happens. My guess is you'll be very happy, both with the results than unfold, and (more importantly) with the process of getting (and staying) there.

And here:

http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic ... 2412#52412

no-s isn't a diet in the conventional sense. It's about eating moderately. That's a good thing to do no matter how much or little you weigh, and is perfectly compatible with accepting yourself "as you are." In fact, I think it's a big help. Instead of setting arbitrary, possibly unattainable, almost certainly unsustainable weight loss goals, you just eat moderately and see what happens. In a way, you discover "who you are."

mimi wrote:I have FINALLY decided to let my body determine what its weight will be. I'm tall (5'9") and large boned - the least I've ever weighed was between 130-135 and I looked sickly - really sickly, much too thin - although according to weight charts and my age at the time, I wasn't...
Now I'm older and wiser (ha!) and it's about time that I quit aiming for a *number* rather than a weight that is healthy and attractive for my body. Now I'm ready - and kind of excited to see what will happen. I'm willing to take as much time as my body needs to get there too.

Mimi

Well, Reinhard - I guess I'm on the right track - finally! It's only taken me a lifetime...

Mimi

Amen to that! and to the idea that white rice isn't going to kill us. (yes, I'm merging the thoughts of two threads from today now!)

By the way, it's interesting that when I looked up the Texmati rice on Amazon, at the bottom it also said, "people who bought this product also bought . . . McCann's Steel Cut Irish Oats!" just like people talk about on this site a lot and that I found at Wal-Mart!

And I guess I've got grain on the brain today-I just read Reinhard's comments about his doing a search on his site to see all the times he's mentioned moderation helping people find their "true" weight. . .
From Reinhard:

reinhard wrote:. . . I just did a search to find the exact quote and it looks like I've said it quite a number of times over the years! (unfortunately it looks like I neglected to stick it in the book) . . . quote]

and I read it wrong. . . I thought he wrote, "I've done a STARCH! I thought, how strange, how would you do that?"

Reinhard said: (unfortunately it looks like I neglected to stick it in the book)

I think it's just as well you didn't put it in. If you hadmMaybe people wouldn't even try no-S and wouldn't that be a shame! It's probably more of a realization you come to slowly once you realize how much you're enjoying moderation. And if not being really skinny is the price, then so be it.

Is it just me or do you guys and girls find “too skinny†to be just as unhealthy as “too fat� It seems to artificially age people as well.

I cringe when I see all the celebrities that used to have good shapes and physiques but are now mimicking concentration camp victims. In my mind it's quite insulting to people who are actually starving to see these famous types flaunting it as trendy.

Bushranger, you are absolutely right. And not only the media people, but ordinary folks, too seem to be into this "super skinny" thing. There are stores at our mall that advertise "super skinny" clothes! To me it just looks like death.

Bushranger wrote:Is it just me or do you guys and girls find “too skinny†to be just as unhealthy as “too fat� It seems to artificially age people as well.

I cringe when I see all the celebrities that used to have good shapes and physiques but are now mimicking concentration camp victims. In my mind it's quite insulting to people who are actually starving to see these famous types flaunting it as trendy.

You know the old saying, "You can never be too rich or too skinny?"

Oh, yes you can - on both accounts!! Right on, Bushranger!

Mimi

I totally agree -- I mean, there are some people who can look good when very, very thin, it works with their face and body type. Nicole Kidman looked really good at a very low weight (until she went insane with the plastic surgery, but that's a different problem) because it looks elegant on her and she's always been pretty skinny, it seems to be her natural look. But for most people, being severely underweight is not attractive and makes their faces look haggard, and they look ill-nourished and alarming.

If you look at movies from the '60s and '70s, some of the actresses are pretty thin and no one is FAT, but they are not generally stick figures. Anita Ekberg in La Dolce Vita was a complete sex goddess -- these days, they'd go tell her to lose 40 pounds before they'd think of putting her on camera.

Or



Hmmm, who looks healthier?

I totally agree that too skinny is just gross. I saw Kyra Sedwick a few weeks ago. She doesn't even look that skinny on screen, but in real life she's a stick. It's really disheartening for me because I want to be an actress so badly, and every leading lady today is so skinny (Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Connelly, Keira Knightley...).

But, unlike them, I'm not willing to sacrifice my health and happiness to reach my goals. I'm not going to be eating an apple every 2 weeks. That is SO not me! I could do never do that. I need carbs and fat. I love salad, but I need sugar every once in a while!

And acting (done right) is so uncomfortable that at this point I need food as both fuel and comfort. Well, maybe I'll create a new trend for leading ladies. The emaciated look is getting really old, anyway.

I do think there will be a backlash. Eventually.