Is No-S a form of intermittent fasting, d'you think?

jbettin · Post by **jbettin** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:53 pm

I was surfing today (when I should have been doing something more productive LOL), and ran across some diet articles about intermittent fasting. (e.g. http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02 ... e-fasting2) It occurred to me that No-S might be considered to be a form of intermittent fasting. If so, there may be actual scientific evidence supporting No-S as a good way to lose weight.

Just thought that was interesting...

Thalia · Post by **Thalia** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:58 pm

I would not consider eating three full meals a day to be fasting. There is plenty of evidence that No S is a good way to lose weight, in the form of results, but it's not because of some arcane metabolic effect -- it's because it limits us to an appropriate intake of food!

gratefuldeb67 · Post by **gratefuldeb67** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:08 pm

This is *anti* fasting!

I guess anything that addresses the bad habit of snacking all the time, might make one feel they are "fasting" between meals tho.. hahah

Give it a try!
Good luck

Debs

jbettin · Post by **jbettin** » Fri Aug 21, 2009 9:26 pm

Thalia wrote:I would not consider eating three full meals a day to be fasting. There is plenty of evidence that No S is a good way to lose weight, in the form of results, but it's not because of some arcane metabolic effect -- it's because it limits us to an appropriate intake of food!

I guess what I was getting at is that, in contrast to the "eat 6 small meals per day" approach that's been accepted wisdom lately, there are actually relatively long periods where one does without food. In my own case, I eat lunch at around noon, and then we don't eat dinner until 6:30, so it's quite a stretch without a snack. From what I read today as I was scanning articles about intermittent fasting, it sounds like the "fasts" can be a full day, or just a longer-than-average number of hours between meals. Hence, the thought that No-S might fall into that category. Point being that for people who think it's unnatural to "only" eat 3 meals per day, there's some research that would indicate it's not going to slow down your metabolism or do any of the other bad things that diet gurus want us to believe.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat Aug 22, 2009 12:53 am

jbettin wrote:
Thalia wrote:I would not consider eating three full meals a day to be fasting. There is plenty of evidence that No S is a good way to lose weight, in the form of results, but it's not because of some arcane metabolic effect -- it's because it limits us to an appropriate intake of food!
I guess what I was getting at is that, in contrast to the "eat 6 small meals per day" approach that's been accepted wisdom lately, there are actually relatively long periods where one does without food. In my own case, I eat lunch at around noon, and then we don't eat dinner until 6:30, so it's quite a stretch without a snack. From what I read today as I was scanning articles about intermittent fasting, it sounds like the "fasts" can be a full day, or just a longer-than-average number of hours between meals. Hence, the thought that No-S might fall into that category. Point being that for people who think it's unnatural to "only" eat 3 meals per day, there's some research that would indicate it's not going to slow down your metabolism or do any of the other bad things that diet gurus want us to believe.

I wouldn't consider No-S any form of fasting. I typically eat two meals daily and I certainly don't consider that fasting.

~reneew · Post by **~reneew** » Sun Aug 23, 2009 3:18 am

I wouldn't consider No S fasting... until I get very hungry and the meal is no where in sight and I want to feel sorry for myself.

Honestly, I think No S is just normal eating and fasting is (in my opinion) when your tummy is growling hungry and you restrain from eating for a long time. Following No S lets you eat soon enough.

Post by **reinhard** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:10 pm

You're right that compared to the permasnacking that is the status quo these days No-s is a kind of "fasting" -- though I think it's a little sad that things have come to that point. No one in previous generations would have looked at eating three meals a day as "fasting."

Reinhard

jbettin · Post by **jbettin** » Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:30 pm

reinhard wrote:You're right that compared to the permasnacking that is the status quo these days No-s is a kind of "fasting" -- though I think it's a little sad that things have come to that point. No one in previous generations would have looked at eating three meals a day as "fasting."

Reinhard

Yes, this is what I was getting at, but expressing unclearly. Point being that if intermittent complete fasting doesn't turn out to a) harm you or b) cause your metabolism to shut down so that you don't lose weight, then how can eliminating snacks be a problem? It just seemed to me that if "scientific research" (for all it's worth) backs up IF, it also supports No-S.

Gia · Post by **Gia** » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:49 am

I agree about the MINI FAST concept. If you eat dinner early at 5:3o and don't snack at night and eat breakfast at 8/9 the next day, you've gone about 15/16hrs out of your 24hr day without eating. "Fasting" does sound scary in a world where people are on perma-snack mode, but many consider 15 hrs without food to be intermittent fasting and it is supposed to be great for you and help increase longevity.

Just an interesting thought...