On-Off Fasting Helps Obese Adults Lose Weight

No Snacks, no sweets, no seconds. Except on Days that start with S. Too simple for you? Simple is why it works. Look here for questions, introductions, support, success stories.

Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating

Post Reply
Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

On-Off Fasting Helps Obese Adults Lose Weight

Post by Kathleen » Sun Nov 15, 2009 7:04 pm

Below is an interesting article on on-off fasting. I think the No S Diet follows the on-off philosophy, but the on (N Day) dieting is something that is basically sound eating habits whereas the weekend (S Day) eating gives your body a chance to recover from even mild restriction. I found this interesting. It's not that I'm moving to on-off fasting. Instead, this article reinforces my belief that the No S Diet gives the best chance I have found of losing weight permanently. Now I just need to give up the need to perfect the diet and accept it and the slow weight loss that goes with it!


On-Off Fasting Helps Obese Adults Lose Weight

Thursday, November 12, 2009 10:56 PM





Fasting every other day can help obese people lose weight, a small study hints.


Even though the study participants ate whatever they wanted on their non-fasting days, they lost an average of about 12 pounds after eight weeks, Dr. Krista A. Varady of the University of Illinois at Chicago and her colleagues found.


What's more, their total and "bad" LDL cholesterol levels dropped, and their blood pressure fell.


"People lost anywhere from about 7 pounds to about 30 pounds and that was in a very short amount of time," Varady said. And, she added, the program was pretty easy for the study participants to follow.


People typically try to lose weight by cutting their calorie intake every day, Varady and her team note in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. A much rarer approach, they add, is to have people alternate "feed days" with "fast days." Studies in normal and overweight people have shown that this strategy can indeed help people lose weight and improve their cholesterol levels.


To test alternate-day fasting in obese adults, Varady and her colleagues had 12 obese women and four obese men begin by eating normally for a two-week control period. Then, for eight weeks, they ate just 25 percent of the calories they needed to maintain their weight, between noon and 2 p.m., every other day.


For the first four weeks, the researchers provided study participants with their fasting day meal, while for the next four, study participants met with a dietitian every week and prepared the meal themselves.


Study participants lost about 1.5 pounds every week. At the end of the eight-week diet, their total cholesterol had dropped by 21 percent, on average, while their LDL cholesterol had dropped 25 percent. Moreover, their systolic blood pressure (the upper number in a blood pressure reading) had fallen by an average of five points.


While Varady and her team had thought people might overeat on their non-fasting day in order to compensate, this turned out not to be true; people typically ate between 100 percent or 125 percent of their calorie needs on their all-you-can eat days.


"I think it's probably because their stomachs kind of shrunk," she said.


The next step, the researcher said, will be to figure out if people can maintain the on-off approach for a longer period of time, to continue to lose weight or to maintain a healthy weight.


Anyone who wants to give the diet a try, she added, should meet with their doctor or a dietitian first.


SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, November 2009.





© 2009 Reuters. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

LoriLifts
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 11:02 pm
Location: new mexico

Post by LoriLifts » Mon Nov 16, 2009 1:08 am

In addition to No S, I've used Brad Pilon's Eat Stop Eat plan. Two days a week, you fast for 24 hours. For example, I had my Sunday dinner at 5pm. I'll have my next meal on Monday at 5pm. Then I usually do my second fast on Thursday.

Although intermittent fasting isn't for everyone, I like doing it and it's a good fit with No S.
Habits are at first cobwebs, then cables.

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:16 am

I've read that one of the reasons the Greeks tend to be slim and healthy is that the Greek Orthodox religion has many days of fasting.
"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."

ThomsonsPier
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:18 pm
Location: Reading, UK

Re: On-Off Fasting Helps Obese Adults Lose Weight

Post by ThomsonsPier » Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:51 am

I fast between meals and eat during them.

The notion of fasting on alternate days just sounds like No-S at lower frequency to me. Is there any actual difference?
ThomsonsPier

It's a trick. Get an axe.

wosnes
Posts: 4168
Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 3:38 pm
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA

Post by wosnes » Mon Nov 16, 2009 12:24 pm

I hadn't read the article when I posted above -- just responded to the idea of fasting.

So, basically if you practice some form of calorie restriction, you'll lose weight. Wow. What a concept.
"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."

Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Kathleen » Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:15 pm

I guess that my take on the article is that successful dieting means periods of restriction (like N Days) as well as periods of unrestricted eating (like S Days). I heard a podcast that dieting is like strength training -- muscles need the stress of strenght training in order to be strengthened but they also need time to recuperate.

In my own Catholic faith, there used to be a lot of days of fasting and abstinence (in the middle ages, Wednesdays and Fridays were fast days) as well as days of feasting (every Sunday, big feasts on the day before Lent called Mardi Gras and other days). Today, almost all of that is lost. We have two fast days, Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

I think there may be some wisdom in religious food restricitons that has been lost or at minimum watered down.

At least until next July, my plan is to follow the idea of "unconditional permission to eat" on all Saturdays and Sundays plus an additional two weekdays per month. I tried reducing the number of S Days and ended up with N Days that were like S Days. In other words, I cheated.

Wtih so many S Days, there's less of a need to eat now rather than wait for the next S Day. It's Monday morning, and I only have to wait until Saturday midnight to eat what I want.

The article above had a different approach to on off with every other day being a day of fasting. Where I think the No S Diet is superior is that your N Days become the norm and become more or less the way you would like to eat ideally. This morning, for example, I had oatmeal and a cup of a banana smoothie. It's good food. It's easy to eat food like this when I know I can have as many Haagen Dazs bars as I want in just a few days.

Kathleen

User avatar
~reneew
Posts: 2190
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: midwest US

Post by ~reneew » Mon Nov 16, 2009 3:37 pm

more food for thought... or thoughts on food. Thanks for the info! :wink:
I guess this doesn't work unless you actually do it.
Please pray for me

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Mon Nov 16, 2009 4:24 pm

I have done a lot of experimenting with alternate day eating and intermittent fasting.
Just like No S, ALL of them share the ultimate aim of making calorie intake less than energy output.

QOD and JUDDD are two alternate day eating plans that are very similiar.
On both, one alternates a Higher calorie day and a Lower calorie day.
The low day food intake is supposed to be about 20% to 30% of one's total day's burn.
The high day food intake is supposed to be very close to only 100% of one's total day's burn.
The two days calories added together and divided by 2,
are intended to create a calorie deficit--such as a 500 calorie daily deficit=1 weekly lb loss.
Obviously the Plan doesn't work if one consistently overeats on a High day.
(Which, of course, would be similiar to eating massive amounts of food during either N days or S days)

EatStopEat is a similiar plan,
except it adds timing to the low-calorie day requirement.
One eats one meal which is hopefully only about 1/3 of one's daily burn,
and there must be a 24 hour spacing between the two day's feedings.
However, this plan recommends only one or two occasional days a week,
not alternate days.
Obviously the Plan doesn't work if one consistently overeats on either Lower or the Higher days.

Fast5 is an intermittent fasting plan which is not an alternate day plan,
but I mention it because (like EatStopEat AND NoS) it has timing restrictions.
Fast5 specifies timing but not required amount.
This Plan has one take in all of their daily food intake within a 5 hour window of time...
like between 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. or 2 p.m. and 7 p.m. etc.
Obviously the Plan doesn't work if one consistently overeats during the 5 hour window time.

Another commonly acknowledged, and very difficult way to eat, is
Alternate Days of a total water fasting one day, and normal eating the next day.
this Plan also doesn't work if one consistently overeats during the "normal" eating day.
The total food intake AVERAGE must be less than the total burn.

So by Comparison,
No S is another Plan that involves restricting the timing plus the amount food intake, but only for 5 days a week.
Since food intake is restricted to a set number of times, (i.e. 3 times a day), for 5 days a week,
it could be termed an intermittent fasting program, since one is supposed to "fast" between each pre-set eating time.
It restricts food intake amounts by limiting size (1 plate), for 5 days a week.
As with all the other Plans, obviously the Plan doesn't work
if one consistently eats more than one's weekly average burn
during the 5 days of restriction and/or the 2 days without restriction.

I've found Common Sense to be Uncommon.
so I frequently get on this soapbox.
Image

There's just no magic anywhere.
There are many different Plans but all restrict calories...
i.e. energy input has to be the same as output to maintain one's weight;
energy input has to be LESS than output for weight-loss.
In Plentiful times, which for us is the present time,
any restriction of Calories (i.e. energy intake) almost always involves CONSCIOUS choice,
by counting calories, counting points etc.
or by limiting kinds of foods: carbs, fats, etc.
or by limiting amounts food intake (like 1 plate) or by limiting the timing of food intake (like 3 meals).

The Habit concept will work with any such Plan,
in that ....despite the method....
if one learns to Habitually eat the same or less than one burns,
one will maintain or lose weight.
Successfully establishing ANY Habitual "Way of Eating" that one finds personally acceptable
will provide positive psychological benefits.

This, however, can involve DENIAL,
and if one's clothes grow too small,
or one eventually gets on a Scale,
Reality will eventually bear it's face.

The "secret" behind every one of these Plans
is the HOPE that one will NOT HABITUALLY OVEREAT at unrestricted times or on unrestricted foods.
some of us ....including me....MUST do something to conciously restrict calorie intake.
I've learned that the Obese (or formerly obese) body uses many UNCONCIOUS tactics to retain or regain weight.
Without one's constant, consistent, conscious intervention,
the Bodies of most obese (or formerly obese) people tend to
simply adjust unconcious Overeating tactics in adaptation to the timing and food intake HABITS of any Plan.

Bottom line...one will not maintain or lose weight
if one's food intake HABIT
(even perfect "vanilla No S")
consistently allows one to eat more than one burns.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Kevin
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Kevin » Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:15 pm

Poetically put, and, I think, completely correct.
BrightAngel wrote:I have done a lot of experimenting with alternate day eating and intermittent fasting.
Just like No S, ALL of them share the ultimate aim of making calorie intake less than energy output.

<snip>

The "secret" behind every one of these Plans
is the HOPE that one will NOT HABITUALLY OVEREAT at unrestricted times or on unrestricted foods.
some of us ....including me....MUST do something to conciously restrict calorie intake.
I've learned that the Obese (or formerly obese) body uses many UNCONCIOUS tactics to retain or regain weight.
Without one's constant, consistent, conscious intervention,
the Bodies of most obese (or formerly obese) people tend to
simply adjust unconcious Overeating tactics in adaptation to the timing and food intake HABITS of any Plan.

Bottom line...one will not maintain or lose weight
if one's food intake HABIT
(even perfect "vanilla No S")
consistently allows one to eat more than one burns.
Kevin
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."

Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Kathleen » Mon Nov 16, 2009 6:22 pm

I agree with the common sense view that you can only maintain a lower weight by eating less and/or exercising more on average than you had. The problem is how you do that.

With No S, back before I came up with the not so brilliant idea of reducing the number of S Days, I found that my norm was becoming N Day eating rather than S Day eating. I started off literally gripping the edge of my chair to get through those first few weeks on N Days, and then gradually it became easy to get through N Days and painful (as in stomach ache painful) to experience S Days. The norm for consumption of foods was shifting.

I blew it by not sticking to the plan I had because I missed my goal of 10% of my body weight lost in one year, but I think I was on the right path. There is nothing magical about No S. It's a way to reduce overall calorie consumption by having dieters learn to delay gratification.

Kathleen

Kevin
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Post by Kevin » Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:12 pm

Magical, no. Ingenious, yes. :)
Kathleen wrote:
<snip>

There is nothing magical about No S. It's a way to reduce overall calorie consumption by having dieters learn to delay gratification.

Kathleen
Kevin
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."

Teemuh
Posts: 42
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2008 5:42 am

Post by Teemuh » Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:47 am

Well put, Bright Angel. It's not really hocus pocus in the end.

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Tue Nov 17, 2009 3:56 pm

Kathleen wrote:I agree with the common sense view that you can only maintain a lower weight by eating less and/or exercising more on average than you had.
Kathleen,
I frequently read your Journal with interest
and congratulate you on your achievement and consistency with No S.

Regarding your statement above:
Most people understand that one must
eat less (than they currently do)
and/or move more (than they currently do)
to drop weight and keep it off.

However, it seems obvious that the vast majority of people don't understand
HOW MUCH LESS energy (food intake)
an obese (or formerly obese) female actually uses in her total day's energy burn..
.....including any increased movement through exercise.

What the majority of people consider a "normal" or "small" amount of food intake
(even as contained within the borders of "Vanilla No S" eating )
together with considerable exercise
frequently does not create enough of a deficit for an obese female
to achieve or maintain a weight below obesity.

Aside from the Plateau issue, sometimes occuring during periods of large weight-loss.....
Even if an obese or (formerly obese) female
....such as myself...
is eating what seems to be a small amount of food,
but doesn't drop any weight over several weeks,
then that female's food intake is exactly what it takes to sustain her current body weight,
and to drop weight she will need LESS than that amount of food intake.

Exercise = fitness
Nutrition = health
Eating behavior = body size.

Exercise is an extremely small component of weight-loss, especially for most adult females.
Food intake is the essential key.
Achieving a body smaller than one has requires taking in less energy (food).
Taking in less energy than one burns does NOT mean ONLY:
* Eating less than one wants, or
* eating less than one ate in the past, or
* eating less than one's perception of what other people eat, or
* eating "only in moderation", or
* eating in accordance with any form of Plan (including No S).

For me, understanding and Accepting this concept,
and then applying it to my eating behavior
has been crucial for my current weight-loss and maintenance success.

I firmly believe that every one, including an obese female, has the right to personally CHOOSE
to adopt any kind of eating behavior that gives their life satisfaction and meaning,
as long as it is a conscious and informed choice,
with full knowledge and acceptance of the consequences.
Last edited by BrightAngel on Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Kathleen » Tue Nov 17, 2009 4:07 pm

BrightAngel,

"Taking in less energy than one burns does NOT mean ONLY:"

This quote is from your post above. I'm curious what you think taking in less energy than one burns does mean. I'm not sure I'm following you on this and would appreciate an explanation. It seems to me that some people can just eat without any sort of thought or strategy and maintain a nomral weight, but those of us who are overweight and want to lose weight need to figure out a way to get there that can be sustained. My strategy is No S with the tweak of two Exception Days per month to be used as I see fit. I got off strategy in September, not because I wasn't losing weight but because I didn't make my goal of a 21.5 pound weight loss in one year but only a 17 pound weight loss in one year. Looking back, I'm upset with myself for not being more patient.

I think the reality of a plateau (or slower than expected weight loss) can make it difficult to gauge whether or not your body is at the same weight because you need to eat less or because you need to wait. My 15 year old, who is quite the scientist, told me that when ice melts, it is not at a uniform rate. She had some scientific term for it, but basically there is an adjustment period.

I really, really, really hate being so fat, but I think that my best bet for long term results is to not limit food intake at all but rather focus on eating better foods only at mealtime and only have that focus be on N Days.

Sad to say, but I think my body is in constant revolt at any sort of limitation. All limiting S Days did for me was create the desire to cheat on N Days. Who knows where I got this saying from, but here it is: "If you allow a camel's nose in the tent, sooner or later you'll be dining with a camel." Instead of focusing on "perfect compliance" on N Days, which is how I managed to lose 15 pounds, I focused on reducing the number of S Days and it all backfired. I started cheating on N Days, which was like allowing the camel's nose in the tent. It wasn't long before N Days were similar to S Days. In trying to limit the number of S Days, I ended up having all S Days. That's the story of my attempts at dieting since I had my fourth child in 2001. I simply could not return to the restrictive eating approach that I'd followed after the other pregnancies and when I was single. It was done. My body was in complete and total revolt.

I give zero credence to the idea that the limited amount I would exercise would somehow burn up enough calories to result in weight loss. What I am hoping with exercise is that it somehow reduces my calorie consumption because it reduces my appetite. I'm in the obesity trap in a big way, and I'm trying to figure out ways that might work because I've found lots of ways that haven't worked, including calorie restriction and exercising twice per day and having all sorts of weird food limitations.

Kathleen

User avatar
~reneew
Posts: 2190
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: midwest US

Post by ~reneew » Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:59 pm

Kathleen... "Delayed gratification doesn't necessarily mean deprivation."
I love that! And I'll also try to remember the camel! I need visuals and that's a good one! You should post those on the thread (what's it called?) for good quotes... ???
I guess this doesn't work unless you actually do it.
Please pray for me

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:04 pm

Kathleen wrote:BrightAngel,
"Taking in less energy than one burns does NOT mean ONLY: ........."
This quote is from your post above. I'm curious what you think taking in less energy than one burns does mean.
I'm not sure I'm following you on this and would appreciate an explanation.
When I refer to "taking in less energy than one burns"
I mean creating a calorie deficit via food intake.

A calorie is just a unit of measurement of energy.
A rule of Science is: 3500 calories = 1 fat lb.
In order for a body to lose 1 fat lb,
that body must have approx a 3500 calorie deficit.
This principle applies whether one consciously counts calories or not.
It is similiar to the way the Law of Gravity always works...
whether it is in our mind or not.

The above quote in context is as follows:
Exercise is an extremely small component of weight-loss, especially for most adult females.
Food intake is the essential key.
Achieving a body smaller than one has requires taking in less energy (food).
Taking in less energy than one burns does NOT mean ONLY:
* Eating less than one wants, or
* eating less than one ate in the past, or
* eating less than one's perception of what other people eat, or
* eating "only in moderation", or
* eating in accordance with any form of Plan (including No S).
While all of the above-listed activities could be considered as Positive actions,
none of them...either independently or together... Necessarily creates the amount of energy (calorie) deficit
that is required for one to maintain weight or lose weight.

Although our bodies have general similiarities, each of us is different.
Charts from Research on the amount of energy (calories) each person burns are only averages.
Many people burn much more, and many people burn much less.
One's individual data re
that person's food intake, and that person's weight results
...over time...
is the ultimate test of energy (calorie) burn for that individual.

As I've so frequently said:
whether or not one chooses not to count calories, calories count.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Kathleen » Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:11 pm

OK. I understand. My problem with calorie counting is I'd get almost a survival reaction to limiting food intake. This survival instinct reminded me of how I felt when my brother held me underwater when I was ten years old. I've read something about the reptilian brain that simply reacts rather than thinks about danger. I did not think about getting to the surface of the water when my brother held me underwater. I just had almost superhuman strenght to push to the surface. It's not as if he was trying to kill me, either. He was just fooling around when we were in the community pool.

So -- where do I go from here when I eat more calories when I try to restrict? I think this diet can help by giving me the sense that food intake is simply delayed to the next Exception Day rather than denied outright. It's almost as if I have a disability and have to figure my way around it, like a person paralyzed below the waist who learns to drive with use of arms. I am accepting what I have tried to change and tried to change and tried to change and have failed, failed, failed. It's tiresome and tiring. Better to invest the time in eating better food and exercise than to learn to restrict calories -- IF, and it's a big IF -- the idea of restricting eating to certain times does allow me to gradually become accustomed to less food. I was on that path and succeeding when I became impatient with the slowness of the progress.

Time will tell. I'll give it at least until next July.

Kathleen

User avatar
~reneew
Posts: 2190
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 9:20 pm
Location: midwest US

Post by ~reneew » Fri Nov 20, 2009 4:08 pm

Kathleen wrote:It's almost as if I have a disability and have to figure my way around it, like a person paralyzed below the waist who learns to drive with use of arms. I am accepting what I have tried to change and tried to change and tried to change and have failed, failed, failed.


Again, nice visual for us!

This trying to change and "failing" over and over is exactly how I feel, but by reading you say that, I realize as an outside person that you are not failing because everytime you supposedly "fail", you've learned another lesson. We live and learn. I know it's terribly frustrating, I scream sometimes, but when you feel that scream-frustration coming, please remind yourself that in the end, you're learning!!!! Someday we'll both be so so smart... and thin!
I guess this doesn't work unless you actually do it.
Please pray for me

Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Kathleen » Mon Nov 23, 2009 12:24 am

I've done lots of scientific research on obesity, and the smartest minds in the country are proposing what obviously doesn't work for the long haul: portion control. Have I found what does work? Well, I found what has resulted in a modest weight loss. I'll pursue it now that I ended my detour!
Kathleen

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:57 am

Kathleen wrote:the smartest minds in the country are proposing
what obviously doesn't work for the long haul: portion control.
Perhaps your problem is with semantics,
and your personal definition of "portion control".

Unfortunately, there isn't any other way to maintain or lose weight.
As I stated in my Posts above, some form of portion control
is the ONLY way weight-control is available to Human Beings.
Every Possible Way of Eating to reduce or maintain weight
....including No S....involves a TYPE of portion control.

My own version of "Portion control"
has been working for me personally for more than 5+ years,
and I expect it to continue for the rest of my life.
I think that's the long haul.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Kathleen
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:46 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by Kathleen » Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:06 pm

BrightAngel,

It seems downright nonsense to try to lose weight without some sort of "portion control." I recognize that. The problem I have is that I spent more than 10 years on an on-off diet which involved portion control. Then one day, literally one day in early January, 2002, I suddenly just could not do it anymore. It's as if something broke. I had lost ground, so to speak, with four pregnancies in seven years, and was at 155 rather than 132. Since then, my dieting just resulted in more binges than diets, with the alarming result of my being above 200 pounds for most of the last five years.

Since early 2002, every single time I tried to diet, the diet would last from seconds to minutes to hours and then I would binge. That's why I bought into the philosophy of Intuitive Eating, which is a very reasoned approach to having S Days every day until your body gets sick of overeating. In six months on that diet, I gained 10 pounds, bringing me above 210.

I am not sure Intuitive Eating is wrong. I think it could work if you could devote the years needed to letting your body get sick of overeating. The appeal to me of No S is what I have heard called "the contrast effect" -- you can contrast how you feel on N Days (no snacks or sweets) with how you feel on S Days (sweets, 24X7 eating), and your body starts to rebel against excesses that result in stomach aches.

Without the one plate rule, this No S diet is a diet of delayed gratificaition only. My observation is that sometimes I eat a lot at meals and sometimes I don't, but I need the assurance that I can eat as much as I want. My hope is this approach will gradually pull down my weight as I eat less.

You certainly have your doubts that this will work, and I appreciate your expressing them. I do, too. I've just come to the conclusion that "portion control" no longer works for me.

Kathleen

PS. I used to look at morbidly obese people and wonder how people could eat so much. Why would people sit in cars at the stoplight that is on the way to our children's elementary school, sucking on large pops that they just got from McDonalds? How could people eat so much? I now think I know why this is so: they dieted so much that their bodies rebelled. It's a theory. I'm not a scientist. I just think scientific advice had unintended consequences that some people following diets gain weight rather than lose it, and some really persistent people end up gaining lots and lots of weight. So along comes an MIT-trained computer programmer with a sense of wit and an idea that makes a lot of sense to me. I took out the one plate rule to eliminate the "portion control" idea from the diet and tweaked the concept of weekday S Days and added exercise, and here I am -- ready to put in some time to see what happens.

User avatar
BrightAngel
Posts: 2093
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:22 pm
Location: Central California
Contact:

Post by BrightAngel » Mon Nov 23, 2009 3:37 pm

Below is a link to a very interesting and informative Thread
inside a Maintenance forum which is relative to this issue.
I think a review the comments within it would be helpful.
I am also starting a new Thread with the Link,
in order to make it easy to access here in NoS.
If would also be helpful if anyone who has comments,
posts them on that new No S Thread, which is entitled:
Info re: Genes-Environment-Obesity-Maintenance
http://www.3fatchicks.com/forum/living- ... nance.html
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Post Reply