senseless failure /rules frustration

[Graham]

I have had 2 "failure" days in the past week - but neither of them were to do with excess and I feel rather frustrated about it.

I like succeeding and dislike failing, the rules aren't complicated but at times maddeningly rigid.

Last night for example - unexpectedly offered refreshments after a lecture I attended - sandwiches and drinks. Having only had 2 meals in the day I made the sandwiches my evening meal - but the plate was what I'd call a "side plate" - not a full dinner plate. I filled it once only but with some thought of how that could have led to a technical infringement without actually eating to excess - no, it was the drinks that tripped me up.

The choice was wine, water, lemonade or cola. I had one glass of white wine (allowed, no problem) and then later I had lemonade as I didn't want any more alcohol.

I could have had a second glass of wine and been compliant with No S rules, but lemonade made me fail. I just checked a calories in drinks web-site - my lemonade had only half the calories of the wine - yet the lemonade was a fail and the wine wouldn't have been - where's the sense in that?

More of an issue long-term was the previous day's "failure". My partner has no weight problem, but she isn't a 3 meals a day person. She is a vegetarian 2 meals with snacks in between person. She isn't comfy catering for my latest "obsession" and is just waiting for me to quit so we can get back to "normality".

Thursday we worked hard on our allotment, I was digging for hours, yet all I had for 2 meals was soup and pasta - with as much cheese and pesto as I cared to add. One bowl of soup, or one bowl of pasta wasn't going to be enough.

My partner had also had break-time chocolate and biscuits, nuts and raisins, and couldn't see the sense in me not having them as well if I was working so hard - she thinks diets (or me) are silly.

If I'd been at home I would have been eating more calories but fitting on one plate - because I'd've had a large quantity of animal protein. The fact that I went over one plate, a fail, was circumstantial rather than a dietary excess - yet it counts as a fail, and a demoralising one.

Worst of all, though, is this: after 2 weeks of fairly good compliance with no-S I weigh just 1/4lb less than I did when I started. All the fuss and anxiety, the planning, the awkwardness, - and for what?

Now it's Saturday - according to the rules I can now dig in to sweets and biscuits with a clear conscience - can't say I feel too sure of the sense in that, but I will give myself at least 3 weeks before I decide to modify my approach.

(in case it's relevant: male, 59, 5'7", weight 166lb, no car, cyclist)

[mrsj]

You're too hard on yourself. Lemonade is a beverage-allowed. No S isn't about calorie counting, weighing and measuring. Making the refreshments after your meeting a third meal was a very wise choice. You stuck to the rules and YOU SHOULD BE PROUD OF YOURSELF!

Starting No S, make sure your meals are large enough. I'm not encouraging over-eating, but ther'es no rule about how high your plate is piled.

Allotment gardens are hard work. You're getting a lot of excersize starting your garden after a hard winter.

No S is also about slow and steady weight reduction. It can be frustrating if you're impatient, but the weight stays off. You don't want several kilos of loose skin flapping around, do you?

Happy shrinking, and happy gardening! I'm on my way to mine now...

[Graham]

Thanks for the kind words Mrsj, but the lemonade I was drinking is what Reinhard calls Soda and it is counted as a sweet, I checked in the book this morning.

As for the loose skin - I have been wondering about that - does anybody have any experience with major no-s weight loss actually resulting in less/no loose skin?

regards, graham

[Too solid flesh]

As for the loose skin - I have been wondering about that - does anybody have any experience with major no-s weight loss actually resulting in less/no loose skin?

I've lost a lot of weight on No S, but relatively slowly (compared to the crash diets I did when younger), and have not so far had problems with loose skin.

I agree with mrsj, Graham, you're doing well, particularly with the cycling and allotment.

[NoelFigart]

What metric are you using to measure how overweight you are? You give a height and weight that could really go either way depending on frame and musculature, and you imply you're pretty active.

Weight loss on No-S can be very, VERY slow, especially if you're a chronic dieter. I average 1/2 lb a week, but what it looks more like on a chart is something like:

Week 1 No loss
Week 2 gain
Week 3 lose a couple of pounds
Week 4 no loss
Week 5 gain
Week 6 lose a pound
Week 7 no loss
Week 8 lose a pound and a half

If No-Sing is intrusive, it might not work for you, though. I love it, but that's not to say it's necessarily for the whole world. It does rather presume you eat regular meals.

and so on....

[wosnes]

The slow weight loss can be frustrating. But, as I recall, you don't have much to lose. The less you have to lose, the slower it goes. I have no idea exactly what you're eating or how much you're cycling, but unless you were really gorging yourself previously, it's possible that you're still consuming and burning about the same amount of calories as you were pre-No-S.

I think a lot of people load up the plates at meal time to prevent hunger between meals initially. The only way to lose weight is to create a calorie deficit either by consuming less or burning more -- or a combination of both.

If you haven't decreased the calories consumed or increased the exercise -- you're not going to see much weight loss.

S days aren't meant as a time to go wild -- with a few possible exceptions. They're just a time to relax a little. In the overall scheme of things, having a sweet, snack or second (or two) isn't going to make much difference. Eating everything in sight will.

The post weight loss flab: I think you'll see this more with people who have extremely large amounts of weight to lose (100 lbs or more) and in people who are unable to be active and build muscle mass. It's probably also more of an issue for people who have been extremely overweight for a very long time. I do think that slower weight loss gives the entire body, including its largest organ, the skin, more time and a better chance to adapt. Age might have something to do with it, too, since our skin becomes less elastic with age, but that's probably another good reason to lose slowly.

[sophiasapientia]

If No-Sing is intrusive, it might not work for you, though. I love it, but that's not to say it's necessarily for the whole world. It does rather presume you eat regular meals.

I have to agree with Noel. It sounds like No S is frustrating for you at this point. I do think there is a learning curve/adjustment period but overall it needs to be enjoyable and fit into your lifestyle if it is going to work.

The whole issue of an unsupportive partner can be maddening. BTDT. My DH is wonderful but folks who don't have weight struggles and can eat whatever/whenever they want don't always "get it." Sometimes having a conversation about needing unconditional support can help. FWIW, my family is very supportive about No S. It is definitely less intrusive to our life than any other weight loss plan I've tried(low carb, calorie counting, etc) and I'm sure that has something to do with it.

Also on the "loose skin" issue, I agree with Wosnes. Loose skin hasn't been an issue for me. If you are combining No S with an active lifestyle it shouldn't be a problem.

[Graham]

What metric are you using to measure how overweight you are? You give a height and weight that could really go either way depending on frame and musculature, and you imply you're pretty active.

Hi Noel: the metric: my abdominal circumference: currently 40 1/2". Looks ghastly, very much centred in that area - arms/legs look "normal", face looks a little hungry/undernourished - I'm very light-boned for a man.

A BBC health web-page gives this:

" A waist circumference greater than 80cm (32in) for women and 94cm (37in) for men increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases, for example, heart attacks and stroke, and diabetes.

The greatest risk is for women with a waist measurement of more than 88cm (35in) and men with a waist measurement of more than 102cm (40in)."

So my motivation is that plus the health history: I'm an ex-smoker, quit 5 years ago after a heart attack. When I was in my 20's I weighed about 140lbs with a waist of @32" as I recall. I'd settle for @147lbs and 34" waist if I didn't look too bulgy in the bathroom mirror.

[paulawylma]

IMHO, you are dwelling too much on how much you are eating. As far as the lemonade goes, it depends on if it tasted as sweet as a dessert --since you said it was pop, it may have been a failure. Instead of beating yourself up, rehearsh what you are going to do the next time--like drink water. It doesn't sound like you are eating enough at meals. It sounds like you significant other is a natural eater who doesn't understand that you aren't. If you have been off and on a lot of diets, then that might be why your SO isn't being supportive.

I can't imagine why you are eating so little at meals. Since your significant other snacks and is probably what a thin friend of mine calls "a small eater"--a person who eats frequently during the day, but only in extremely small quantities--she may not understand that you haven't been able to learn that mode of eating. Go ahead and fill up your plate at meal time and decide in advance how many meals you want to eat in a day. There is nothing in No S that stated 3 meals a day--that's just our cultural standard. As long as the meals are intentional and planned you can have any number of meals in a day. If you are comfortable eating only two meals a day --fine--but don't limit yourself because your friend only eats two. Respect is a two way street, she can't expect you to respect her food choices if she doesn't respect yours.

If she is into healthy food, try to get her to read Michael Pollen's new Book, Food Rules--he refers to No S in the book. Since this is an external validation of No S from a indepentant source--it may help her to understand that No S is not a fad diet. It's a commonsense and traditional way to eat.

[wosnes]

Remember, the larger waist circumference increases the risk; it doesn't necessarily mean you've got it or even will get it. One of the failures of the medical community, I think, is in making risk factors as bad as the disease. Also, if you have few other risk factors, the impact of that one is lessened.

I'm part of the medical community and I'm kinda sick of the medical community!

[NoelFigart]

What metric are you using to measure how overweight you are? You give a height and weight that could really go either way depending on frame and musculature, and you imply you're pretty active.

Hi Noel: the metric: my abdominal circumference

Okay, yeah, there is some adipose tissue to take off.

My husband has the same weight gain pattern. He's tall, but lanky and doesn't put on muscle especially well. When he gains, it goes straight to the belly, which drives him berserk.

Have you explained to your partner why you've chosen to lose some weight?

[Graham]

doesn't sound like you are eating enough at meals. It sounds like you significant other is a natural eater who doesn't understand that you aren't. If you have been off and on a lot of diets, then that might be why your SO isn't being supportive.

No, I haven't been on a lot of diets - I have been very interested in nutrition though, which she hates, it bores her to hear about it.

I can't imagine why you are eating so little at meals. Since your significant other snacks and is probably what a thin friend of mine calls "a small eater"--a person who eats frequently during the day, but only in extremely small quantities--she may not understand that you haven't been able to learn that mode of eating. Go ahead and fill up your plate at meal time

I do fill it, but if she's cooking a plateful isn't enough for me, hence the No S conflict, she likes stuff like pasta and veg, I prefer a more proteinaceous and less grain-based diet

if she is into healthy food, try to get her to read Michael Pollen's new Book, Food Rules--he refers to No S in the book. Since this is an external validation of No S from a indepentant source--it may help her to understand that No S is not a fad diet. It's a commonsense and traditional way to eat.

Wouldn't work - she is into healthy eating, but thinks books about it are either redundant or nonsense. She finds the whole diet business boring, can't really believe that it matters as much as I say it does.

[Graham]

Have you explained to your partner why you've chosen to lose some weight?

Yes, ad nauseam (in her opinion) but she has difficulty believing it. She grew up around people who didn't have any weight related health problems even if they were a bit stocky (farming people).

Also, she sees my face as "not full enough", doesn't like skinny men and dreads me turning into someone unattractive. My fears about another heart attack or just the crappy feeling of carrying so much excess blubber don't really seem to convince her.

Fact is, when I'm with her I feel like I'm fighting on 2 fronts - my own bad habits and her almost obstructive scepticism. I don't have an answer for this yet, I would be interested in hearing how others have got cooperation from a partner weary of hearing yet another theory about food.

[Starla]

Graham, you have my sympathy. I can't imagine doing this without support from friends and family.

First of all, in case you didn't know this - if you are eating a hearty soup, you can add a hunk of bread and call it a meal. If it's a light soup, eat the rest of your meal on a salad plate.

Now let me add my two cents (and that's about what my comments are worth, since I don't know you OR your partner):

1) You are not going to change your partner's attitude about food and dieting.

2) This area has obviously been a source of conflict between the two of you since way before No S; she may subconsciously want you to fail as proof that she's right. Or a more charitable interpretation, maybe she is in denial that you really are at risk for another heart attack. Maybe she can't face that, and her response is to pretend that you don't need to do anything because there's no problem.

3) You are responsible for what you put in your mouth. Want more protein? Prepare and eat more protein!

Your best bet may be to stop talking about this with your partner, eat the things you can enjoy together, and supplement your diet with what you need.

By the way, my wonderful father had his first heart attack at the age of 47, but with change in lifestyle he lived for over 20 more years until he died of something completely unrelated to his heart. You can do this, and it's so worth the effort!

[Graham]

This area has obviously been a source of conflict between the two of you since way before No S; she may subconsciously want you to fail as proof that she's right. Or a more charitable interpretation, maybe she is in denial that you really are at risk for another heart attack. Maybe she can't face that, and her response is to pretend that you don't need to do anything because there's no problem.

I think both those factors may be in play, she and I have a conflict of pet theories: I tend to think of nutrition and exercise as the foundations of health, she thinks emotions are the key and the rest come a distant second.

By the way, my wonderful father had his first heart attack at the age of 47, but with change in lifestyle he lived for over 20 more years until he died of something completely unrelated to his heart. You can do this, and it's so worth the effort!

Starla, thank you for the encouragement here - I was, however, planning to live to 100 if I can't actually live forever.....

Regards, Graham

[leafy_greens]

she may subconsciously want you to fail as proof that she's right.

I find this to be a realistic possibility. If I were Graham, I'd show her the articles that talk about how there's no science behind the grazing myth being superior. However, she may not want to be called out on her own unhealthy behavior. I am also a recovering-grazer and vegetarian, and all around picky eater. You can't change her, only set a good example. If she starts to see your No S plan working, that may be all you have to do to say "See? I was right."

[harmony]

I am not sure what your partners arguments are about emotions and food, but perhaps you should try convincing her that No-S will (eventually) fit into her philosophy on food. There have been many people that have commented about how much they enjoy their food so much more when they don't snack between meals. So, perhaps you should play that card and maybe she will understand it better than the nutritional arguments she dislikes so much. Or, you could stop trying to convince and just get really proficient at saying "no thank you" with a smile of course. I agree with Starla that you should not expect to change her mind about her habits or ideas about food. My husband is not a fan of nutritional theories. He will never be convinced by one simply because so far in his life he has defied most of the standard rules for health (we like to refer to him as "the mutant" around here haha). He is also one of the most stubborn people I have ever met. But, he does love me, and I have found that the best way to convince him that something is worthy is to demonstrate that I am happy doing it. Sometimes that means finding others to vent to far from his ear shot (this message board is a pretty good place, eh?) Anyway, hope a bit of this helps.

[Clarica]

I think personal satisfaction is a foundation of good health, BUT honoring your own philosophies is the only way to achieve that personal satisfaction.

Maybe she can see that you must treat your body with your respect--which includes paying attention to nutrition and exercise, in order to have the emotional foundation she respects.

[vmelo]

My husband has been thin his entire life (still is), so he doesn't understand why I just don't eat less to lose weight (duh! Why didn't I think of that? ). I've been married twenty years, and it has taken me at least ten to convince him that his comments discourage me. So now, he tries to be encouraging. It is still difficult, though, because he likes fattening meals (e.g., fried foods, cream sauces, etc.), and I'm too tired to prepare a separate meal for myself when I get home from work (he cooks). Also, when I'm tired and hungry, it is very difficult for me to resist overeating what he cooks. He does try to cook something lower in fat for me sometimes, but cooking that way just doesn't seem to be in his DNA (e.g., he'll cook veggies in butter and olive oil).

Of course, none of the above solves YOUR problem, but I did want to empathize with you. I know the challenges of living with someone who is thin and just doesn't understand how you're trying to eat.

Good luck!

[Graham]

Thanks for so many empathic responses, it does help me stay on track, I really appreciate your kind words and thoughtful suggestions.

I guess it isn't too smart to get closely involved with someone with very different dietary needs from one's own (unless you can afford a chef). If I ate the kind of low-protein starch and vegetable diet she does, I'd have to snack all the time too.

I can't really persuade her too much about No S because she has managed so well without it - she doesn't need it - at least not much - she just doesn't get it - which makes it even more valuable to me that you all DO.

Regards, Graham

[wosnes]

I guess it isn't too smart to get closely involved with someone with very different dietary needs from one's own (unless you can afford a chef). If I ate the kind of low-protein starch and vegetable diet she does, I'd have to snack all the time too.

I was reading vmelo's post about her husband's cooking. I realized that my cooking has changed significantly over the last few years. I now use more olive oil and butter than ever before. I saute, make cream sauces and yes, cook a lot of my veggies with olive oil. The interesting thing to me is that the food is so much more satisfying than before not only in terms of taste, but also in that it takes less food to satisfy me.

[oolala53]

Just want to weigh in on seeing how hard this might be for you. I was doing great until I went away for a 5-day Zen intensive and had all vegetarian food. It was delicious, but I had my first failures after that and my weekends are still a mess, but better last Sunday and today.

I don't think food should be a reason you split up with someone, if everything else is right. But she should respect your desire not to be offered food when you don't want it. IMHO, that's rude.

I agree that it's best not to talk about it much with her.

Consider cooking up some protein foods and adding them to your meals as needed. I live alone and do this all the time. I keep chicken breasts, hard boiled eggs, and turkey around, and sometimes some commercial foods, like pork chile verde. I add meat and vegetables to soup broth for lunch and dinner a lot, and have a grain and some fat as well.

You might also consider add some resistance exercise to your routine. Many runners and cyclists have lost muscle over the years. Building some may help burn off the tummy and building shoulder circumference goes a long way to improving a man's look. It might be hard because you said you are not a burly type, but it's something to try and I bet you'll feel better, too. One of my colleagues-close to 60 years old-- is still pretty slight but can do pull-ups now and feels great about it.

Good luck.

[Graham]

Hi Oolala53, sorry to hear that the food on the retreat somehow set you on the wrong track - No S'ing doesn't fit with everything else though, and for me, well I just can't happily eat 3 x 1 plate vegetarian food yet. (If I weighed less, and therefore needed less calories, maybe I could, but till I lose the weight, I can't do that)

I do do some strength training as it happens, but today it has been associated with some really irritating problems - here's a sample of what I was going to write on my daily check-in (pardon the language, I'm in a bad mood because I'm HUNGRY) (and NOT accepting it or enjoying it):

"I'm hungry, I've been hungry pretty well all day, which feels CRAP.

I'm invited to Hedy's: she won't feed me well enough, I'll have to take extra protein with me and I'll still feel hungry probably - I hate watching her eat all that startchy shit and asking me why I don't just eat more if I'm hungry - she is such a saboteur, she is just not on my side when she doesn't see things my way, even though it's MY diet we're talking about here, not hers!"

So there you have it - I feel like I need more food, but I suppose I can't lose the excess lbs if I don't suffer, so what am I to do?

I'll tell you what I think: I am getting very drawn to the idea of one of these fasting approaches: maybe something like ESE - then I'll have 2 crap days but the rest of the week I'll eat without petty restrictions (no rubbish though, real food, just might be emotionally more acceptable to me to do it like that) - and on the non-fasting days I can eat with Hedy without clashing with her so much. Why must this be a fight with her? Why can't she see my weight is a real health issue and support me?

Ok, I'll stop whining, sorry. Regards, Graham

[idontknow]

Hi Graham,
For me, the point of no-S is that it's not supposed to be like 'suffering' - it's about finding a reasonable eating pattern that works with your body. I wouldn't be able to do this if I was eating meals that left me hungry. I'm having to work out what I can eat at each meal to keep me going until the next one - once I'm really hungry I can't concentrate on anything else.
If you were doing this in an ideal world with no one else to consider when and what would you eat? Maybe if you can find an answer these questions you can think about how to incorporate that eating plan into your life with other people.
Apologies if you think I'm telling you what to do - that is not my intention.

[oolala53]

The vegetarian meals didn't actually leave me hungry. For one thing, there was always some nuts or cheese to add for fat, if we wanted. But they seemed to get me back into having urges for sweets. More later.

It is unfortunate that your girlfriend doesn't seem supportive. So funny. I'm around women who seem to cater to men, and I can't fathom that, either.

So is it lack of fat that is keeping you hungry? Or protein? I guess I'm not understanding why you are still hungry with a full plate of food. How big are your plates?

I don't mean to imply anything, but are you sure it's hunger you feel and not just a vague urge to eat? I say this because I know in my life that I have for years had a compulsion to eat when I wasn't hungry. It would start about 2 hours after I ate. I would have absolutely no stomach hunger but I would want to eat and it was always junk I wanted. Not more vegetables or even a sandwich, but sweets. And I ate them in big quantities just about every day for years. In between, I did try some programs that recommended waiting long periods between eating times to get the experience of hunger. Surprisingly, I found that if I got past 3.5-4 hours, the urges went away and I would actually start enjoying getting hungry for meals after a few weeks. As time went on, I liked going longer and longer, not like an anorexic, but 6 or 7 hours was fine. I'm not saying it was a party! there were times when I felt i wanted to inhale food, though I also noticed that I didn't necessarily want to eat more when I was starved after the first ffew bites.

But it was the first 3 hours after a meal that was the worst. These programs had no real structure and I found they were way out of whack with the social aspect of food. No S is so much easier to fit in. You keep saying No S doesn't fit well, but I'm wondering what it doesn't fit with. Do you do some kind of work in which you have discretion over all your time so that you just want to eat catch as catch can? People who have no desire to overeat can make that work. The rest of us have trouble.

Realizing that it was fake hunger that was my problem and that No S would give me the structure to get past it helped me decide to commit to No S. Since for No S I had to wait past those intial 3 hours over and over, the urges have decreased a lot. I still have them sometimes, usually cued to some place or to some thought of anxiety, but it's pretty easy to divert now.

Anyway, I hate it when someone implies I don't know the difference between real hunger and urges/cravings, so maybe your issue is different. I say eat a humongous plate of food 3 times a day for awhile!

I'm curious about how you think you'll feel on ESE when you go to exercise. I know Pilon claims it's easy not to eat, but there are a few people here who incorportate ESE and at least one of them said it was very hard in the beginning. She did say that she thought having done No S first helped. What do you mean by saying you won't have petty restrictions? I've read recently that Brad has had to tell people that fasting is also not a license to overeat the rest of the time, as apparently there've been some problems with that.

As many people have said, this really works better if you can let go of thinking about the weight loss for awhile. I know that is your biggest motiviation right now, but you can't get to it if your eating is out of whack, can you? I guarantee No S is a much better foundation from which to choose later to cut back on calories. I know there are people here who felt they didn't lose enough on Vanilla No S after a year who have gone to calorie counting, but they don't leave here. There is something about this structure that spells sanity for many.

Remember, you're just getting started.

[Graham]

For me, the point of no-S is that it's not supposed to be like 'suffering'

Well, I wasn't planning on suffering either, it just seems to be like this: If I eat No S and I don't exercise, I'm fine and can even skip a meal, but if I exercise - and I have no car, travelling mostly by bicycle, so exercise is pretty routine in my life, then I need 3 carefully planned platefuls of adequate calorie density or I spend hours feeling hungry.

If you were doing this in an ideal world with no one else to consider when and what would you eat? Maybe if you can find an answer these questions you can think about how to incorporate that eating plan into your life with other people.

Not sure why I found that so difficult to answer, but right now I think ideally I'd be sitting on a green hillside in the sunshine photosynthesising and experiencing bliss. Or - maybe eating a banquet where I had all the pleasure of eating meat and poultry but it was from a factory where they just synthesised it without any suffering to animals or ecological damage. Or - damned if I know, but thank you for asking, it was an interesting journey.

Basic problem is my significant other is a vegetarian/starcharian permagrazer with barely any weight issues whilst I'm an omnivore with a swollen gut in front and one heart-attack behind me.

Regards, graham

[Graham]

So is it lack of fat that is keeping you hungry? Or protein? I guess I'm not understanding why you are still hungry with a full plate of food. How big are your plates? I don't mean to imply anything, but are you sure it's hunger you feel and not just a vague urge to eat? No S is so much easier to fit in. You keep saying No S doesn't fit well, but I'm wondering what it doesn't fit with

As I've said elsewhere, I'm a regular cyclist, exercise is built in to my life unless I stay home all day, and on top of that I do intermittent strength training. I believe my hunger is a genuine response to calories in/calories out.

If you visit my daily check-in you can see examples of what I eat in a meal, I'm not starving myself except insofar as I can't always fit as much on a plate as I'm wanting, especially if I've put in a few hours digging on the allotment.

I'm curious about how you think you'll feel on ESE when you go to exercise. I know Pilon claims it's easy not to eat, but there are a few people here who incorportate ESE and at least one of them said it was very hard in the beginning. She did say that she thought having done No S first helped. What do you mean by saying you won't have petty restrictions? I've read recently that Brad has had to tell people that fasting is also not a license to overeat the rest of the time, as apparently there've been some problems with that.

I don't know about the exercise thing either and I'm not sure how to find out. On the petty restrictions - I mean things like having to do virtual plating in my head and hold back from eating extra when I've spent hours doing hard physical labour.

As many people have said, this really works better if you can let go of thinking about the weight loss for awhile. I know that is your biggest motiviation right now, but you can't get to it if your eating is out of whack, can you? I guarantee No S is a much better foundation from which to choose later to cut back on calories. I know there are people here who felt they didn't lose enough on Vanilla No S after a year who have gone to calorie counting, but they don't leave here. There is something about this structure that spells sanity for many.

Remember, you're just getting started.

I have pretty well decided to just go along wth No S for at least a month, possibly till I can claim 21 days of perfect compliance. However I don't feel, as an overweight man who's had a heart-attack (6 years ago) that I can just take forever over getting my weight and waist to a safe level - I do want plenty more good years and I see these issues as crucial to that aim.

Regards, Graham

[reinhard]

I like succeeding and dislike failing, the rules aren't complicated but at times maddeningly rigid.

At times they are rigid, though I'd argue far less so than most other diets. Still, most of us need some firmness -- or we wouldn't have a problem with food to begin with.

I could have had a second glass of wine and been compliant with No S rules, but lemonade made me fail. I just checked a calories in drinks web-site - my lemonade had only half the calories of the wine - yet the lemonade was a fail and the wine wouldn't have been - where's the sense in that?

The sense is in habit. It's not about "just this once." Because it's never "just this once." You drink a sweet now, you're more likely to do it tomorrow, etc. etc.

Also, check the calorie count of a glass of water.

My partner has no weight problem, but she isn't a 3 meals a day person. She is a vegetarian 2 meals with snacks in between person. She isn't comfy catering for my latest "obsession" and is just waiting for me to quit so we can get back to "normality".

Your partner is instinctively moderate; you, presumably, like most of us here, are not. It would be nice if we were! But pretending we are isn't going to make it so. We have to build moderate habits, "second nature" instead of first. And that requires rules. But as diet rules go, the No-s are pretty "normal" (3 single plate meals a day with treats reserved for special occasions is historically speaking about as normal as it gets). If it feels weird to you, then maybe you have that much more need to teach yourself real normalcy. Or consider adjusting the rules. Come up with something firm and moderate that feels normal to you (and your partner). The details of No-s are a great default for most people, I think, but the main point is systematic moderation. If you think you'll have an easier time implementing habits of moderate eating with a slightly different system, by all means go for it.

Best of luck, whatever you decide,

Reinhard

[Graham]

I like succeeding and dislike failing, the rules aren't complicated but at times maddeningly rigid.

At times they are rigid, though I'd argue far less so than most other diets. Still, most of us need some firmness -- or we wouldn't have a problem with food to begin with.

I could have had a second glass of wine and been compliant with No S rules, but lemonade made me fail. I just checked a calories in drinks web-site - my lemonade had only half the calories of the wine - yet the lemonade was a fail and the wine wouldn't have been - where's the sense in that?

The sense is in habit. It's not about "just this once." Because it's never "just this once." You drink a sweet now, you're more likely to do it tomorrow, etc. etc.

Also, check the calorie count of a glass of water.

I do accept the need for firm rules where instinct isn't sufficient. I think my issue about the lemonade/wine isn't quite how you're taking it.

I agree about the no sweets rule - what doesn't make sense to me is that alcoholic drinks aren't restricted to S days in the same way. They are just as calorific and arguably just as problematic as any sugary drink and therefore shouldn't they be just as restricted?

Regards, Graham

[kccc]

I like succeeding and dislike failing, the rules aren't complicated but at times maddeningly rigid.

At times they are rigid, though I'd argue far less so than most other diets. Still, most of us need some firmness -- or we wouldn't have a problem with food to begin with.

I could have had a second glass of wine and been compliant with No S rules, but lemonade made me fail. I just checked a calories in drinks web-site - my lemonade had only half the calories of the wine - yet the lemonade was a fail and the wine wouldn't have been - where's the sense in that?

The sense is in habit. It's not about "just this once." Because it's never "just this once." You drink a sweet now, you're more likely to do it tomorrow, etc. etc.

Also, check the calorie count of a glass of water.

I do accept the need for firm rules where instinct isn't sufficient. I think my issue about the lemonade/wine isn't quite how you're taking it.

I agree about the no sweets rule - what doesn't make sense to me is that alcoholic drinks aren't restricted to S days in the same way. They are just as calorific and arguably just as problematic as any sugary drink and therefore shouldn't they be just as restricted?

Regards, Graham

I think it's because alcoholic drinks are self-limiting for most people - you just aren't going to drink many alcoholic drinks in an ordinary day - maybe 1-2 max. (More than that on a regular basis, and it's a whole different issue.) Whereas soda or lemonade or the like could easily be 10+ (sounds excessive, but I know people who drank that much!) and add a ton of sugar/calories. (And

[oolala53]

So far, I don't think anyone has been arrested for driving under the influence of lemonade, but maybe they should be!

[reinhard]

I agree about the no sweets rule - what doesn't make sense to me is that alcoholic drinks aren't restricted to S days in the same way. They are just as calorific and arguably just as problematic as any sugary drink and therefore shouldn't they be just as restricted?

Again, it's about habit, not one-time calories. The habit of drinking sugary drinks is strongly associated with being overweight. The habit of drinking alcoholic beverages is not (on the contrary -- consider France). Moderation, of course, is at least as important with alcohol as it is with eating, and that's why I also practice glass ceiling.

If you find the distinction between sweet drinks and merely caloric drinks insufficiently compelling, then by all means limit your alcohol/caloric drink consumption to S-days. That's a totally reasonable thing to do. But I wouldn't do it unless you really find it's a problem, because each extra rule adds risk -- and you know, a glass of wine with dinner is a very nice thing.

Reinhard

[Graham]

The habit of drinking sugary drinks is strongly associated with being overweight. The habit of drinking alcoholic beverages is not (on the contrary -- consider France)

Don't you have the "beer gut" in the USA? They are often to be seen here in England. And how many of those skinny French people would be slim without the aid of their Gauloises?

Anyway, as you say, no need to add extra restrictions on - compliance is tough enough for me as it is!

Graham

[oolala53]

We have got every kind of gut there is.