Everyday Systems

On CNN. I know, shocker.

Here's a highlight:

"3. Snack to maintain weight
Snacks can keep you from getting fat. There it is, even though it's the opposite of what your mother spent years nagging you about."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/05/18/se ... tml?hpt=C2

And did you see the pic, with the young, slim man smiling at a jar of cookies! Where is the balanced snack they recommend? I did that-the balanced snacks, no less-for years and binged all the time. The habit of eating slowly has carried over to times I'm very hungry, except for possibly the first few bites, so snacking to avoid being very hungry isn't that big a deal to me. Or maybe we are all just imagining things? I'm not going back.

Sadly, this is the new weight loss orthodoxy. YOU HAVE TO SNACK. FEELING HUNGER IS BAD. SNACK SNACK SNACK.
We have such an idea nowadays that feeling hunger is a bad thing and if you do not stop that hunger feeling, you will starve to death or something like that. Anytime I mention to people that I no s and what it involves they all think I'm insane. "No snacks? How does that work? How can you even do that!" I tell them it's not that bad and it gives you a better idea of how much you actually eat...but no, not true.

I don't understand the logic... eat more frequently and you'll loose weight. ??? Duh.

I read this article and thought it was good. I ate three small meals with two small snacks last year and managed to lose 20 lbs... It depends on the person and what they are eating, I think.

The picture is silly, though.

I think the subtext is "unrestricted snacking". Makes for easy reading. "Hey, I'm doing absolutely nothing new, and now I'm eating healthily" Also, I notice the plug for energy bars. I've eaten them myself and thought, "hey, it can't be that bad, it's supposed to be a health food."

I've done the zone, and I think it's too much overhead to figure out if I'm eating the right amounts of each of the blocks. It's just calorie counting in another form. I much prefer the No-S system which is larger scale and required little thought. The problem with allowing snacks is that you have to think and calculate to avoid eating too much. That undermines the beauty of No-S's simplicity in my mind.

If one was going to snack, then how does one effectively regulate the snack size without complexity?

Cheers!

-Frank

No one is saying you can't lose weight by eating snacks. If you eat fewer calories than you expend, you will lose weight. It's just that the majority of people eat such a high volume of dense foods for snacks that it's hard not to overdo it, especially since they eat a lot of processed foods. Sure, if all someone ever ate for a snack was an apple or some carrot sticks, he could eat snacks and lose weight. It's just a lot easier to have to have access to good food only 3 times a day than 5, which for many people means only one meal away from home. I'm so glad I don't have to worry anymore about having the right food for snacks.

I think that the problem with snacking is you think about food all the time.

Kathleen wrote:I think that the problem with snacking is you think about food all the time.

I also like the extra time and money no snacking encourages.

Rea wrote:Sadly, this is the new weight loss orthodoxy. YOU HAVE TO SNACK. FEELING HUNGER IS BAD. SNACK SNACK SNACK.
We have such an idea nowadays that feeling hunger is a bad thing and if you do not stop that hunger feeling, you will starve to death or something like that. Anytime I mention to people that I no s and what it involves they all think I'm insane. "No snacks? How does that work? How can you even do that!" I tell them it's not that bad and it gives you a better idea of how much you actually eat...but no, not true.

But if you don't snack your metabolism will come to a slow crawl and make you oh-beast!

connorcream wrote:I also like the extra time and money no snacking encourages.

That was something that really struck me when I started NoS: I realized how much time and effort I'd been expending, keeping up my supply of snacks! I was lugging stuff to the office all the time, whereas on NoS I would carry ... lunch. Nothing else. A great improvement.

Dave, I agree. My totebag is so lightweight now with just lunch in it and not the extraneous snacks.

True about the lightweight aspect. When we went to Disney World, I packed our lunches and water for drinks. What a time saver and we ended up eating with Belle. We had tried to get a reservation for a character dinner but this way was so much better- in every respect.

oolala53 wrote:No one is saying you can't lose weight by eating snacks.

Well, no one is saying that you can't lose weight using ANY diet. However, according to the No S structure as I understand it, one increases the risk of failure by adding more complexity. The complexity comes from having to judge how much food goes into each snack and how to compensate for the extra energy intake of the snacks at mealtimes.

I suppose that one simple way using the principles of No S would be to put the snack food for a mid-morning snack on one's breakfast plate thereby displacing part of the meal. The snack would then be put away until ready for consumption. A similar regimen could be used for an afternoon snack using the lunch plate as well.

The beauty of No S is it's simplicity. Adding more steps, judgment calls, trade-offs or calculations just increases the likelihood of failure IMO.

Cheers!

-Frank

Frank-
I gained 12# doing Nos over an approx period of 18 months. I failed to lose weight. My main and only goal with a weight loss program is to lose weight. However, this failure, and it is my only one with a diet, spurred me onto a deeper and more accurate understanding of my body. If I would have succeeded, as I have done in the past, I wouldn't know what I know now. This knowledge is precious to me. YMMV.