Fear of not eating healthy enough

[overly beige]

One thing that is getting in my way of making a commitment to following no s is a fear that I won't eat healthy enough (to prevent heart disease, colon cancer, etc.). Yet, I really don't eat all that well now. It's just that I have this ideal in my head of what I should be eating and I am worried about "settling" for no s. Has anyone else dealt with this? How did you resolve it?

[NoelFigart]

A) You're not immortal. No superfood is going to make you so. You don't get cancer because you were neglectful. (The trend to blame cancer victims for not eating enough moonberries raised on Venus and picked by virgin elves gripes me).

B) If you're REALLY worried, do this: Divide your plate into quadrants. 1/4 protein, 1/4 starch (pasta, rice potatoes, whatever), 1/2 vegetables and/or fruit. You'll be doing dandy. (I freely admit I don't sweat this. I do eat fruits and/or vegetables with every single meal, but I don't divide up my plate to check and make sure I'm eating enough).

C) Take a multivitamin as a supplement if you're really freaked.

But as far as I am concerned, if you can't bring yourself to limit yourself to a plate of food three times a day, you have a macro problem of excess rather than a microproblem of nutrient balance.

And for God's sake, don't take your nutrition advice from women's magazines. The writers are given assignments about food and eating that is at least partially based on what advertising they're getting. Oh, and the writers are rarely people with scientific backgrounds with the training necessary to evaluate the information presented in a peer-reviewed study.

[Kevin]

There is nothing about No-S that precludes you from making healthy food choices for your meals.

One thing that is getting in my way of making a commitment to following no s is a fear that I won't eat healthy enough (to prevent heart disease, colon cancer, etc.). Yet, I really don't eat all that well now. It's just that I have this ideal in my head of what I should be eating and I am worried about "settling" for no s. Has anyone else dealt with this? How did you resolve it?

[wosnes]

I agree with NoelFigart and Kevin. I don't know exactly what it is you're concerned about, but I don't see any reason that following No-S isn't compatible with not developing the diseases of affluence (heart disease, various cancers, diabetes, obesity, and many others), especially if you combine it with Michael Pollan's advice: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."

In fact, long before Pollan knew about the existence of No-S, he suggested modeling the habits of the French or Italians or other groups who don't snack and don't eat seconds.

Why is it you don't think you can eat in such a way that promotes health while following No-S?

[Nicest of the Damned]

If you're significantly overweight, the best thing, by far, that you can do for your health is to lose that weight. Ask your doctor. Doctors weigh you every time you go to the office. They don't ask you how much fiber or whatever other micronutrients you're eating every time you go. Obesity is a risk factor for heart disease and colon cancer, and just about every disease that we worry about in developed countries these days.

"The perfect (I've also seen it translated as "the better") is the enemy of the good" -Voltaire

Don't let the fact that your diet still won't be perfect stop you from making improvements to it. It will still be better than it is now, even if it's not perfect. Dieting isn't something where only perfection is good enough.

You've got a limited amount of willpower. If you try to change too many things about your diet at once, you'll probably spread your willpower too thin, and end up accomplishing nothing. It's better to develop better habits a few (not more than three) at a time.

Getting control of your diet via No S can be motivating to make other changes, too. I found that to be the case. A few months after I started No S, I was able to cut down the salt in my diet. I should have done that before, but I wasn't able to. Knowing I could do No S, though, made me think that I could do a lower-salt diet, too. Success is very motivating. You do, however, have to watch out for getting too motivated, and trying to change too many things at once. That doesn't work, and failure is de-motivating, just like success is motivating.

A perfect diet that you don't stick to doesn't do you much good. In fact, it does you harm. It can make you think, "I can't do this," and give up totally on any attempt to eat healthier. A small improvement that you do stick to does you a lot more good than a huge one that you don't. A live dog is better than a dead lion.

[Blithe Morning]

As usual, Noel and wosnes have excellent insights.

Nutritionism is run amuck in our culture. This thinking says that the MOST important thing about food is NUTRITION and if you aren't making every single food decision based on NUTRITION then you will get fat and die a horrible, prolonged death of some disease that could have been prevented if only you had enough anti-oxidants or Vitamin D.

And if you DARE to leave the cult of Nutrionism, then you will no doubt eat only Ho Hos and corn chips and drink Mountain Dew.

Of course, we don't think in our conscious mind like this, but at some level this is what we believe.

My most current drum that I am beating is that No S requires you to be an adult. It is not prescriptive. There is not a list of good foods and bad foods. No one is going to say "Don't eat fast food every meal" or "You should eat fruits and veggies."

If you do want an outside opinion about what to eat versus what not to eat, then I recommend Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food. [/u][/i]

[wosnes]

Scientific reductionism and nutritionism haven't helped us get healthier or slimmer. We were better off before we were influenced by all of this. There were fewer incidences (in terms of percentages of total population) of all these chronic diseases before the experts got involved -- when mom and grandma told us what, when and how to eat. Now they're just as confused as everyone else.

[gettheweightoff]

I shared your concerns because I was trying so hard to be "healthy" when I was in diet mode for years but I realized a few things lately with no-s...

1. I started to pay attention to how I felt after meals and you know what I honestly don't "feel" better eating sprouted healthy bread as I do eating a piece of french bread.

2. By naturally reducing your portions by the 3 plates and eliminating snacks you are reducing fats, sugars, salt etc.

3. By no sweets, you are by nature already eating healthier.

4. I struggle with caffeine addiction but now I am trying things that I wouldn't allow myself before such as juice and I feel great drinking something that I get more benefit from (vitamin c).

5. Include veggies on your plate.

I think we just worry too much instead of going on intuition and satisfaction.

Hang in you'll get it and the people here have awesome advice. I know everyone here has really helped me!

[wosnes]

I've read that Dr. Paul Dudley White, who was President Eisenhower's cardiologist, started practicing cardiology in 1921. It was eight years before he saw someone with a myocardial infarction (heart attack). I don't think a new cardiologist today will go eight hours without seeing a person with a heart attack.

This was back when we ate more seasonally and locally; our primary fats in the US were lard and butter; the variety of foods available to us wasn't nearly as great (good foods as well as not-so-good foods); and in the winter vegetables were something preserved during the summer. Nearly any treats that were eaten were made at home. Snacking was unusual and seconds were rare.

[overly beige]

Thank you all for your replies. I found them very helpful. I am going to give this a 6 month trial.

[wosnes]

I'm still curious as to why you don't think eating in a way that promotes health and No-S aren't compatible.

By the way, I have heart disease and I had a heart attack in 1995. My overall health has improved since starting No-S.

[xJocelynx87]

I'm one semester shy of graduating with my nutrition degree, so, in short, food and nutrition are my life. While I don't currently practice No-S, practicing it DID jumpstart my 30lb weightloss that I have been maintaining for nearly 2 years (5'7.5, 168 down to 138). I have become what Reinhard refers to as 'intrinsically moderate' meaning that I've learned (after a long hard battle) how to eat WHATEVER I want (within reason) and still keep the weight off. As someone who is (I think) knowledgable about food, weight, and nutrition, here's a few thoughts on your concern:

1) How MUCH you eat is all that matters for weightloss. Is eating healthy better from a nutrition standpoint? Of course. But there were many days while I was losing weight that breakfast was a slab of Starbucks pumpkin bread (hey, I'm in college!) and it didn't kill me or make me fat.

2) Eating the good stuff will be so much easier, and more appealing, if you don't HAVE to do it. I eat dessert every day. Why? Because not doing so ends horribly for me. My need for something sweet each day is really what keeps me from practicing No-S (Other than dessert, I do try to stick to three squares per day). Every time I've cut out the dessert, I end up eating 3 or 4 portions of it. Trust the words of someone that has had eating issues for years and has finally put them to rest. Denial of the 'bad stuff' is way worse than having a decent portion of it for a meal, and if you have a burger for lunch, eventually you'll want a salad for dinner.

3) Live your life! Life includes French fries. Sorry, but it just does. With my crazy college lifestyle I have learned that no matter how well-intentioned one is, eating like shit (excuse my language) happens. Try your best to eat the good stuff, and don't sweat the rest of the time. It all balances out in the end. If a plate of nachos with friends ends up being lunch one day, so be it. It took me awhile to realize that I didn't have to be perfect. In fact, striving to do so was my biggest downfall. Your best is good enough, I promise.

Not sure if anyone here remembers me, but I still read almost every day and I do find the No-S lifestyle a very healthful and enjoyable way to eat. Take my impending Nutrition degree with a grain of salt, I may actually know nothing.

Best,
Jocelyn

[~reneew]

When I follow No S I eat less fat, less salt, less carbs, less calories, less cholesterol, less red meat, less white meat, less meat, less... yada yada yada... I eat less of everything bad!!! I just eat less which is, in my opinion for anyone in my shape, good. Eat vitamins if you feel weak, which I'm sure you won't.

Another way to look at it is that if you are eating more just to 'get in' another food group, you can always eat that later if you want. A healthy way to go about it is to try to have half of your plate be fruits and veggies. That really helps me.

[gettheweightoff]

xJocelynx87 I love your post.

I have only just realized in a matter of days what you said in your post to be my new philosophy after years and years of trying to eat so healthy (flax oil, protein shakes, plain food without fat, salba, sprouted grains, etc.) and never ever feeling or looking that much better and my lack of enjoyment causing a lot of binge eating problems.

Thanks for reinforcing it here!

[wosnes]

xJocelynx87 I love your post.

I have only just realized in a matter of days what you said in your post to be my new philosophy after years and years of trying to eat so healthy (flax oil, protein shakes, plain food without fat, salba, sprouted grains, etc.) and never ever feeling or looking that much better and my lack of enjoyment causing a lot of binge eating problems.

Thanks for reinforcing it here!

I had to look up "salba" -- I'd never heard of it!

I've followed several healthy eating plans over the years, and while tests were good and I can't say I felt bad, I never really felt good. I think a large part of that was the lack of pleasure or emotional satisfaction in eating -- plus the absence of things like fat.

[overly beige]

I'm still curious as to why you don't think eating in a way that promotes health and No-S aren't compatible.

By the way, I have heart disease and I had a heart attack in 1995. My overall health has improved since starting No-S.

I think it would be hard to eat the amount of vegetables & fruit that I think would be ideal for promoting health in 3 meals without stuffing myself or adding what I believe to be an unhealthy amount of fat. Just so you have some idea of where I am coming from my influences are: DRs: McDougall, Ornish, Barnard, Fuhrman; Campbell's China Study and the Pritikin Program. My personal experience is that physically the best I've felt is on the McDougall Program (never actually followed 100%), but I find it psychologically very hard to stick to. Socially it is a PITA. I tend to bounce back and forth between the McDougall Program and the SAD. Usually gaining but sometimes maintaining on the SAD. I would like to find something less stringent that I can embrace.

My current plan is to make no s my first priority and try to eat nutritiously within that framework.

[gettheweightoff]

I've read a lot of those books and I too believed the SAD way of eating was horrible for my skin, depression, weight, energy bla, bla, bla but I could never sustain that way of eating and in fact, often I made myself sick and developed a terrible binge eating problem as a result of all this diet nonsense. When I was a raw food vegan (all of 4 months) I felt amazing for a few weeks but then I felt horrible and actually started fainting a lot and my skin was broken out etc. I didn't even lose much weight.

The point is that these books/plans are contrived. I've never felt better than when I started to incorporate a bit of these "SAD" foods back into my diet and stopped worrying about it. I am not eating much processed foods but I do eat cereal now (low sugar though) and I do enjoy bread out of a bag and am going to eat a treat on my s days.

Only you can decide what works for you and what doesn't. Personally I am so through with an author of a book dictating to me what I can and can't eat. Not to mention I am sick and tired of not being able to eat at someone's house for dinner or having to eat different things than my family but most of all I am done with feeling like a failure because I fell off of someone's plan. I have brainwashed myself because of these books into thinking white flour is the devil and have felt tremendous guilt giving it to my children even though the pediatrician says they are very healthy.

I say take back your own life and decide for you what you should and should not eat. Experiment over a few weeks and see how you feel, how your body reacts and you will know what path to follow.

[Kevin]

Food for thought (sorry): No-S doesn't specify 3 meals, per se. If you wanted to eat four meals a day, there is nothing in No-S that says you can't.

...
I think it would be hard to eat the amount of vegetables & fruit that I think would be ideal for promoting health in 3 meals without stuffing myself or adding what I believe to be an unhealthy amount of fat.
...

[gettheweightoff]

I thought it was 3 meals a day.

???

[Blithe Morning]

DRs: McDougall, Ornish, Barnard, Fuhrman; Campbell's China Study and the Pritikin Program. My personal experience is that physically the best I've felt is on the McDougall Program (never actually followed 100%), but I find it psychologically very hard to stick to. Socially it is a PITA. I tend to bounce back and forth between the McDougall Program and the SAD. Usually gaining but sometimes maintaining on the SAD. I would like to find something less stringent that I can embrace.

1. I've never heard of most of those doctors. I feel a bit dizzy just reading the list of names.

2. What's SAD? Or do I not want to know?

[Kevin]

To quote Reinhard's No S Diet definition:

There are just three rules and one exception:

No Snacks
No Sweets
No Seconds
Except (sometimes) on days that start with "S".

There were times when I did this successfully with four meals. Two of them were smaller. Actually, one of them was just enough to allow me to be nice to my family even though we weren't eating dinner until eight and I had to et lunch at 11. It isn't necessary now, and I'm eating three meals.

I thought it was 3 meals a day.

???

[wosnes]

Oh, boy...where to start. That's exactly the background I came from.

I can tell you that it is possible to eat the vegetables and fruits suggested while following No-S. In fact, Fuhrman recommends 3 meals daily and no snacks. The meal plan I usually follow is fairly close to Fuhrman except that I usually eat animal products daily and I do use added fats. But I also eat lots of vegetables, fruits and beans. I don't eat a lot of grains because I just don't like them.

After my heart attack, my cardiologist asked me if I'd heard of Dr. Ornish. I said that I had, and he said, "Good, because that's the way you'll be eating for the rest of your life." I found it hard to follow, mostly because of the no-fat dairy products and switched to McDougall. I didn't feel all that well on McDougall, though all my labs, etc., were good. Eventually I switched to Fuhrman and I felt better, but still not as good as I had before I had my heart attack.

I had doubts about the necessity of following them, coupled with a nearly complete absence of pleasure in eating. It truly was "eating to live" instead of finding any pleasure in the whole process. In addition, my family stopped eating anything I cooked. I figured there had to be a way to cook and eat that my family would enjoy and would be healthy for me.

Over the last 3-5 years I've relaxed a lot more about what I eat (including more fats and meat) and I'm actually in better shape than I was when I followed their plans.

I think there's some truth in what they say, but there's also a lot of personal opinion that's misinterpreted as fact. There's also a great deal of misinterpretation of the science.

There was a thread recently about getting rid of diet books. It was all of theirs -- every last one of them -- that I had tossed.

I have a theory about what's caused the increased rates of chronic disease -- and it's not the consumption of animal products or (most) added fats. It's all the fake food we eat. While there are certainly some vegans who eat the vegan equivalent of junk food, most switch to real food. So, is it the absence of animal products and fat that causes improvements in health or the increase in the consumption of real food? In my experience, it's the increase of real food.

That's the one thing I noticed about all the traditional diets from around the world. They eat real food and they have few health problems until our industrialized, processed foods become a regular part of their diet and they copy our eating habits. Most of the diets are starch-based, but also include a lot of vegetables. A few are based on animal products with few plant foods, but the people are still healthy and without the health problems that are common here.

You might be interested in the Mediterranean way of eating. They eat far more vegetables than we do -- almost four times as many (1.5 pounds daily as compared the 6 oz average in the US).

I've concluded that any dietary advice that eliminates entire food groups is to be regarded with skepticism. It was easier for me to return to eating animal products than the adding fats. At first, I measured them carefully -- and they're the ONLY thing I've ever measured. Now I use them more liberally, with no health consequences, even using butter and -- gasp!! -- bacon fat.

In his book Eating Well for Optimum Health Andrew Weil says that the Optimum Diet must:

1. Meet all needs for macronutrients and micronutrients.
2. Support health throughout life.
3. Provide the pleasure you expect from eating.
4. Promote social interaction and reinforce your personal and cultural identity.

I think the plans promoted by all those doctors likely meet the first two criteria, but fail miserably for most of us on the last two. Many of the doctors would argue that those are not important, but I think they're equally as important as the first two.

[gettheweightoff]

SAD stands for Standard American Diet

[wosnes]

I've read a lot of those books and I too believed the SAD way of eating was horrible for my skin, depression, weight, energy bla, bla, bla but I could never sustain that way of eating and in fact, often I made myself sick and developed a terrible binge eating problem as a result of all this diet nonsense.

Following SAD may have been part of your problem, but a diet that includes animal products and added fats isn't necessarily SAD. I think SAD has a lot more to do with all the overly refined and processed, industrialized foods (edible food-like substances) than animal products or added fats.

FACT 1. Populations that eat a so-called Western diet -- generally defined as a diet consisting of lots of processed foods and meat, lots of added fat and sugar, lots of refined grains, lots of everything except vegetables, fruits and whole grains -- invariably suffer from high rates of the so-called Western diseases: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

FACT 2. Populations eating a remarkably wide range of traditional diets generally don't suffer from these chronic diseases. These diets run the gamut from ones very high in fat (the Inuit in Greenland subsist largely on seal blubber) to ones high in carbohydrate (Central American Indians subsist largely on maize and beans) to ones very high in protein (Masai tribesmen in Africa subsist chiefly on cattle blood, meat, and milk) to cite three rather extreme examples. What this suggests is that there is no single ideal human diet but that the human omnivore is exquisitely adapted to a wide range of different foods and a variety of different diets. Except, that is, for one: the relatively new (in evolutionary terms) Western diet that most of us now are eating. What an extraordinary achievement for a civilization: to have developed the one diet that reliably makes its people sick! (While it is true that we generally live longer than people used to, or than in some traditional cultures do, most of our added years owe to gains in infant mortality and child health, not diet).

There is actually a third, very hopeful fact that flows from these two: People who get off the Western diets see dramatic improvements in their health. We have good research to suggest that the effects of the Western diet can be rolled back, and relatively quickly. In one analysis, a typical American population that departed even modestly from the Western diet (and lifestyle) could reduce its chances of getting coronary heart disease by 80 percent, , its chances of type 2 diabetes by 90 percent, and its chances of colon cancer by 70 percent.

I think someone above recommended reading Michael Pollan's In Defense of Food. I would second that recommendation. The above quote came from the book that followed, Food Rules.

Two things to note:
1. No population naturally consumes a vegan diet.
2. Many of these populations eat a combination of refined and whole grains, or at least more vegetables, fruits, and beans than Americans eat.


It was McDougall's frequent mention of various traditional diets that started my "study" of them. He was right that most are starch-based, but then what the various diets actually consisted of and what he recommended varied widely. He conveniently omitted that all of these populations eat animal products and added fats (usually animal fats) to one degree or another depending on what was available.

My doubts started when I read about his experiences at the plantation in Hawaii. He talked about the healthy Asian elders who ate their traditional diets -- lots of rice and vegetables supplemented with poultry, meat, fish and eggs. Their children and grandchildren were less healthy, eating all manner of processed foods. It already seemed to me that processed foods were the problem, not the meat.

He observed a diet that was obviously healthy, but would be difficult for most Americans to follow. Then he created something that most Americans won't even be interested in and very difficult to follow. Are those various programs healthy? Yes. At least for some people. There's been a lot of writing lately about former vegans returning to consuming animal products for reasons of health. At least one (there are others) suffered some serious problems But the big question as far as I'm concerned is "are they necessary?" No.

Most recently he's been using the Tarahumara Indians of the Copper Canyon in Mexico as an example of a healthy, traditional diet. Yes, their diet is plant-based. But it's certainly not plants only. They eat eggs and fish frequently, pork and chicken less often -- and that's a matter of economics. Their primary fat? Lard.

Recently the research that led to the popularity of the Mediterranean diet has come under attack. Apparently it was set up to prove that saturated fat was the culprit in cardiovascular disease. But regardless of how it was set up, people in the Mediterranean had low cholesterol levels, and very low rates of cardiovascular disease -- not to mention type 2 diabetes and various cancers. It was a shock to my system to realize that they ate full-fat dairy products because there were no low-fat varieties.

After reading the criticism of the research surrounding the Mediterranean diet, I wondered if there was any of Campbell's. There is -- and plenty of it. I'd read articles about The China Study 5-8 years before the book was published. While they recommended a plant-based diet, plants only wasn't mentioned as ideal in any way. The book left out any mention of a region in China where the diet is made up almost exclusively of animal products and the residents enjoyed good health.

[Kevin]

wosnes, I agree with you (and others).

The only food I will not eat is hydrogenated oil. I limit highly refined carbs, but I'm not a complete purist about them. Sometimes you have to eat what's convenient.

I just don't think laboratory-created or carbohydrate-refinery foods are good for you.

But that's just my humble opinion.

[TexArk]

Oh my! I have lived in the Pritikin/Ornish nutrition desert...actually my husband and I tried to eat their way for over a decade. Husband was the one with cholesteral issues and was really motivated along with Cooper's Aerobics which dovetailed with Pritikin.

ALL TORTURE! And his cholesteral never lowered!

He referred to the diet as the Prisoner of War Diet! It has taken a long, long time for him to work his way back to eating good, healthy fats without guilt or fear. Teaching one semester in Italy and one semester in Greece helped immensely.

[overly beige]

Thank you all so much, you have been very helpful. I will be mulling over a lot of these posts for a while.

[BrightAngel]

A) You're not immortal. No superfood is going to make you so.
(The trend to blame cancer victims for not eating enough moonberries
raised on Venus and picked by virgin elves gripes me).

You really made me laugh.

[NoelFigart]

*grin* Always glad to spread cheer...

[storm fox]

Wosnes owns, and so does NoelFigart. There is much wisdom, and you could do lifetimes of research and scarcely come up with better practical advice. This is a very good and sharp crew.

[SimpleLife]

This is a very informative post.

It made me think of all the dos and donts the diet gurus have. You will go crazy trying to decide who is right and who is wrong.
No one wants to admit that there is more than one way to eat healthfully and that the real problem for most people is eating things that are empty and don't qualify as real food. I mean even raw honey (a sugar) has great properties if it isn't highly refined and is good if you don't to make a dessert with it everyday of the week. I did not get fat from eating too much butter or from eating a low-fat diet. I got fat because I ate a lot of processed foods: cookies, white bread, sugar, candy bars, uh did I say cookies...yeah cookies.

We just eat too much. The food and medical and diet industry make us believe we have to eat 6 times a day and eat special this and special that because that's how they make money.

You know I got down right tired of trying to eat perfectly. Once you commit to one thing, you read that you have to go a step further and of course it becomes more time consuming and more expensive. Once I decided that eating some beef isn't bad for me then "they" said eat organic; once I convinced myself to spend the extra dollars for organic beef then "they" said only eat grass-fed beef. It get's more and more complicated to eat what "they" tell you is THE most healthful diet. I am so over it!

[clarinetgal]

This is a great post! I totally understand where the OP is coming from. My dad has MS and kidney cancer, and one of my younger sisters (just turned 32) has breast cancer, so for awhile, I was really freaked out about trying to eat super healthfully, so I don't get cancer. I still worry about it, but not nearly as much as I used to. No S has really helped me learn how to balance my plates, so that my meals are decently healthy (I do try to include some protein and fats, along with a fruit and/or veggie with each meal), but I no longer obsess about them being perfectly healthy. Yes, there are things I still need to work on (cutting back on processed foods, eating less sweets), but I feel like I've really come a long way in eating in a way that's healthy, that I enjoy.