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

So You Want to Lose Weight"

Post by wosnes » Thu Mar 03, 2011 11:29 pm

This is cute. Unfortunately, there's more than a little truth to it.
"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."

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

Re: So You Want to Lose Weight"

Post by BrightAngel » Fri Mar 04, 2011 12:44 pm

Thanks for sharing this. I absolutely love it. Image
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Eileen7316
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2005 10:59 pm
Location: Florida

Post by Eileen7316 » Fri Mar 04, 2011 2:48 pm

What a riot!
Eileen

storm fox
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 12:55 am

Thanks

Post by storm fox » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:47 pm

That's oodles of win, thanks for posting it.

librarylady
Posts: 137
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 10:57 pm

Post by librarylady » Fri Mar 04, 2011 4:57 pm

That one really made me laugh this morning! Nothing like a serving of steak that is five times the size of a "serving"!

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

Post by Kevin » Fri Mar 04, 2011 8:59 pm

This post wins the internet. Congrats!
Kevin
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."

Becoming
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Feb 22, 2011 8:14 pm
Location: Australia

Post by Becoming » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:31 am

My favourite part was about the mashed potato - "There is no other way." Hilarious!

Sienna
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:00 pm

Post by Sienna » Sat Mar 05, 2011 4:57 am

Hysterical. But perhaps a little too true for myself than I'd like to admit. Well, my old self that is. Thank goodness something somewhere in Reinhard's book clicked and helped boot my butt into gear!

It's amazing how we can be told the same thing 1000 times, and then its not until the 1001 time that we actually hear it.
Finally a diet that I can make a lifestyle!

Started June 2010
6/27/2010 - 226 lbs
10/17/2010 - 203 lbs - 10% weight loss goal!
1/29/2011 - 182 lbs - 2nd 10% weight loss goal!
5/29/2011 - 165 lbs - 3rd 10% weight loss goal! (one more to go)

SpiritSong
Posts: 506
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 1:56 pm

Post by SpiritSong » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:26 pm

I loved the parts about the bagel. "It was a bagel. It was bagel-sized." "I ate one bagel. I did not eat four bagels."

User avatar
NoelFigart
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 1:23 pm
Location: Lebanon, NH
Contact:

Post by NoelFigart » Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:53 pm

The one thing I really REALLY like above NO-S above anything else how it makes it IMPOSSIBLE to fool yourself about how much you're eating. If you load up your plate, you KNOW it.
------
My blog https://noelfigart.com/wordpress/ I talk about being a freelance writer, working out and cooking mostly. The language is not always drawing room fashion. Just sayin'.

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 11:57 am
Location: UK

Post by coffee » Sat Mar 05, 2011 2:06 pm

my favourite lines were "that's what food eats" (repeated so. many. times.)

and "it was a bagel. it was bagel sized."

the first, because I'm vegan, and plenty of people I know are convinced that nothing I eat is food, it's just what food eats. I guess I must be a medical miracle, seeing as how I'm alive despite eating NO FOOD for YEARS ON END. :lol:

the second, because that sounds exactly like something I would say.
Stats: female, 22 years old, 5'3".
Starting weight: 125lbs.
No-S since January 17th 2011.
14 Minutes of ANYTHING since February 28th 2011.

User avatar
bluebunny27
Posts: 831
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2009 8:07 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by bluebunny27 » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:40 pm

Awesome clip, made me laugh, Great material ! This is brilliant !! :-)

Those bagels are hard to resist, hehe !

"I so want to lose 50 pounds within the next couple of weeks" ... heh !

Hey, I sound just like that when I talk too !! ;-)

It reminds me .. yesterday I saw this program on TV and two 30-40 years old women were trying to lose weight ... but they were hardly doing any exercise and eating fast food twice per week, big fast food meals ... they were saying : "Well, cutting that entirely would be too hard, we used to go 4 times per week so it's better now, only twice per week !!!" ... I was thinking : "Good luck !!" (They each had at least 125-150 pounds to lose, I believe)

Cheers !

Marc ;-)

38 Years Old, 5'10" Tall
Nov. 1st. 2008 : 280 Pounds
Nov. 1st. 2009 : 190 Pounds
(1 Year : - 90 Pounds)

Current Weight : 202 Pounds

Sienna
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 5:00 pm

Post by Sienna » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:46 pm

bluebunny27 wrote: It reminds me .. yesterday I saw this program on TV and two 30-40 years old women were trying to lose weight ... but they were hardly doing any exercise and eating fast food twice per week, big fast food meals ... they were saying : "Well, cutting that entirely would be too hard, we used to go 4 times per week so it's better now, only twice per week !!!" ... I was thinking : "Good luck !!" (They each had at least 125-150 pounds to lose, I believe)
Well, in all fairness that is actually better - for THEM at least. I mean 2 large fast food meals/week may not be great for you, but if 2 per week is a sustainable decrease from 4 per week, then that is progress - especially if 0 per week (for a given individual) seems unattainable. And assuming they were maintaining at their high weight, even just cutting back by 2 high cal meals a week should lead to some weight loss - although admittedly they would probably need to make additional changes to lose all of it.

One of the things I love about the NoS diet is that it focuses on making small changes (3 simple rules) which can naturally lead to bigger changes (even on S days I now tend to eat fewer sweets and fewer snacks than I did on any given day pre-NoS, and I'm starting to WANT to eat better for me meals). It's not about eating the "perfect" diet or the best possible 3 meals per day each and every day. Which meant I was free to start and still do fast food when it was the most convenient. I'll be honest, I started at the end of June 2010 and spent mid-July through mid-Sept eating almost exclusively take out/fast food/pre-prepared food due to a stressful period at work that left me with no time to cook. Despite eating crap (and not sleeping much or exercising at all), I lost about 10 pounds. Because for me, crap only 3 times per day added up to less total crap than eating whatever, whenever.

Even the dietitian in the cartoon didn't suggest completely eliminating indulgences. Rather, he suggested things like dropping from 3-4 cups of cream and sugar laden coffee to one.

I only even bring this up because before I stumbled upon NoS, I very much had an attitude of "why bother trying to lose weight, I can't give up everything I like to eat forever, and if I only do it temporarily, the weight will just come back". It was a horribly detrimental attitude and led to a lot of unchecked weight gain over the last few years. NoS has allowed me to make a permanent lifestyle change without giving up Everything All of the Time. Instead I give up Some Things Some of the Time.
Finally a diet that I can make a lifestyle!

Started June 2010
6/27/2010 - 226 lbs
10/17/2010 - 203 lbs - 10% weight loss goal!
1/29/2011 - 182 lbs - 2nd 10% weight loss goal!
5/29/2011 - 165 lbs - 3rd 10% weight loss goal! (one more to go)

kccc
Posts: 3957
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:12 am

Post by kccc » Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:43 am

Sienna wrote: NoS has allowed me to make a permanent lifestyle change without giving up Everything All of the Time. Instead I give up Some Things Some of the Time.
Sienna, I agree. I read something a while back about the power of "5 degrees of change" - an amount which doesn't look like much to start with, but if you follow it out from the original line, it becomes a very different direction. (Particularly if you "layer" small changes.)

There's a big difference to me between the total denial in the video (which was SO funny, btw) and people making tiny, incremental changes. Any change for the better should be encouraged, even if it seems pitifully small to someone who can manage larger ones.

Graham
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:58 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by Graham » Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:59 am

That is a delightful video - rather let down by the unscientific attack on Atkins. Anyone up to date with the research wouldn't be making those sort of remarks - but all in all, it was a hoot.

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

Post by wosnes » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:20 pm

Graham wrote:That is a delightful video - rather let down by the unscientific attack on Atkins. Anyone up to date with the research wouldn't be making those sort of remarks - but all in all, it was a hoot.
I think there are a lot of people (doctors, researchers, etc) who don't think the attack on Atkins is unscientific at all.
"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."

Graham
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:58 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by Graham » Sun Mar 13, 2011 12:34 pm

wosnes wrote:
Graham wrote:That is a delightful video - rather let down by the unscientific attack on Atkins. Anyone up to date with the research wouldn't be making those sort of remarks - but all in all, it was a hoot.
I think there are a lot of people (doctors, researchers, etc) who don't think the attack on Atkins is unscientific at all.
I agree with you there Wosnes, but I understand the up-to-date picture is that the risks apply only to people with pre-existing kidney problems. There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about a low-carb diet, perhaps the difficulties lie in how and when one switches to it from a higher carb intake?

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

Post by BrightAngel » Sun Mar 13, 2011 1:49 pm

wosnes wrote:
Graham wrote:That is a delightful video - rather let down by the unscientific attack on Atkins. Anyone up to date with the research wouldn't be making those sort of remarks - but all in all, it was a hoot.
I think there are a lot of people (doctors, researchers, etc) who don't think the attack on Atkins is unscientific at all.
ImageWell... Of Course That IS the Point.
So many doctors, researchers, etc. learned incorrect information in medical school etc,
that was originally based on bad science.

Even though all of that information has now been shown false,
the majority of medical professionals haven't picked up on that,
and most of them still continue to dispense the unscientific and incorrect information
which has been the "conventional wisdom" for the past 50 years.

What generally has to happen to correct that kind of giant health information error,
is for all the erroneous medical people to die off,
and then with their younger replacements dispensing the correct info,
the correct information will become the "conventional wisdom".
So, at my age, during my lifetime,
I don't expect to see much change in the health community's attitude.
However, that doesn't mean that I have to continue to believe that erroneous thinking.
Image
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

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

Post by wosnes » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:18 pm

Graham wrote:
wosnes wrote:
Graham wrote:That is a delightful video - rather let down by the unscientific attack on Atkins. Anyone up to date with the research wouldn't be making those sort of remarks - but all in all, it was a hoot.
I think there are a lot of people (doctors, researchers, etc) who don't think the attack on Atkins is unscientific at all.
I agree with you there Wosnes, but I understand the up-to-date picture is that the risks apply only to people with pre-existing kidney problems. There is nothing intrinsically unhealthy about a low-carb diet, perhaps the difficulties lie in how and when one switches to it from a higher carb intake?
There are any number of experts who think a low-carb/higher protein diet is bad for everyone and they have the research to back them up. There's a huge number who believe "the less meat the better" (hence, more grains) for a variety of reasons -- everything from overall health to better use of the world's resources. Quite a few believe that a no-animal products diet is best.

It would be far easier for me to list those in favor of a high-carb diet than those in favor of a low-carb diet.
"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."

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

Post by BrightAngel » Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:56 pm

wosnes wrote:There are any number of experts who think a low-carb/higher protein diet is bad for everyone

and they have the research to back them up.

It would be far easier for me to list those in favor of a high-carb diet
than those in favor of a low-carb diet.
You are absolutely correct about the majority viewpoint.

Unfortuantely, the majority viewpoint is based on Bad Science...
There are Rules that have to be followed for Scientific Research to be valid.
There are no such studies on that point that have followed those Rules.
Therefore, no such valid scientific research on that point is in existence.

The problem is that they DON'T have ANY valid scientific research to back up their position.

Science cannot Prove what is true,
but it CAN prove what is NOT true.
Image
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Graham
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Apr 19, 2010 9:58 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by Graham » Sun Mar 13, 2011 3:07 pm

wosnes wrote: There are any number of experts who think a low-carb/higher protein diet is bad for everyone and they have the research to back them up. There's a huge number who believe "the less meat the better" (hence, more grains) for a variety of reasons -- everything from overall health to better use of the world's resources. Quite a few believe that a no-animal products diet is best.

It would be far easier for me to list those in favor of a high-carb diet than those in favor of a low-carb diet.
The first thing to say is that we shouldn't confuse a low carb diet with a high protein diet. Those are two separate entities, with differing effects.

Looking at the research is complex - but those who say "the less meat the better" have to explain the good health of those populations who thrived on almost 100% animal produce diets. Steffanson and Anderson were a famous example of experimenters who, to refute the sceptics, followed a diet of meat & fat without any fruit or vegetables or starches or dairy or supplements for a whole year - under strict medical supervision, with no ill effects whatsoever.

The problem facing the world today is that we might struggle to feed everybody on a low-carb diet, even if we could thus cure most of the diseases of civilization. That then becomes a political issue - why tell everybody about something that governments don't know how to fix?

Post Reply