Everyday Systems

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

Thanks for sharing this. I absolutely love it.

What a riot!

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

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

This post wins the internet. Congrats!

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

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.

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."

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 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.

the second, because that sounds exactly like something I would say.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Well... 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.

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.

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.

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?