Everyday Systems

So I'm fairly new to No S. I actually started a long time ago for a brief period and overdid it on weekends and then I gave up altogether. I'm new to it again, but when I eat carbs for lunch, I feel guilty still. I did a low carb diet, and even though I am a little smaller, I didn't lose like I had hoped because I was eating too much. I am hoping the No S will help me to get rid of these feelings of guilt when I eat and to also learn to moderate during the weekend without going nuts. Also, during my low carb days, I ate a lot of sugar free products, so I'm also kind of worried that by giving up sugar free products and then eating the real thing during the weekend, that I'll not lose because eating sugar just on the weekends might still be more than I'm used to eating. Phew! Responses welcome! Thanks.

Sarah
cw: 156
gw:135
height: 5'5.5"

Let go of guilt. It doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't make any sense.

Do this: Consider about all the carbs happily consumed by the Italians, and then do a google search on "Italian Street Fashion." Those folks sure don't look like they're suffering, do they?

Seriously, the whole point of No S (as I see it) is to foster healthy habits and attitudes toward food. It's not about guilt, or crash-dieting, or anything like that. It's about building a healthy relationship with food, one day at a time.

Who Me? wrote:Let go of guilt. It doesn't do anyone any good. It doesn't make any sense.

Do this: Consider about all the carbs happily consumed by the Italians, and then do a google search on "Italian Street Fashion." Those folks sure don't look like they're suffering, do they?

Or look at a page that has their obesity rate, and ours. Italy's obesity rate is 8.5%. Another carb-loving nation, Japan, has an obesity rate of 3.2%. We're at 30.6% and climbing.

Also note that it's us that have the food guilt, not the Italians or French (obesity rate 9.4%). Food guilt, at least the kind we have in the US, does not appear to be an effective strategy for losing weight. If it doesn't help and makes you feel bad, it's probably something you can do without.

We have this idea that, as long as you only eat "good" foods, you can eat as much as you want, and not be overweight. This idea has been around since at least the mid 80's (I remember it from then), though which foods are "good" and "bad" have changed since. It hasn't helped. Our obesity rate is much higher now than it was whenever that idea was introduced. It hasn't helped. I suspect this idea is at least encouraged (if not originated) by manufacturers of the "good" foods du jour. The people who make sugar-free stuff have an obvious interest in telling you that you can eat as much as you want of their product.

powell922 wrote:So I'm fairly new to No S. I actually started a long time ago for a brief period and overdid it on weekends and then I gave up altogether. I'm new to it again, but when I eat carbs for lunch, I feel guilty still. I did a low carb diet, and even though I am a little smaller, I didn't lose like I had hoped because I was eating too much. I am hoping the No S will help me to get rid of these feelings of guilt when I eat and to also learn to moderate during the weekend without going nuts. Also, during my low carb days, I ate a lot of sugar free products, so I'm also kind of worried that by giving up sugar free products and then eating the real thing during the weekend, that I'll not lose because eating sugar just on the weekends might still be more than I'm used to eating. Phew! Responses welcome! Thanks.

Sarah
cw: 156
gw:135
height: 5'5.5"

Do NOT worry about carbs. I used to be like you, I thought I had to cut carbs and had a "problem with sugar." By simply cutting out sweets on N days, you'll be eating much less sugar anyway, but there's no need to cut back on carbs. I lost 20 pounds on No S and never counted a carb, and I was one of the people who thought I had to limit them for weight loss.

The weight you lose on this diet will come when you get over dieting and trying to eat to lose weight. You've got to get used to enjoying your meals and being convinced that it's okay to have delicious food. Then you have to get honest about how much it actually takes to satisfy you but allow you to get hungry for the next meal. Your inner self has got to be sure that you're not going to deprive it. That's when you can relax and eat less. You aren't starving yourself; you're just responding to your real needs.

Repeat after me:

Carbs are not evil, carbs are not out to get me.
Carbs are not evil, carbs are not out to get me.

It might have been on this forum in fact that I was reminded that carbohydrates kept our ancesters going when there wasn't much else. Think about it, bread for example. It's flour, water and yeast. Bread will not make you fat. Potatoes will not make you fat, but the oil you fry or roast them in might, so boil, bake or use low-cal sprays.

Carbohydrates are the fuel which will enable your body to function well from one meal to the next and they are an essential component of meals.


Carbs, are not evil, carbs are not out to get me.
Crabs, are not evil, carbs are not out to get me.
Carbs are not evil, carbs are not out to get me.

Sarah,

I am exactly where you are as far as your numbers... I am the same height and weight and have the same goal. You can do it on No S. I don't count carbs, yet I don't purposely load up on them either. I have a bad tendancy of very late dinners and I try not to have too much carbs late at night, apparently it's harder to digest. Good luck!

Oh, by the way, if you notice, I'm 5'6"-only .5" taller than you are. 154 is my highest allowable BMI and that's my goal. If No S takes me lower, so be it. I might be able to go lower later, but I don't know. You would have to have quite a deficit to lose weight very fast. Do you feel like you were overeating before No S? Some people here do eat relatively low carb, but I wouldn't start that way. I thought I would never be able to go 5 days a week without sweets. Wrong! I have to admit I rarely eat more than 2 servings of carb at any one meal, not counting fruits and veggies. But I rarely go without.

SkyKitty wrote:bread for example. It's flour, water and yeast. Bread will not make you fat. Potatoes will not make you fat, but the oil you fry or roast them in might, so boil, bake or use low-cal sprays.

I agree with you that carbs are not evil, but bread or potatoes certainly can make you fat, if you eat them all day. No S is about giving up the futile search for some magic food that you can eat as much as you want of, whenever you want, feel satisfied, and not gain weight. Sugar-free or carb-free foods didn't do this, neither did fat-free foods. I don't think there is any food that you can do this with.

There are no magic foods. That's good- it means there are no evil magic foods, so there is no food that absolutely can't be part of your eating plan, in suitable portions. But it's also bad- it means there are no "free" foods that you can eat as much as you want, whenever you want.

Nicest of the Damned wrote:
There are no magic foods.

That's good-
it means there are no evil magic foods,
so there is no food that absolutely can't be part of your eating plan, in suitable portions.

But it's also bad-
it means there are no "free" foods
that you can eat as much as you want, whenever you want.

Well-said !!!

Nicest of the Damned wrote: I agree with you that carbs are not evil, but bread or potatoes certainly can make you fat, if you eat them all day. No S is about giving up the futile search for some magic food that you can eat as much as you want of, whenever you want, feel satisfied, and not gain weight. Sugar-free or carb-free foods didn't do this, neither did fat-free foods. I don't think there is any food that you can do this with.

But there are still cultures whose diet consists mainly of potatoes or rice or bread -- and they're not fat or unhealthy. At the end of nearly every month my diet becomes largely potato-based. Without fail, I lose weight.

wosnes wrote:But there are still cultures whose diet consists mainly of potatoes or rice or bread -- and they're not fat or unhealthy. At the end of nearly every month my diet becomes largely potato-based. Without fail, I lose weight.

I'd still guess that how much you eat matters a great deal.

You probably eat a sensible amount of potatoes, when your diet is potato-based. The mostly-bread-or-potato-based cultures probably have food rituals and etiquette that limit how much people eat, or else there just isn't enough for everybody to eat a huge amount.

Someone who eats bag after bag of baked potato chips all day long would be another story.

There was a segment on The Potato Diet on the Today Show several months ago.

See his web site: 20 Potatoes a Day

Clearly, people can gain weight while eating anything. People can also lose weight while eating anything. Moderation in all things! (Including excess!)

The "diet experts" of the world have much to answer for, but perhaps the single worst thing is this insistence on certain magic foods being "the key", and the further linking of food to morality: "good" and "bad" (or "sinful", etc.) foods. This is patent nonsense, and it's really not helping anyone. Enjoy your food, in moderation, eat a reasonable mix of different things, and you'll be fine.

How "bad" carbs are (for you) seems to depend on 3 factors:

First, where they come from: carbs from vegetables have a more beneficial impact than those derived from heavily processed grains.

Second, how active you are. Most of the healthy high carb eating populations are eating a peasant diet - but in conjunction with an active lifestyle - walking, gardening etc. Higher levels of activity may nullify the disbenefits of a high carb diet.

Third, how susceptible you personally are to carb intake. Some people have benefited dramatically from low carb diets (see "Life without bread" for case histories of many diseases that have responded to a low-carb diet) but as mentioned, there are populations with higher carb intakes who are enjoying good health and longevity. The diet of Okinawans isn't low-carb - but their centenarians have an average BMI of 18 to 22.

Another relevant issue may be this: higher carb intakes in "peasant" diets are essentially dull stuff, partnered with smaller quantities of some more appetising, expensive ingredients. The problem carbs that confront citizens of the US and UK have been rendered excessively appetising by the artful addition of fat, salt, sweeteners and other flavourings - so more-ish that we're very liable to eat them beyond the promptings of hunger. Those are the "evil" carbs for me.

Peasant food boring?

Not to this girl!

Who Me? wrote:Peasant food boring?

Not to this girl!

I agree!

DaveMc wrote:Clearly, people can gain weight while eating anything. People can also lose weight while eating anything. Moderation in all things! (Including excess!)

The "diet experts" of the world have much to answer for, but perhaps the single worst thing is this insistence on certain magic foods being "the key", and the further linking of food to morality: "good" and "bad" (or "sinful", etc.) foods. This is patent nonsense, and it's really not helping anyone. Enjoy your food, in moderation, eat a reasonable mix of different things, and you'll be fine.

This is exactly what I was thinking. I love my carbs, especially bread, which I enjoy toasted with butter. Bread doesn't make me fat. Butter doesn't make me fat. EXCESS makes me fat.

@Who Me? & Wosnes - are you saying you find a food such as polenta, or grits or rice - without any added items or flavourings (which is the point I was trying to make) interesting?

I was thinking the carbohydrate elements of peasant diets were a bit like lab chow for rats - sufficient for bodily needs but too boring to eat to excess.

Graham wrote:@Who Me? & Wosnes - are you saying you find a food such as polenta, or grits or rice - without any added items or flavourings (which is the point I was trying to make) interesting?

I was thinking the carbohydrate elements of peasant diets were a bit like lab chow for rats - sufficient for bodily needs but too boring to eat to excess.

I think you might have a very different idea of what "peasant food" is than I do. While it's true that at some points in history the food the peasants ate was unadorned polenta, grits, rice, bread, beans, etc. (and the peasants were damned glad to have it!), that wasn't the norm. Most of the Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Greek, and Italian foods we enjoy, as well as those from other cultures, are peasant foods.

There wasn't, and still isn't in many cases, a lot of variety at any one time, but over the course of a year there's quite a lot of variety. Most of these people still eat quite seasonally and most of what they eat is found within a short distance from their homes. Also, the longer the growing season, the more variety there is.

Plain white rice is amazingly delicious, to my mind.

But let's be honest, most peasant food leans heavily toward flavorings with onions, garlic, and spicy greens. Many flavorful traditional foods are cheap, and easy to make. Vinegar and other fermented foods come to mind.

If you throw a little cooking oil and some ground chilis and garlic or soy sauce in there, rice or polenta or pasta is pretty damn tasty! I could subsist more happily on that than on, for instance, an all-meat diet.

Fortunately, we don't have to choose between them. A little meat/eggs/dairy, a little starchy food (sometimes whole grain, sometimes not), a nice dose of fruits and veggies, and I feel pretty good. I'm not interested in micromanaging my diet beyond making sure that I eat produce in season and that I don't eat very many highly processed foods.

One of my current favorite soups, Potato and Rice soup, would certainly be peasant food. Occasionally I'll add some lentils in place of part of the rice, or a rind of Parmesan if I have it, or a couple of ounces of Italian sausage. But even my itself, it's very tasty.

People from all parts of Asia have eaten large quantities of plain white rice along with small amounts of one (or more) other tasty dish. It's thought that part of the reason Thai people can eat such hot food is because they eat it with large amounts of rice.

@Wosnes - So, towards the end of the month, you have peasant (higher carb) meals which you enjoy, but, as you said earlier, you tend to lose weight when you eat that way. That is just what I've been hypothesising - peasant food is less likely to provoke eating to excess. I'm not saying one can't enjoy "peasant" fare, just that it is not so likely to stimulate over-eating.

The deliciousness of "peasant food" probably depended on where the peasants were. Mediterranean peasant food is yummy, but here in the UK it probably involved a lot of turnips.

Too solid flesh wrote:The deliciousness of "peasant food" probably depended on where the peasants were. Mediterranean peasant food is yummy, but here in the UK it probably involved a lot of turnips.

I love turnips! So tasty raw. Or roasted with olive oil, salt, pepper and a bit of lemon juice!

Graham wrote:@Wosnes - So, towards the end of the month, you have peasant (higher carb) meals which you enjoy, but, as you said earlier, you tend to lose weight when you eat that way. That is just what I've been hypothesising - peasant food is less likely to provoke eating to excess. I'm not saying one can't enjoy "peasant" fare, just that it is not so likely to stimulate over-eating.

I'm certainly eating as much as I want or need. I'm not intentionally limiting the amount of food.

However, some studies have shown that limiting variety leads to consuming less. From what I understand, the studies have concentrated on variety at individual meals; a holiday meal as compared to a regular weekday meal. I think that limiting the variety of foods normally consumed, sticking to just one or two cuisines, for example, also leads to consuming less. The more variety there is, the more tastes there are and the more you eat trying to enjoy all the tastes.

Most people around the world still don't eat foods from outside their own area -- even in more advanced populations.