don't read if you don't like talk of calories

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
oolala53
Posts: 10059
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 1:46 am
Location: San Diego, CA USA

don't read if you don't like talk of calories

Post by oolala53 » Mon Jun 13, 2011 5:29 pm

I just had to say this. I went to McDonald's this morning on my trip and saw that their big breakfast, which fits on a plate, is 1,350 calories. I know that if I ate that at this stage, or even when I started No S, I would feel pretty lousy and would not get hungry for quite awhile. But still. I think a person could eat three meals like this a day, and if he/she were not committed to examining true hunger and satiety, it could just become the new habit. It's amazing what people can convince themselves they need. I have a feeling I'll be eating less next year, too, but I'm not going to force it right now.

I ended up getting the pancakes with no syrup but some strawberry jam. If I hadn't seen the calorie count for them, I might have just eaten them all mindlessly, but I ate slowly and told the truth to myself about when I was getting "enough." (One and a half, if anyone's interested.) Also, had some hard-boiled egg whites (the yolks weren't appealing) and apple slices from my little cooler. It was interesting how much like strudel it taste with a little bite of each all chewed together. That and my coffee was quite a lovely breakfast. Not going to try to figure how many calories I ate. Just be cool until lunch.
Count plates, not calories. 11 years "during"
Age 69
BMI Jan/10-30.8
1/12-26.8 3/13-24.9 +/- 8-lb. 3 yrs
9/17 22.8 (flux) 3/18 22.2
2 yrs flux 6/20 22
1/21-23

There is no S better than Vanilla No S (mods now as a senior citizen)

Nicest of the Damned
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by Nicest of the Damned » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:04 pm

There ought to be some sort of No S rule or mod that anything with "big", "grand", or similar words, in its name is an S. Maybe someone cleverer than me can come up with one. If you think about it, things with those words in their name are generally not things you should be eating every day.

I try to avoid any food that is "value-marketed"- where the general appeal is that you get a lot of food for not very much money. I don't need a lot of food at a single sitting (if I did, I wouldn't be overweight), so that is not a good value for me. It would be like buying baby food or pool chemicals, when I don't have a baby or a pool. The Nine Inch Diet book has quite a bit to say about value marketing of food, none of it good.

Strawberry Roan
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:51 pm

Post by Strawberry Roan » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:06 pm

oolala, we have "spoken" enough on these boards for you to know that I agree one hundred percent. I understand that the concept of this program is to teach people to eat like we used to, three meals, no snacks, no desserts unless it was after Sunday dinner, a birthday party something like that. But too many that I have read seem to struggle if they are using this program for weight loss as one can easily eat three meals that will total more calories than the body would need if one were trying to lose.

And the weekends just seem to sabotage a week of hard work for many.

I know Reinhard stresses healthy eating and exercise not just wild abandon but if one is just going by the three meals of any food that will fill a dinner plate, no snacks, no sweets no seconds until the S days, they often are just setting themselves up for failure.

:cry:


ETA, I love pancakes with strawberry jam, I roll them up and eat them bite by bite, like a heathen, without a fork. :D
Last edited by Strawberry Roan on Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Berry

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

Post by Sienna » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:13 pm

Getting 1300+ calories on a plate is actually relatively easy - especially at restaurants. Check out the Top 20 Worst Restaurant Foods in America from Men's Health to see some "single plates" that put the McD's Big Breakfast to shame. At least the Big Breakfast admits to being big.... There's even a Kid's Meal with over 1800 calories in it on the list!

http://eatthis.menshealth.com/slide/wor ... etagsfocus

Eating at home, it's a little more challenging to get that many calories on a plate, but not much.

I've personally found that by limiting (but not eliminating) the worst offenders I can drastically reduce the number of calories per plate without even trying.

Fried food was the big one for me. I don't actually particularly *like* most fried food. I would just eat it because it was offered - and when I'd eat a little I'd want more. French fries especially. Burgers are supposed to be served with fries, right? My new "rule" is that if I'm at a restaurant and order a burger or other sandwich which comes with fries I eat the burger first. If I'm still hungry, I can eat the fries. But guess what? I almost never am. I just used to eat the fries first figuring that the burger would reheat better. :roll:
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)

Thalia
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Southern California

Post by Thalia » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:14 pm

Eating heavily processed fast food as a major part of your diet is such a bad idea for all kinds of reasons -- calories are the least of them!

Nicest of the Damned
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by Nicest of the Damned » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:40 pm

I think having a general idea of calories, without specific calorie counting, is good, even for someone like me who balks at doing the math to count calories. If you eat at one particular restaurant often, for example, it might help you to have a general idea of which things that restaurant serves that are high and low in calories.

I also think that's a highly educational exercise for people who still believe in "good" and "bad" foods. If you do that with CPK, for example, you will see that two slices of pepperoni and sausage pizza has fewer calories than some of their salads. At McDonald's, you'd learn that a "healthy" grilled chicken sandwich has more calories than an "unhealthy" regular cheeseburger.

User avatar
Blithe Morning
Posts: 1220
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:56 pm
Location: South Dakota

Post by Blithe Morning » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:43 pm

I've never eaten at Cheesecake Factory. Are their portions just that big that they end up so calorie inflated or what?

User avatar
sophiasapientia
Posts: 919
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 3:09 am
Location: Michigan

Post by sophiasapientia » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:55 pm

I think having a general idea of calories, without specific calorie counting, is good, even for someone like me who balks at doing the math to count calories. If you eat at one particular restaurant often, for example, it might help you to have a general idea of which things that restaurant serves that are high and low in calories.
I totally agree with this. While I don't opt to count all of my calories on a general basis, I do like to have a game plan of some wiser options when we eat out. If I only ate once in a blue moon, I wouldn't worry about it but since it is something we enjoy doing on a regular basis, I'd rather be somewhat smart about it. Otherwise, it is far too easy to consume a day's worth of calories +++ in a sitting. :shock:
Restarted No S (3rd times a charm!) January 2010 at 145 lbs

Too solid flesh
Posts: 639
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 5:22 pm
Location: England

Post by Too solid flesh » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:58 pm

Sienna wrote:Top 20 Worst Restaurant Foods in America from Men's Health
Ewwww. Some shocking totals.
Be kind, for everybody you meet is fighting a hard battle.

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

Post by Sienna » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:25 pm

Blithe Morning wrote:I've never eaten at Cheesecake Factory. Are their portions just that big that they end up so calorie inflated or what?
I've only been a few times. Their portions certainly aren't skimpy, but I've never felt that they are considerably larger than other restaurants. I think a lot of their sauces have a lot of cream and oil in them - which doesn't help.

But to be honest, I've never found their food worth the expense, let alone the calories. Except for the cheesecake. The cheesecake is probably worth it.

Much better to just skip dinner and have the cheesecake :wink:


@ TooSolidFlesh Restaurant totals are almost always shockingly disgusting. I'm always especially amused/disturbed by the totals in "health foods" like CPK's salads that Nicest mentioned upthread.
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)

Nicest of the Damned
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by Nicest of the Damned » Mon Jun 13, 2011 7:50 pm

The only problem with counting calories is that it can lead you to think that, unless you're willing to look up everything you eat in some book of calorie counts and keep an accurate calorie count, you can't do anything to improve your diet or lose weight. That kind of thinking kept me away from diets since I was a teenager. I didn't even try to diet, because I thought all diets required you to count calories (or some substance, like fat grams or carbs), and I knew I couldn't do that for more than a few days at a time (if everything goes exactly right). I thought that, because I couldn't count calories and keep a food journal, my only other option was to accept being fat.

Dieting is not all or nothing. There is a huge amount of room in between "weigh yourself every day, count every calorie, write down everything you eat" and "this is too complicated, why bother, I'll have the 32-ounce regular Coke instead of the diet" (I don't know that I ever said those exact words, but I certainly did do that).

Calorie counting is not even all or nothing. You can get a general idea of how many calories various dishes at your favorite restaurant have, and use that information in ordering, without having to do any math or look anything up while you're at the restaurant. Likewise, you don't have to treat "calorie" as a dirty word to do No S.
Sienna wrote:I've only been a few times. Their portions certainly aren't skimpy, but I've never felt that they are considerably larger than other restaurants. I think a lot of their sauces have a lot of cream and oil in them - which doesn't help.

But to be honest, I've never found their food worth the expense, let alone the calories. Except for the cheesecake. The cheesecake is probably worth it.
Everything except cheesecake that I've had there has sounded better than it tasted. I'm sure you've had the same experience somewhere, where something sounds, from the menu description, like it will be really good, but then when you get it, it isn't.

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

Post by wosnes » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:07 pm

Nicest of the Damned wrote:There ought to be some sort of No S rule or mod that anything with "big", "grand", or similar words, in its name is an S. Maybe someone cleverer than me can come up with one. If you think about it, things with those words in their name are generally not things you should be eating every day.
Someone already has. They called them "Super-Sized."
"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."

Nicest of the Damned
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by Nicest of the Damned » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:14 pm

wosnes wrote:Someone already has. They called them "Super-Sized."
I don't think that's quite the same thing, though. I think of Super Sized stuff as an extra-large size of something that comes in more than one size. The McDonald's Big Breakfast is not like this- there's not a Medium Breakfast or a Small Breakfast, just a Big Breakfast. It also predates supersizing by a few years.

milliem
Posts: 1178
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:30 pm

Post by milliem » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:22 pm

Anything that's 1300 calories for one portion (for breakfast) is super-sized in my book!

I'm not a calorie counter but I do sometimes take a look and am shocked. I picked up a, not particularly nice, sausage roll for brunch on sunday as I was hungry and lazy... 500+ calories for one blimming pastry thing! Ugh never again. Live and learn :)

jellybeans01
Posts: 232
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2010 3:10 pm
Location: San Antonio

Post by jellybeans01 » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:43 pm

oh I agree with you totally. I could easy gain weight on this diet if I did three nice size plates of food. I really have to put mods in if I want to stay below 130. I also stop eating when I'm full, and I never have ever ordered anything supersized or for that matter I don't think I've ever eaten a large hamburger and fries.

Thalia
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Southern California

Post by Thalia » Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:14 pm

Yeah, I'm pretty aware of what a "good" vs. "not-so-good" plate looks like calorie-wise, and although I happily go for not-so-good sometimes, I do try to keep most of those plates fairly generous on the produce and fiber. Sometimes fries find themselves on one of my three plates, but they aren't regular visitors there ...

I think No S is harder if you don't cook, and especially if you don't enjoy foods that are "good for you." I guess that's true for ANY healthy eating plan, though.

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

Post by BrightAngel » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:36 am

Good Thread here.
I very much agree with all of your posts.

Today I took my son to lunch at Applebees.
Their menu had calorie counts listed by each selection.
They have added six or seven lower-calorie choices, 350-550,
but except for those,
almost every plate of food totalled between 1200 to 1800 calories,
their signature salads included.
BrightAngel - (Dr. Collins)
See: DietHobby. com

Grammy G
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:00 pm

Post by Grammy G » Tue Jun 14, 2011 12:47 am

When I was counting..calories or points or carbs, whatever..I would often eat many mini-meals so that I would meet my goal for the day..or somedays i would only be eating twice a day. I think that was a major downfall for my problem with food. I wasn't eating because of hunger..I was eating to meet a plan. Once I quit.. and i always quit..I found it very hard to either not graze all day or stuff myself and not be hungry for hours..but I'd eat anyway..because the family was eating. I was really messed up about that. No S has finally gotten me to get to the place where I eat 3 meals of one plate and that is that. Now, I know what foods should be going on those plates and about what amounts. Up to this point, I haven't worried too much about the contents of the plate. My first goal was to get the "three plates' down. I would hope that the people who are trying to lose weight read the book and do a little research on healthy diets..those who think they can eat fast foods three times a day without modifying the selections are just kidding themselves. You know, even at Mc Donald's, you can request no mayo or sauces on your sandwich (that also insures you are getting a freshly made one :wink: ) and you can order a scrambled egg and a muffin with no butter for breakfast. (You can also request fries with no salt for those salt who need that.... did you know those fries have milk solids and beef flavoring added?..crazy!!)That said .. I really had a craving for a big mac for dinner and, yep,..that is what I had..sauce, grease, and all!! :wink: :wink:
"If you realized how powerful your thoughts are, you would never think another negative thought."
Peace Pilgrim

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

Post by wosnes » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:27 am

Blithe Morning wrote:I've never eaten at Cheesecake Factory. Are their portions just that big that they end up so calorie inflated or what?
My daughter works at The Cheesecake Factory (check out the menu) and it's a combination of both of those things. The portions are HUGE so that they are calorie inflated. Plus, they don't spare the butter -- or anything else. I can usually easily make 2-3 meals out of a meal there. Easily.

From Michael Ruhlman: Cheesecake Factory: The Alexander Challenge. Good piece. I like the miso salmon, too.

Oh, and if the Cheesecake Factory isn't enough, try the Grand Lux Cafe. It's owned by the same group.

If I'm going to eat at a chain restaurant, I'll pick Cheesecake Factory over most others.
"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."

sheepish
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 9:06 pm

Post by sheepish » Tue Jun 14, 2011 9:30 am

Obviously, if you eat more food than you need, even if you don't snack, eat sweets or eat seconds, you will still gain weight. No S doesn't defy the laws of physics.

I think of it more as a framework that helps you a) to see how much food you're eating and b) helps you to enjoy your food more. The sweets and seconds rules are fairly unimportant for me - they were never big problems, though I'm sure cutting them out has been helpful - the big one is the snacking. Having cut out snacking, not only do I eat less, I enjoy my food a lot more - it's win-win.

But just seeing how much food you're eating isn't, on its own, going to get you to eat less food. It's just something that helps a bit with that. Ultimately, if you still eat what you ate before No S just redistributed into your meals/into S days, it won't make any difference at all.

I think it is all made a bit easier if you cook. For me, at least, this is partly because I just plain prefer homecooked food to fast food/cheap restaurant food, I think it tastes better so I need less of it to feel full. Really nice restaurant food is a different story but I can't afford that too often.

Andie
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:55 am
Location: B.C., Canada

Post by Andie » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:49 pm

Obviously although this ridiculous high calorie breakfast would technically be allowed on no S, I think most people would not eat this everyday, especially when they're on no s and trying to meet their nutritional needs through 3 meals per day. I think no s works best for those non-obvious excesses of extra calories that we don't necessarily notice...(i.e. the quarter of a block of cheese I could eat during a day one tiny slice at a time.. cheese is healthy right :wink: ) For no S to work I think one already has to have a basic desire to eat healthy foods most of the time to fuel one's body. If you're eating horrible processed foods at each meal with no fruits and vegetables, obviously there has to be other lifestyle changes that have to go along with no s.

I agree that most restaurant foods and portions are generally evil, and the calorie counts help us realize that. However, I don't think that only calories matter. For example, I know that a large salad with nuts and avocados has more calories than a basic cheeseburger from McDonalds. Does that mean that the cheeseburger is the healthier choice? It may have less calories, but it's incredibly processed and has no nutritional value. Same goes for the "yogurt parfait has more calories than the glazed donut" example. Just some thoughts

I try to just avoid restaurants as much as possible, and don't worry about it to much when I go (once every 2-3 months). If you're someone who has to eat out a lot because of work/travel it may be a good idea to take a look at the calorie counts of things.
Back after a long hiatus.

Nicest of the Damned
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by Nicest of the Damned » Tue Jun 14, 2011 3:45 pm

Andie wrote:Obviously although this ridiculous high calorie breakfast would technically be allowed on no S, I think most people would not eat this everyday, especially when they're on no s and trying to meet their nutritional needs through 3 meals per day. I think no s works best for those non-obvious excesses of extra calories that we don't necessarily notice...(i.e. the quarter of a block of cheese I could eat during a day one tiny slice at a time.. cheese is healthy right :wink: ) For no S to work I think one already has to have a basic desire to eat healthy foods most of the time to fuel one's body. If you're eating horrible processed foods at each meal with no fruits and vegetables, obviously there has to be other lifestyle changes that have to go along with no s.
Even then, No S will help. Eating three meals a day of processed garbage is better than grazing on processed garbage all day long. Neither is optimal, but that doesn't mean that one choice isn't better than the other.

One of the key lessons of No S, and what makes it different from other diets, is that it doesn't demand that your diet choices be optimal. That goes back to the "all-or-nothing" mentality. I make some diet choices that I acknowledge are suboptimal, but I don't really want to change them at this time. But I can work on the ones I want to change and leave the others be. The all-or-nothing thinking of other diets kept me away from dieting or trying to eat healthier for many years.

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

Post by kccc » Tue Jun 14, 2011 4:59 pm

Andie wrote: I try to just avoid restaurants as much as possible, and don't worry about it to much when I go (once every 2-3 months). If you're someone who has to eat out a lot because of work/travel it may be a good idea to take a look at the calorie counts of things.
This.

I agree that calories do matter, but for me, a focus on counting calories messes me up badly, and I don't want to do it on a daily basis.

I do come to No-S with years of nutritional awareness that (sometimes) informs my decision-making. But in general, my habits are such that I don't have to count.

However, I make an exception about calorie counting when it comes to restaurant food. You just can't trust most of it to be reasonable! Dishes that would be just fine the way I make them at home are incredibly caloric at most restaurants. So, I check calorie counts for places we go a lot (where I have a range of "default intelligent dietary choices") and I do try NOT to eat out too much, period.

I agree it would be harder to lose on No-S if you were eating at restaurants all the time. However, if you were ALREADY doing that, and snacking too, No-S would still be an improvement.

And that's what I love most about No-S... you start where you are, and make choices that are better. Maybe not the best possible, but better - at a level you can sustain. And then you make another slightly better choice, and then another, and then another... and before you know it, you've made major changes, but all at a sustainable pace and level.

Andie
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:55 am
Location: B.C., Canada

Post by Andie » Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:29 pm

Nicest and KCCC, I totally agree. Small changes are best, and progress is great.
I guess I just meant that someone who eats super high calorie processed food three times a day is going to plateau at quite a high weight and not feel very well(unless they are a bike messanger!), and possibly suffer negative health consequenses (gall stones comes to mind), unless they start gradually shifting to more nutritious food choices (which I think most people who start this journey will).
Back after a long hiatus.

Strawberry Roan
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:51 pm

Post by Strawberry Roan » Tue Jun 14, 2011 5:43 pm

Not feeling very well is an excellent point, when I eat well there is never any of the intestinal issues, gastro issues, regularity issues, etc. that so many complain about. Our bodies reward us for how we treat them. :wink:
Berry

Nicest of the Damned
Posts: 719
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 4:26 pm

Post by Nicest of the Damned » Tue Jun 14, 2011 6:40 pm

"Eat breakfast at home" would probably be a decent diet rule to follow. There are so many bad breakfast choices at restaurants. And it's simple- no counting anything, and it's easy to know if you've broken the rule or not. Just the kind of thing that is easy to make into a habit.

"Eat out less" is a good one as well for most people. Likely to save you some money as well as make you healthier. I know eating out too often is one of the things I did that made me overweight.

Thalia
Posts: 569
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Southern California

Post by Thalia » Wed Jun 15, 2011 4:49 pm

Eating out and buying prepared packaged foods are huge problems. It's possible to eat reasonably if you don't cook, but it's much, much harder.

I find it pretty difficult to eat in a restaurant on an N Day, and when I do, I know I eat more, and heavier, than I would at home -- even if I save half the entree for lunch the next day. Once in a while, that's fine, but I don't know how people who eat out four or five nights a week do it!

Post Reply