Do the Math

ou812 · Post by **ou812** » Tue May 22, 2012 12:24 am

Just read this interesting article. I think the research clearly supports the habit foundation of the no-s diet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/scien ... .html?_r=1

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Fri May 25, 2012 12:21 am

I'm not sure this supports No S, but it doesnt' negate it, either. Actually, I don't think for the average person knowing this would be very helpful. It puts too much of the onus on the availability of cheap food. What No S does is say, look, there's a lot of food out there and it has become acceptable to eat all of it all the time. This is the root of our problem and we have to adopt simple habits to combat the pressure to overeat EVEN WHEN FOOD IS PLENTIFUL. There is only a slight emphasis on this in the article. The author admits marketers don't want to give up and the public will think it's hard.

And the guy obviously didn't have an overeating problem as he didn't even know what a calorie was!

I'm glad you posted it but I wish the researcher had been more insistent that people don't need to starve but just get more tough on the worst habits.

However, it was sobering to read that it would take three years to lose ten pounds cutting 100 calories a day. The common formula would have you losing around 30 pounds, but he implies as you lose, the cut in calories would get less effective, which makes sense, but it's still tough to hear.

This certainly helps to explain some of the slower results with NO S and I hope it inspires people to hang on.

JayEll · Post by **JayEll** » Fri May 25, 2012 10:53 am

I think part of how No S works is that without snacks to raise blood sugar, the body has to use something to keep blood sugar constant between meals and ensure the brain gets enough glucose. So, the enzymes for burning stored energy (glycogen, fat) increase. Add in some exercise, and those enzymes increase even more. (I have studied biochemistry, but I'm no PhD, so this is just my own speculation, aka guessing.)

I would bet that cutting out snacks drops more than 100 cals a day. Even with my larger meals, I'm sure I'm dropping closer to 250 average. But the point is, I don't have to know and I don't have to find out. I just have to stick with the simple rules and eat the foods I like with meals and on S days.

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Fri May 25, 2012 11:56 am

Sure, but extrapolating from the data, it would still take about a year to lose ten pounds. Some people start with an attitude for the long run and others don't. They might get a little more patient/accepting if they know this is the way it is! Might help them get out of diet head before they give up.