Anybody besides me too lazy to do Spark People Points, etc?

[Strawberry Roan]

I have joined a couple of times but feel guilty if I don't log all my food, exercise, water, motivations, etc. But I basically exercise everyday, always drink tons of water a day, eat pretty well, am highly motivated. It seems silly to constantly update. But then it looks like I am a slacker if I don't.

It is easier here as I just put everything in my rambling daily check in thread.

[wosnes]

I have joined a couple of times but feel guilty if I don't log all my food, exercise, water, motivations, etc. But I basically exercise everyday, always drink tons of water a day, eat pretty well, am highly motivated. It seems silly to constantly update. But then it looks like I am a slacker if I don't.

It is easier here as I just put everything in my rambling daily check in thread.

That's part of why I don't even use Habit Cal or do a daily check-in. It makes this seem like a project to keep track of rather than a change of habits. I know how I'm doing and whether or not I need to be more strict with my habits.

[Strawberry Roan]

Agreed. I do a daily check in if I can although I do slack off for weeks at a time - as I love the boards and interacting with people, it also keeps me honest My food is so mundane and pedestrian compared to most, however. But it is the truth and that is what I am all about, keeping it real.

However, I don't do the HabitCal or anything.

[NoSRocks]

Agree with all of the above, guys!

I tend to visit the boards and read the messages more frequently than I post - especially since my work schedule has changed up recently and I don't get the time to post as much.

As is my nature, I do confess to feeling a little 'guilty' for not posting as much to my fellow no sers threads as I used to but I still enjoy logging in to read how everyone is getting on and hear their latest news!

Whatever works - its all good!! !

[r.jean]

I do the habit cal because it takes a few seconds. I do not always do it every day, but I catch up. This is the only thing I have ever been able to maintain because it is so simple.

Otherwise I am a no counting no tracking kind of person. I read more than I post like a lot of you.

[oolala53]

I use Spark for writing and being involved in my obsession with all of this, but I consider it healthy. It allows me to use my intellect on a subject very close to me, which was something recommended to me by a career testing foundation at one point. I certainly spend more time writing about how much I refuse to record calories than it would take to do it, but I'm still convinced that is an activity that is actually desirable for only the few in the effort to lose weight, namely those whose appetites are so skewed that the moderate approach is not trustworthy to them in the short or even long run. For most other people, I believe the outside counting schemes undermine putting effort where it really needs to go: adhering to fierce moderation, savoring your scrumptious food when you have it, honestly assessing the need for the food that is on the plate enough to alter the amounts if the appetite decreases over time, giving close attention to just how wonderful and full a body feels when she has eaten and been done with it, and putting effort into developing new pleasures or attending to old ones to replace the time spent "using" food is also more worthy of the effort. I guess I'm still "using" thinking about it, but I am mulling over weaning myself off that.


Viva No S!

[milliem]

Heh, yep, with you there - I've tried tracking before but it never sticks! That's why I like NoS, all you do is track one thing; did I stick to the rules or not? Of course I do note my meals down fairly frequently, I find a bit of accountability (e.g. the thought that someone might read my ramblings even if they don't!) helps me stick with it!

I have tracked calories occasionally even while doing NoS. However if I do this, it's always with curiosity and to check out how much I'm really consuming every now and then rather than as an actual method to aid weight loss. I always track at the end of the day to see what happened rather than as I go along. I like to have a vague idea of how calorific certain meals are, I think it's helped me to make better choices.

I don't think I've ever tracked an S day though, don't think I want to know!!

[BrightAngel]

I certainly spend more time writing about how much I refuse to record calories
than it would take to do it, but I'm still convinced that is an activity that is actually desirable
for only the few in the effort to lose weight,
namely those whose appetites are so skewed
that the moderate approach is not trustworthy to them in the short or even long run.

For most other people,
I believe the outside counting schemes undermine putting effort where it really needs to go:

Oolala, I admire you, and love you to pieces.
Both of us are long-time members of No S,
and both of us are great admirers of this program.
We have often butted heads on calorie counting,
and each of us has a different perspective on the matter.

This is a great forum, and your contribution to it is very valuable.
I frequently agree with many of the things you say.
I'm speaking up here because I feel a strong need to do so.
I believe that you are unaware of how insulting the remarks you made above are to a great many people.
...."only the few" .... "those whose appetites are so skewed"....

The formal border of Obesity is a BMI of 30 BMI.
The formal border of Overweight is a BMI between 25-25.9.

Your stats show that at 5'6" and 185 lbs, you started No S at a BMI of 29.9
which is right at the formal border of "obese".
Your No S efforts brought you down to 154 lbs, a BMI of 24.9, which is just inside the formal border of "normal"

By comparison, at 5'0" and 122 lbs, my BMI is currently 23.8, which is just a tiny bit further inside the formal border of "normal".
So, at present, with relation to weight, you and I are almost exactly the same size.

However, 20 years ago my high weight was 271 lbs, which is a 52.9 BMI,
and 8 years ago, when I lost from 190 down to my current goal weight,
I started with a 37.5 BMI

In order for me to have a 29.9 BMI... your starting weight... my weight must be 153 lbs,
which is 1 lb lower than the weight you are now successfully maintaining.

Your post demonstrates your inner belief that most dieters are normal people like you,
and that there are only a few dieters who are are really abnormal people, like me.

As a person who has struggled with obesity for her entire lifetime,
someone who has had to deal with living a life at double her size,
I have dealt with a liftime of comments which which showed that I was considered "less than",
by people whose weight stabilzed at either normal, overweight, or just
inside the formal obesity border.
I don't believe you are aware of how biased and hurtful such comments seem,
to those who need to deal with living life well inside the formal borders of Obesity.

It's great that there are "normal" people like you, with "normal" appetites
who only need to be moderate in their eating to keep from being obese.
But you SO GREATLY underestimate how many people there are like me,
people who need more than simple moderation.
.... Abnormal people with "skewed appetites",........
who feel a physical need .. often together with an emotional need...
which drives them to eat far, far more than it takes
to maintain a weight anywhere near the bottom border of the obesity range.
There are many of these people right here in the No S Forum,
....and I speak for them... the ones who feel unworthy to speak up because they are still fat.

Over and over I have qualified my position about No S and calorie counting.
Your stats are an excellent demonstration of my point.
Vanilla No S appears to work well for people with sizes similar to yours.
However, people who are well within the borders of obesity...
...especially short, older inactive females ....
frequently need more than simple moderation
in order to get down to being merely overweight,
or with a great deal of effort... even to normal weight.

I congratulate you on your personal success,
however, people who need more than simple moderation should not be addressed as "less than".
The fact that comments are not intended to be offensive, doesn't keep them from being so.

[gratefuldeb67]

i don't know about spark people, but i swear by habitcal.. it takes almost no time or effort, and has helped me so much to keep my focus and be honest with myself..

[ironchef]

I have joined a couple of times but feel guilty if I don't log all my food, exercise, water, motivations, etc.

Yup, I can't be bothered long term, that's why I'm here. I've lost weight before by counting calories, and was very good at it. However, sooner or later the effort of writing down everything I ate and calculating calories and so on became to great, and I stopped. And then put the weight back on.

To me part of the charm of No-S is not to worry about calories, fat grams, mg of selenium or whatever. I put together my three plates, try to make sure that they mostly (except for the odd burger or fish and chips) have fruit, veggies and some wholegrains on them, and leave it at that. It is a huge relief to me.

[TunaFishKid]

IMO, that's the whole reason for No S! If you want to track calories, fat grams, carb grams, etc., there are a million places online to do that. No S is the ONLY place where you can be normal and completely ignore all the accounting and diet talk.

[TunaFishKid]

Over and over I have qualified my position about No S and calorie counting.

According to the No S book, they're mutually exclusive. No S is all about NOT being an accountant.

people who are well within the borders of obesity...
...especially short, older inactive females ....
frequently need more than simple moderation
in order to get down to being merely overweight,
or with a great deal of effort... even to normal weight.

Then why do No S? Why not just follow any of the thousands of calorie/fat/carb restriction diets out there?

ETA: Upon re-reading, this post sounds very confrontational, but I don't mean it to be. I'm asking sincerely...why try to change the basic message of No S on the No S forum? I think it only confuses people. The most basic message of No S is, to me, no accounting. No traditional diet methods. If that doesn't work for some people, then this isn't the method for them.

[milliem]

Then why do No S? Why not just follow any of the thousands of calorie/fat/carb restriction diets out there?

ETA: Upon re-reading, this post sounds very confrontational, but I don't mean it to be. I'm asking sincerely...why try to change the basic message of No S on the No S forum? I think it only confuses people. The most basic message of No S is, to me, no accounting. No traditional diet methods. If that doesn't work for some people, then this isn't the method for them.

It doesn't sound confrontational - but a little judgemental. NoS is quite different from most 'diets' out there as it doesn't restrict what you eat (outside of savoury foods only for the most part, 5 days a week) only when you eat. I don't see that there's anything wrong with modifying NoS or tweaking it to suit your needs, or even combining it with another way of eating such as low carb, intermittent fasting, counting calories. NoS in the 'vanilla' sense worked for Reinhard very well, and it's worked for others too. Just because it doesn't work perfectly for some people doesn't mean that they should abandon the principles altogether!

If you are new to NoS, the advice is always (from the book, newbies and veterans alike) to try it 'vanilla' for a good few months and stick to the core principles. As long as you take that on board, it doesn't have to be confusing!

You have taken a core principle of NoS as 'no accounting' but really, the only core principles are 'No snacks, sweets or seconds except (sometimes) on days that begin with S'. The rest is open to interpretation

[BrightAngel]

You have taken a core principle of NoS as 'no accounting'
but really, the only core principles are
'No snacks, sweets or seconds except (sometimes) on days that begin with S'.
The rest is open to interpretation

Exactly So.

[TunaFishKid]

As I understand the book, the reason behind "No snacks, sweets or seconds except (sometimes) on days that begin with S" is because of the accounting. Lack of calorie/fat gram/carb gram accounting is the basis on which the No S premise is built.

I'm sorry to be sounding judgmental, I really am. But I'm trying to understand something. Once you bring back calorie counting, what is the purpose of No S? Yes, three meals a day is a good idea. Yes, fewer sweet treats is a good idea. But the basic premise of No S is that you no longer need any sort of accounting or eliminating of major food groups.

Add calorie counting and/or low carb back in to No S and what have you got? Every other diet in the world. Nothing special.

I guess you could say that low calorie diets don't necessarily proscribe snacking, and that would be true. But I really think Reinhard's intent with No S was to make a really, really easy, fool-proof, NO-COUNTING (traditional paradigm) diet.

[Dale]

I think that No S is the most sensible diet I've seen, and I do understand that it's meant to be something that you can do indefinitely without having to obsessively count calories (or anything else). I think that sticking to the rules will mean that you eat less calories. However, speaking as a shorter, older woman, I believe that I can easily eat enough in three platefuls to maintain my weight, rather than lose it. I find that I'm mixing up No S and calorie counting, because I'm wanting to make sure that I can stay at a deficit (and also just because I want to do it sometimes). I'm not saying that anyone else should do that, or even that I should do that! However, if I didn't do that, I think I'd have to modify No S in some other way, such as further portion control.

[TunaFishKid]

However, speaking as a shorter, older woman, I believe that I can easily eat enough in three platefuls to maintain my weight, rather than lose it.

Have you tried it, and for how long? I'm not challenging you (honest! ), just inquiring.

[Dale]

Yes, I've tried No S without calorie counting for quite a while (can't remember how long exactly) and did lose some weight initially, but I suppose my calorie requirements dropped as my weight dropped! It's now difficult to pick apart how much weight I've lost from No S and how much from calorie counting/ portion control.

[BrightAngel]

Add calorie counting and/or low carb back in to No S and what have you got?
Every other diet in the world. Nothing special.

I guess you could say that low calorie diets don't necessarily proscribe snacking, and that would be true.
But I really think Reinhard's intent with No S
was to make a really, really easy, fool-proof, NO-COUNTING (traditional paradigm) diet.

First, speaking as one who has reseached more than a thousand diets,
I think the "specialness" of No S is due to its reliance on the HABIT concept.

Next, if you add the words "for himself" to the statement about Reinhard's intent with No S,
you will be accurate, since Reinhard, as an active, younger 6 ft male, designed the program
so that it was not necessary for HIM, and others similar to HIM,
to use calorie-counting or tracking in order to acheive his weight-loss goals.

Although Reinhard, personally doesn't track foods or count calories,
he has made several statements within this forum showing that he supports
those of us who choose to combine that practice with No S.
He has also acknowedged that while moderation is enough for many people,
he understands that some people require more than mere moderation.

Reinhard stated in his book:
"No S ... is accommodating and comprehensive enough that you could combine it with another diet"
He also said:
" one of the reasons it is so easy for me to stick with the No S Diet is because I invented it...
if you're tempted to modify the No S Diet around the edges,
or use it as a point of inspiration... you have my blessing and encouragement."

Lets work to live and let live here.
Non-calorie counters don't need to abuse calorie-counters.
No S is not a rigid "right" and "wrong" diet plan,
Let's all support each other in our different choices
to use this program in whatever way that works best for each of us as individuals.

[milliem]

I'm with BrightAngel really, NoS is an amazing structure, and if by following the habits only and making no other efforts you can lose weight, that's brilliant! Some people find that easy. Reinhard if I remember rightly didn't really struggle with S days, and found the switch to having 3 healthy plates of food pretty easy, accounting for his brilliant success.

Sure, the reason for Reinhard developing NoS was to find a way of eating that was sustainable and moderate, and generally calorie counting or other restrictive diets are neither of those things! For some people it's not quite so easy though, and just following the habits alone doesn't 'do it'.

I've been following NoS for about 18 months, and have pretty much just maintained my weight, apart from an initial 5 pound or so loss. NoS is different from almost every other diet plan in that it doesn't prescribe what you put on your plates, whereas most diets cut out certain foods completely. Also, whether you are maintaining or losing weight, the core habits are the same, it's sustainable in the long term. I think that's compatible with other specific ideas about what to put on your plate if the core principles alone don't work for you.

The 'point' of NoS surely is however it works for the individual? For most it might be the freedom from calorie counting and 'diet head' talk. For some it might just be the habits and structure that they use. For others it could be the community, or the habitcal! There are people who check in that don't actually follow NoS rules as laid out in the book, but they've found a supportive home here and NoS to be helpful in some way or another, who are we to say that they are wrong or they should abandon NoS?

Wow sorry for the length of that, got into the groove there a bit!