Everyday Systems

When I read "The British are embracing a weight-loss plan that involves five days of eating and drinking whatever you want, and fasting for two days a week," I thought it sounded like the exact opposite of No-S. But it was a blurb for an article about a new book on intermittent fasting.

However, something did catch my eye. I've never read about intermittent fasting except little bits here occasionally. So this may be old news to people more familiar with it.

“Our earliest antecedents,†Dr. Mosley argued, “lived a feast-or-famine existence, gorging themselves after a big hunt and then not eating until they scored the next one.†Similarly, he explained, temporary fasting is a ritual of religions like Islam and Judaism — as demonstrated by Ramadan and Yom Kippur. “We shouldn’t have a fear of hunger if it is just temporary,†he said.

Bold italics mine.

If one or two days weekly is just temporary hunger, then a few hours between meals is nothing --even between dinner and breakfast. Hunger isn't an emergency. Or, as Karen Le Billon wrote in French Kids Eat Everything, it's okay to feel hunger (as in between meals) but not okay to be hungry (as in never having enough food).

It's speculated that part of the reason the Greeks, who have traditionally been so healthy, is not only due to what they eat, but also how they eat. The Greek Orthodox religion has about 180 days of fasting each year. Some days just eliminate meat, others are more restrictive, even including abstinence from olive oil. Every Wednesday and Friday are fasting days.

Very interesting, and you're right -- a few hours between meals with some hunger, and not eating from dinner until breakfast the next morning really isn't that big of a deal.

I've been doing intermittent fasting since Aug. I have tried previously, but have not lost weight, because I would make up for lost calories. When I combine it with No S...bingo! I have lost weight on No S alone as well, but very slowly as my S days are always reckless and my N days are heavily caloried as I like to cook rich food. My intermittent fasting hours are growing closer and closer together, though, so not sure if I will continue. If not, I'll have to readjust my plate and S days, so as not to regain my weight loss.

Fasting for two days a week is just another unsustainable plan. No S works because socially, most parties and gatherings are on the weekend, and you can fully participate in them with your friends and loved ones. Imagine being invited to all the gatherings while fasting, every single week? It would be misery, and not something you can stick with.

I shudder to think what kind of binge comes Monday. This fasting plan is a lot more restrictive than No S. At no point does No S require you to fast. The fasting plan is really just codified binging and purging. You would never be able to fix any kind of food issues with this plan.

noni wrote:I've been doing intermittent fasting since Aug. I have tried previously, but have not lost weight, because I would make up for lost calories. When I combine it with No S...bingo! I have lost weight on No S alone as well, but very slowly as my S days are always reckless and my N days are heavily caloried as I like to cook rich food. My intermittent fasting hours are growing closer and closer together, though, so not sure if I will continue. If not, I'll have to readjust my plate and S days, so as not to regain my weight loss.

Noni, just my opinion, but why would your intermittent fasting (a.k.a. time between meals) be growing closer together? Your meals should be spread out throughout the day. If you are eating calorie-rich food, then that should be enough to tide you about 5-6 hours between meals. If you are binging on the weekends perhaps it is because you are fasting and your body is rebelling.

I don't think our ancestors actually ate nothing between big hunts, but they probably ate less. Our problem is that we feast every day, even in comparison to our more recent ancestors.

If only I'd made the No-s diet a touch crazier I would have been rich.

Still, this is encouraging in the sense that any movement away from permasnacking is encouraging.

For most people these days, not eating between meals *IS* a kind of fast.

(break-fast has got it built right into the name!)

So I'd suggest starting there, and consider more extreme options only if that doesn't do the trick.

Hmm... maybe if I rebrand the no s diet as "the intermittent fasting between meals diet," or perhaps "the meal/fast diet" I too will hit the #1 slot on amazon!

Reinhard

Greek-style fasting does seem extremely healthy to me. You eat every day and don't skip meals, but sometimes those meals are more frugal. And then once in a while you have a feast. If every day is a feast, then feasts stop being special and enjoyable.

Thalia wrote:Greek-style fasting does seem extremely healthy to me. You eat every day and don't skip meals, but sometimes those meals are more frugal. And then once in a while you have a feast. If every day is a feast, then feasts stop being special and enjoyable.

From what I've read, that's essentially what this book recommends. You eat every day, but on the fasting days you eat much less.

Reinhard -- you should have called No-S "The Twelve Hour Fast" or something like that.

Earlier this year I posted about all the new diets I'd seen mentioned on various TV news or talk shows. One of them was The Eight Hour Diet by David Zinczenko. Essentially the plan was that you eat anything you want for 8 hours every day, then fast for the remaining 16 hours. I thought about that when I read your post yesterday. Out of curiosity I went and read the reviews on Amazon. Apparently a lot of people have gained weight instead of losing. He of the "Eat This, Not That" fame was encouraging people to eat anything they wanted without restriction during that 8 hour period.

Leafy-greens, I do IF only 2Xweek. My hours grow closer only on IF days. They should be about 24 hours ( I always eat dinner those days), and started out that way, but lately I've been closing the IF hours to 19 or 20 before I eat something like a piece of fruit before dinner. I did do No S a few years ago and lost weight, but I still had gluttonous weekends, too many red days, even without IF. It's me, not No S. I guess it's disordered eating for over 50 years that's not letting me break a bad habit. I been doing No S in earnest since June of last year, so I'm hopeful. Looking forward to dumping at least one day of IF soon as I'm close to normal weight, but I really have to take hard look at weekends to keep weight off. It's tough because I'm 56 years old, pretty sedentary, and short and takes so little food to satisfy me When I read a post of someone, say like oolala, I'm encouraged because it took her...what?... 3 years before she started getting her eating under control on S days.

wosnes wrote: a new book on intermittent fasting.

I've studied and experimented with almost all of the intermittent fasting diets,
and some of you might be interested in this recent article about the concept.
http://www.diethobby.com/blog.php?ax=v&nid=807

@Noni Yep, that's why I'm not doing any mods on S-days right now. If you leave it alone (even for a long time) it will probably work itself out. Oolala also has some studies that show it takes 3-5 years to build the habit which is discouraging but at least there's nothing "wrong" with us for not clicking within 21 days. Most people it takes much longer but no reason to give up. What's frustrating for me is that it would have been three years for me already if I'd just given it a chance the first time, instead of freaking out that it wasn't clicking after a month.

leafy_greens wrote:@Noni Yep, that's why I'm not doing any mods on S-days right now. If you leave it alone (even for a long time) it will probably work itself out. Oolala also has some studies that show it takes 3-5 years to build the habit which is discouraging but at least there's nothing "wrong" with us for not clicking within 21 days. Most people it takes much longer but no reason to give up. What's frustrating for me is that it would have been three years for me already if I'd just given it a chance the first time, instead of freaking out that it wasn't clicking after a month.

Way back in another post about the French and their eating habits, someone posted that it takes 17 years to teach a French child to eat like a French adult (eat only at the table, no snacks, eat what you're served and so on). While i had No-S memorized in a minute, it took much longer for it to become habit.

I've reported that it takes 3-5 years of practice to change eating habits to eating less, and there's still a relapse rate even then. That's extrapolating from information posted on the National Weight Loss Registry site.

Leave it to Reinhard to come up with the perfect dry response about how he'd be rich if he'd made this a touch crazier. Except that No S isn't even a touch crazy.

But I do think it might work to try re-releasing the book with a title using Fast Between Meals, which I read either in the book or somewhere else on the site.

reinhard wrote:If only I'd made the No-s diet a touch crazier I would have been rich.


Reinhard

No *nacks, no *econds, no *weets, no u*ing the letter * on weekday*