most weight loss comes from individual changes

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 12:04 am

Just reading the intro of the book The Truth about Addiction and Recovery, published in 1991, that an American Health magazine survey found that for those who had lost at least 10% of their weight and maintained for 3 or more years, 42% had cut out snacks and desserts, and 37% had cut down overall eating. (Some of these overlapped.) The least used techniques were weight loss groups (9%), protein powders and other special foods (3%) and diet books (1%): the three that people spend the most money on, I'd bet.

So, No S hits the spot.

Since this was relatively old data, I googled the topic and found a 2009 article that found similar ideas.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/ ... J520090119

But I'd bet that nowadays, online support would figure in. In the end, we just come to terms with what we're willing to do and we do it, even if it's in fits and starts.

Dale · Post by **Dale** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:47 pm

Did the 42% cut out snacks and deserts entirely? You'd think it would be easier to stick with something more moderate (like No S), but maybe not? It's interesting that such a high proportion didn't use books or groups. I wonder why they chose such low weight loss (10%) to look at, though. I'd like to see if there's any difference with people who have lost more. (I'd have to lose getting on for 50% to get back to my original weight).

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:16 pm

They didn't go into too much detail, though I would imagine people wouldn't cut out all desserts permanently.

I think they look at 10% because on average that amount has been shown to provide the most health benefits for the amount of effort. People definitely do not have to lose enough weight to put them in the "normal" range to experience big gains in a decrease in disease markers. Of course, individuals may differ.

Dale · Post by **Dale** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:11 am

My original goal was 10% for that reason. But now I've lost it, I'm still a bit lost about what I should aim for. Another 10%? My original weight? Is it better/easier/more sustainable to try to maintain that higher weight rather than continue to lose? Or is it always better to aim for a normal BMI? I've never quite found the answers!

I suppose the main thing is that once you lose weight, you're always on a diet if you want to keep it off, and it will be harder than if you had never put it on.

I don't suppose the studies mean that using a book like No S will actually adversely affect your weight loss, simply that more people are successful without one, I suppose?

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Sun Oct 21, 2012 1:30 pm

No S is just pretty much what the majority of people used, so I don't think it hurts to use it at all.

The article wasn't making any recommendations besides drawing your own conclusions from the fact that the majority of people who maintained a weight loss used basic guidelines that didn't involve cutting calories or making drastic changes to cut back on food. It just showed that the strategies that are most often touted (commercial systems, diet books that count calories or dictate meal plans) were not that successful.

My own recommendation is not to worry about having a weight loss goal at all unless it's been prescribed medically. Practice the habits and be honest about whether you think you are still piling too much on your plates or are not joyful in what extra food you eat on S days, i.e., just eating because you can. Get some regular movement into your life that you can be consistent with. I wouldn't mind being thinner but I really don't feel too full from my meals, I already eat lots of freggies and not much refined food, and I do get consistently hungry, so personally, I'm not willing to do much more than just shave off the few extras that sometimes don't leave me feeling vital and energetic. Determine a lifestyle of eating and movement that makes you feel great and relish the body it provides. Congratulate yourself on having it handled. Then throw yourself into the rest of life- work, relationships, talents, relaxation, contemplation/spirit. To me, that is the real gift of No S.

Dale · Post by **Dale** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 9:13 am

I was looking at this a while ago on the National Weight Control Registry site.

http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm

It's a bit more positive about losing weight with a program (like No S, I suppose), rather than without.

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:10 pm

For my money, No S is much more like no program than one of the traditional programs that are usually being referred to, so I feel great about it as a moderate living plan. I still choose how far apart my meals are and what I eat at them, besides sweets. If people want to restrict themselves more, they can and do.

I did learn some very good things about persistence and thwarting the WTH effect from the NWLR, but I like the numbers of the research group in those two big "moderate living labs" in Europe called France and Italy. Savored meals, no snacking, a LOT less refined sugar consumption, joyful contemplation of eating and a lot of walking (or something analogous).

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:46 pm

oolala53 wrote: I did learn some very good things about persistence and thwarting the WTH effect from the NWLR, but I like the numbers of the research group in those two big "moderate living labs" in Europe called France and Italy. Savored meals, no snacking, a LOT less refined sugar consumption, joyful contemplation of eating and a lot of walking (or something analogous).

If you've ever read my posts, you know that I completely missed the one plate rule for about the first year I followed No-S. "Seconds" literally meant a second serving of something. By the time I realized there was a one plate rule, I couldn't see a reason to change what I was doing because it was working for me.

You also know I've read a lot about the eating habits of the Italians and more recently the French. About a month ago I decided that since most adults in both countries rarely (or never) snack, I wasn't going to snack except very occasionally; usually if a meal was going to be delayed a long time.

A couple of weeks ago I decided to try structuring my meals like the French do. There's usually a starter, main course, cheese course and dessert (usually fruit). With the exception of the starter, I do get the rest of it on one plate, but have smaller servings of everything.

I don't get this done at every meal, at least not yet, but I try. The thing I've noticed is that even though I'm not eating more food, I'm far more satisfied.