Coca-Cola and McDonalds Diet

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
User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Coca-Cola and McDonalds Diet

Post by spiralstares » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:50 pm

We've talked about a lot of different diets here; Atkins, Leptin, 3-hour diet, etc. I'm going to add one more to the mix.

If the simplicity and variety of the No-S diet has you feeling like you're not on a "real" diet, perhaps you'd like to try this diet that I used to lose 35 pounds in 6 weeks in 1995.

Breakfast: Can of coke.
Lunch: Can of coke.
Dinner: Any medium sized McDonalds extra value meal (except the double Quarterpounder with cheese).

This worked especially well for me because I love coke and love McDonalds. I also don't usually get hungry during the day until I've eaten something, so it wasn't hard for me to wait to eat until dinner.

I actually went on this diet again this summer and lost ten pounds in a couple weeks. Then I decided I wanted something healthier and with more variety and that's when I happened upon No-S.

So no, I'm not actually suggesting anyone go on this diet, although it did work for me in the short-term, and would probably work for anyone in the short-term. But ultimately it suffers from the same inherent problem as any diet that requires you to eat differently to lose the weight then you would when you're at your goal weight (as I went on about in this thread... http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=316 ).

And it goes without saying that while it may be effective it could be the least healthy diet you could go on. (With the possible exception of one of my other creations, The Fruity Pebbles and Candy Bar diet.)

User avatar
JWL
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by JWL » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:01 pm

oh my god. I can't imagine going on that diet at all.... I would just feel horrible. There is next to no nutritional intake in that.... no wonder you lost weight, you're basically starving yourself of nutrition!

Don't mean to be judgmental or anything, but if I only get 1 meal a day I can't imagine it being mcdonalds.... bleah.
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:14 pm

Actually, if this diet proves one thing it's that weight loss has little to do with nutrition. You can eat poorly and gain weight (as most people do) or eat poorly and lose weight.

I felt great when I was on this diet, but I usually feel great anyway.

User avatar
Jammin' Jan
Posts: 2002
Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: The Village

Post by Jammin' Jan » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:38 pm

I don't think I would make it through the first day! Coke in the daytime with no food would have the acid eating right through my stomach lining, and McD's for dinner would have so much grease it would make me want to shave my tongue.

I'm so glad you found your way to No-S!!!

P.S. I'm not being judgemental either about McDonald's...my daughter works there!
"Self-denial's a great sweetener of pleasure."
(Patrick McGoohan's "The Prisoner")

User avatar
ClickBeetle
Posts: 410
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:28 pm
Location: North Carolina, USA

Post by ClickBeetle » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:24 pm

Oh, that is too nasty for words, if you'll pardon my saying so.
Chance favors the prepared. - Louis Pasteur

User avatar
reinhard
Site Admin
Posts: 5918
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:38 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA
Contact:

Post by reinhard » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:23 pm

If you replaced the cokes with fruit juice or milk, it could technically qualify as no-s. :-)

User avatar
gratefuldeb67
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Great Neck, NY

Post by gratefuldeb67 » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:33 pm

Spiral, what were your eating habits like before you "dieted" LOL... And were you a "big man"?
I mean, if you were eating three large value meals and six cokes a day, maybe you lost weight just because of the reduction in calories in...
You also aren't mentioning whether you did any form of exercise...

I tried a very bizzare diet for about two weeks a long time ago, just for fun because it seemed so weird and it was totally experimental and just out of curiosity...
(I'll try almost anything once... LOL...)
The idea was to combine certain food groups...
Weird combos...
A typical meal was two hotdogs, a cup of vanilla ice cream (why vanilla I don't know! LOL) and a cup of cooked broccoli!!!
Ha ha...
Yeah, I lost ten pounds too...
No clue what the long term benefits would ever be on that, since it wasn't even recommended for long term...
There you go...
Oh I won't be trying out your diet today...
The candy bar diet sounds interesting~ :lol:
Thanks for the laughs!
Peace and Love,
8) Deb

User avatar
Blondie
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:36 pm

Post by Blondie » Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:03 pm

Deb - Is that the 3 day diet? If so, my coworker is doing it RIGHT NOW!! The one with tuna and saltines and coffee and tea??

Kevin
Posts: 1269
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Maryland, USA

Coke and McDonalds diet

Post by Kevin » Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:10 pm

I don't think it would work for me... I only like the DQP with Cheese...

Did you get a coke with the extra value meal, too?

Was this your invention, or did someone actually recommend this to you? :0)
Kevin
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."

User avatar
gratefuldeb67
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Great Neck, NY

Post by gratefuldeb67 » Wed Sep 14, 2005 7:45 pm

I don't know Mandy, but I don't think so...
It was given to me around 18 years ago... LOL...
Supposedly the person who was distributing and touting it's benefits was a Cardiologist !!!! LOL...
Hugs,
8) Deb

User avatar
Blondie
Posts: 309
Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 6:36 pm

Post by Blondie » Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:37 pm

I bet it is: "The 3 day diet focuses on mixing certain types of foods that supposedly create a specific metabolic reaction in your body..."

Then they go on to talk about the hot dogs, vanilla ice cream, broccoli, saltines, etc.

http://www.thedietchannel.com/3-day-diet.htm

Also,
"The Cardiac Diet is actually a simple program that has been known by many other names. It has been known as: American Heart Association 3 day diet; 3 Day Heart diet; 3 Day Cardiac diet..." etc.

I'll let you know if my coworker loses weight!! haha

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:37 pm

"maybe you lost weight just because of the reduction in calories... "
What do you mean "just because of the reduction in calories"? The only way you lose weight on any diet is by a calorie deficit.

The Coke and McDonalds diet is actually a very low calorie diet at approximately 1300 calories.

That's about 400 calories less than a sedentary 120 pound woman will burn in a day.

I'm very pragmatic, so it was a good diet for me as a college sophomore. It was inexpensive, quick, easy, and I never had to think about it.

User avatar
gratefuldeb67
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Great Neck, NY

Post by gratefuldeb67 » Wed Sep 14, 2005 10:34 pm

I'm very pragmatic, so it was a good diet for me as a college sophomore. It was inexpensive, quick, easy, and I never had to think about it.

Okay....

User avatar
JWL
Posts: 634
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:58 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Post by JWL » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:50 am

spiralstares, did you ever see Super Size Me?
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net

User avatar
snazzybabe
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by snazzybabe » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:28 am

spiralstares wrote:
"maybe you lost weight just because of the reduction in calories... "
What do you mean "just because of the reduction in calories"? The only way you lose weight on any diet is by a calorie deficit.

The Coke and McDonalds diet is actually a very low calorie diet at
You lost weight as you say on the Coke and McDonalds because it is a very low calorie diet and like you say you had a calorie deficit. You can also lose weight by using up all your energy/calories by exercising.
Sometimes when you go on a low-calorie diet for too long you end up with a very slow metabolism. So your body doesn't need so much calories to function and you end up not losing any weight even though you are on a very low-calorie diet.

Another thing about calorie deficit. When you do Atkins in the beginning you end up eating a whole lot more calories and still lose weight - so you are not in a calorie deficit. So, what some people believe is that eating more protein and fat (and then going into ketosis) causes your body to use your body fat for fuel instead of carbohydrates and using fat for fuel requires the body to use more energy.

The coke and mcdonalds diet did work for you in the short-term. So even though its not healthy you only did it for a little while. It was probably a really good shock to your system which helped you lose weight.
Last edited by snazzybabe on Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:37 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:33 am

spiralstares, did you ever see Super Size Me?
Yeah, I did. It was a pretty entertaining movie although intellectually kind of dishonest and silly. And of course its premise has been thoroughly debunked.

Soso Whaley also ate solely at mcdonalds for a month and she lost 10 pounds and her cholesterol dropped 40 points.

http://www.acsh.org/news/newsID.963/news_detail.asp

Here's someone else who lost 37 pounds...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8916080/

I was ahead of my time!

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:47 am

Sometimes when you go on a low-calorie diet for too long you end up with a very slow metabolism. So you body doesn't need so much calories to function and you end up not losing any weight even though you are on a very low-calorie diet.
This seems to be common diet wisdom, but it's a bit of a canard. The amount your metabolism can change by reducing your caloric intake is minimal. Think of an anorexic person who is eating only 400 calories a day. Their body doesn't compensate for that and keep them at a healthy 130 pounds, no they go down to 70 pounds and then they die. Or think of a person adrift at see for a couple months. They're skin and bones when they're rescued and they don't all of a sudden become really fat because their metabolism dropped to nothing while they were at sea and now they're eating normally.

If you meet someone who isn't eating much and they're not losing weight, then what you've discovered is a person who is a perpetual motion machine, and such a thing is a myth in science.

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:48 am

Again, I'm not saying eating the way I did was healthy or a good idea. If I thought it was, I'd still probably be eating that way.

User avatar
snazzybabe
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by snazzybabe » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:50 am

You can't stay on a low-calorie diet forever as you can't sustain it. You eventually start eating a lot more calories and start putting weight on. A person who is anorexic or stranded on an island doesn't eat for a very long time. Of course you are eventually going to start losing weight.

Also, your body can't function properly on 400 calories so its going to have to canobalize itself.

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:00 am

Yes, of course. I wasn't suggesting anybody actually eat 400 calories a day. But at 1200 or 1500 calories a day, you're not exactly starving yourself. You're just taking in fewer calories than you are burning during the day, and that's the definition of weight loss.

Of course, the reason most of us are here is because we're not interested in counting calories. No-S is just a simplified version of calorie restriction without the counting.

User avatar
gratefuldeb67
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Great Neck, NY

Post by gratefuldeb67 » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:07 am

Hi Snazzy!
Love,
8) Deb

User avatar
snazzybabe
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by snazzybabe » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:20 am

spiralstares wrote:Yes, of course. I wasn't suggesting anybody actually eat 400 calories a day. But at 1200 or 1500 calories a day, you're not exactly starving yourself. You're just taking in fewer calories than you are burning during the day, and that's the definition of weight loss.
I know you weren't suggesting anybody eat 400 calories a day. You were comparing someone who eats 400 calories to someone who eats 1200 and there is no comparison.
Someone eating 1200 worth of calories, can slow down their metabolism and not experience any weight loss because the body can compensate. But if you are eating 400 calories it can't compensate.

Anyway, who wants to count calories. I'd rather eat 3 solid meals and leave the calorie counting or points counting to weight watchers or some other diet.

Hi Debs - are you still awake. I'm sure its past your bed-time - U.S. time?

User avatar
gratefuldeb67
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Great Neck, NY

Post by gratefuldeb67 » Thu Sep 15, 2005 4:34 am

Yeah, your right Snazzers, it is... I'm on an emailing frenzy kick right now.. LOL...
But I'm going to sleep though....
Right about,,,,,,,,,,

Now!
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.........................................
Have fun in Perth today!
Good night/morning/afternoon, or whatever it is!
8) P&L, Deb

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Thu Sep 15, 2005 6:07 am

Someone eating 1200 worth of calories, can slow down their metabolism and not experience any weight loss because the body can compensate. But if you are eating 400 calories it can't compensate.
Hey snazzybabe. Your knowledge of how metabolism works is a little incomplete, as is most people's. Mine was too until I lived with a physicist and a nutritionist and learned a lot about the subject. I got a chance to read a facsimile of Santorio Santorio's book on the subject, which is a fun book even if you're not really into science.

On the off chance anyone is interested in the biochemistry of metabolism, this site has information on all the types of metabolism.

http://www.rpi.edu/dept/bcbp/molbiochem ... index.html

The fact is that eating a low calorie diet (whether No-S or some other low calorie diet) is not going to have a significant effect on you metabolism and it's going to have even less of an effect on the rate you burn calories. (The metabolic rate and the rate at which you burn calories is not a 1:1 ratio.)

Hmmmm, I forgot how boring talking about metabolism is. Sorry!

User avatar
snazzybabe
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:44 am
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Post by snazzybabe » Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:49 am

That site seems a tad too scientific for me. I will have a look - if I can make any sense of it.

User avatar
peetie
Posts: 277
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 5:18 pm

Post by peetie » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:33 pm

Spiral, I have always wondered about that lowering metabolism theory myself. I tend to think the reason you can gain back weight after losing on a low cal diet so easily is you are now maintaining a lower weight, so you need fewer calories to maintain it than when you weighed 50 lbs. more. I also think, as far as the starving and then getting fat after food is reintroduced is more due to eating huge amounts due to the fact you've been hungry so long. Overcompensation. So, ofcourse they will gain a lot of weight due to the fact they are eating so much.....not necessarily that they lowered their metabolism.

I can't prove any of this in a court of law or in a lab of science. Just observation and my own, often convoluted thinking.

Peetie

User avatar
spiralstares
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:55 pm

Post by spiralstares » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:16 pm

Yes, I would guess that the majority of the people who gain weight back after they lose it do so because they go back to eating the way they used to, so it's no surprise they gain it back. The beauty of No-S is that it's a relatively painless plan that you can stick to for life.

There are a ton of myths about how metabolism works and what can affect it and to what degree it can be affected. The reason there is so much misinformation out there is that most people aren't getting their information from, say, The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, but from someone who's trying to sell them something.

For example, another "myth" you hear often is that muscle burns more calories than fat. I put myth in quotes because technically it's true, but the resultant effects are so negligible as to have almost no impact on someone trying to lose weight.

User avatar
navin
Posts: 414
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 12:23 pm
Location: Kentucky

Post by navin » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:07 pm

This has been quite an interesting discussion. I think I figured out what I've been doing wrong all these years... who'd have thought it's becuase I'm eating at *Wendy's*!!! It looks like all I need to do is switch to McDuck's and I'll be good to go. 8)
Before criticizing someone, you should try walking a mile in their shoes. Then you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes.

User avatar
gratefuldeb67
Posts: 6256
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
Location: Great Neck, NY

Post by gratefuldeb67 » Thu Sep 15, 2005 7:48 pm

"The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese"

And the Navin gets the hug!!!
(ps.. I like Wendys too! Good chili!)

Peace and Love,
8) Deb

Post Reply