Quesion About No Snacking - Has The Author Commented On This

[Hey Man]

I have yet to read the book, but I will be doing so - because it does sound like a way of eating and ultimate weight loss plan that I can master.

However I was wondering if the author has commented on the idea that by eating healthy snacks in between meals all day, ones metabolism is increased and thus the potential for serious weight loss is greater. No to mention healthy snacks give you the fuel to work out after work for example before you have your dinner.

One other concern is that by not snacking on anything - even if it's an apple or yogurt, one might overload on dinner just because they are so hungry. For someone with a food obsession, poor portion control or who is an emotional eater, I wonder if it's even realistic to expect the person to just start having a normal plate of 10 chicken wings instead of 40 for example - considering chicken wings are my weakness. I know it's about willpower, but is the secret to it all - having the weekend to look forward to, so that you can enjoy eating the things you love in moderation?

[tarantinofan]

Welcome Hey Man (nice name btw)! All of ur questions are addressed in the book, and I'd definitely recommend reading it. In the mean time, I can sort of answer your answers based on what I remember from reading the book.

Yes, your metabolism increases if you eat more times per day HOWEVER this is only a very small change in your metabolism. When you are eating in a laboratory setting with a set amounts of calories, you will lose a little bit more weight than if you were just eating 3 meals a day. But, outside of a laboratory setting, this slight metabolic increase is counteracted by the great increase in calories that come from eating more times a day. Why do we eat more if we eat more often? Because there are psychological aspects to eating, as well. More opportunities to eat means more opportunities to overeat.

You can't overload very easily on dinner if you only have 1 plate. In my experience (and I think most No S-ers), eating has a lot to do with what you see. It wouldn't be pretty to put 40 chicken wings on your plate, so you'd probably avoid that excess. I know I wouldn't want anyone to see my plate piled high with all that chicken lol

I honestly don't now what the secret to No S is, but I think it has something to do with the whole moderation thing you're getting at...

I hope I helped answer your questions, but I'd really recommend reading Reinhard's book because I'm basically just paraphrasing from memory...All your questions are really answered in it!

[StrawberryRoan]

I think to answer your question one would just need to glance around at the nation of snackers we have become.

Do we look healthier than our ancestors, do we look fitter, leaner, trimmer?

[wosnes]

I think to answer your question one would just need to glance around at the nation of snackers we have become.

Do we look healthier than our ancestors, do we look fitter, leaner, trimmer?

Yes to what SR said! Look at pictures of your family members from the 1960s and earlier. Chances are that no one is significantly overweight. I have pictures of my grandparents 50th anniversary (in 1957!). The only one who appears to be even slightly overweight is my grandmother -- and she had been in a wheelchair for 40 years at that time. Honestly, she wasn't as overweight as most people who aren't in wheelchairs now.

I'm not even going to say that those people never snacked. I remember after school snacks and a snack during the evening for those who wanted it. But it was "just a little something" -- often ice cream. And the bowls it was served in were smaller and a serving was about 1/2 cup. The bowls I have now could probably hold a quart of ice cream. One serving looks like a taste in my bowls!

However, everyone was more active then -- including my grandmother! I think the only household task she didn't do was the laundry and that was because the washer was in the basement and she couldn't get down there. Kids actually played outdoors.

One of the reasons I've read for snacking is something you mention -- eating something now so you won't eat more later. Huh? Does that really make sense? Why not just eat a little more at mealtime?

[Hey Man]

I think to answer your question one would just need to glance around at the nation of snackers we have become.

Do we look healthier than our ancestors, do we look fitter, leaner, trimmer?

No, but I have noticed that people who do work out and are very healthy swear by eating 5 or 6 times a day. The difference is those 5 or 6 times of eating isn't the same kinds of foods or portions that we have been eating.

[Blithe Morning]

Hey Man,

Have you read the original published research "proving" snacking boosts your metabolism ergo you burn more calories? I've read magazine articles that referred to the research (although they never seem to cite it). And I did a quick search on Google Scholar and Pub Med for "snacks increase metabolism".

Nothing. I realize I probably should try different search term since I don't think researchers call snacks "snacks".

[Hey Man]

I think to answer your question one would just need to glance around at the nation of snackers we have become.

Do we look healthier than our ancestors, do we look fitter, leaner, trimmer?

Yes to what SR said! Look at pictures of your family members from the 1960s and earlier. Chances are that no one is significantly overweight. I have pictures of my grandparents 50th anniversary (in 1957!). The only one who appears to be even slightly overweight is my grandmother -- and she had been in a wheelchair for 40 years at that time. Honestly, she wasn't as overweight as most people who aren't in wheelchairs now.

I'm not even going to say that those people never snacked. I remember after school snacks and a snack during the evening for those who wanted it. But it was "just a little something" -- often ice cream. And the bowls it was served in were smaller and a serving was about 1/2 cup. The bowls I have now could probably hold a quart of ice cream. One serving looks like a taste in my bowls!

However, everyone was more active then -- including my grandmother! I think the only household task she didn't do was the laundry and that was because the washer was in the basement and she couldn't get down there. Kids actually played outdoors.

One of the reasons I've read for snacking is something you mention -- eating something now so you won't eat more later. Huh? Does that really make sense? Why not just eat a little more at mealtime?

It makes perfect sense. Someone with a food problem like me who is starving from lunch until dinner time is more likely to overeat at dinner time. In fact, I will tell you that I could order a large pizza and some wings and eat it all myself. Now is it possible that if I felt fuller during the day, I may not eat as much at dinner time? I would think so.

[Hey Man]

Hey Man,

Have you read the original published research "proving" snacking boosts your metabolism ergo you burn more calories? I've read magazine articles that referred to the research (although they never seem to cite it). And I did a quick search on Google Scholar and Pub Med for "snacks increase metabolism".

Nothing. I realize I probably should try different search term since I don't think researchers call snacks "snacks".

All I am saying is that the nutrionists and health freaks that I have encountered in my desire to lose weight, have told me that I need to eat more healthy meals/snacks during the day thus speading up my metabolism and along with working out - i will burn more calories. If they are wrong so be it, but I don't have the book yet and I wanted to know the author's stance.

[wosnes]

Here's what the author says (from the No-S Diet page):

What do you mean by "snacks?"

Snacks are "when," not "what." For No S Diet purposes, anything you eat between meals is a snack. The kind of food has nothing to do with it. So pretzels with lunch is lunch. Maybe not a particularly healthy lunch, but the No S Diet delegates that particular micro-decision to you.

What about healthy snacks?

Eat healthy meals. If you know you have just three, you'll make them count. I'm perfectly aware that an orange between meals is not going kill you, that, taken in itself, it's perfectly healthy. But the idea is to have the orange instead of, not in addition to, and in justification of, some unhealthy part of your meal. The problem is primarily one of self-discipline, and if you start making all kinds of exceptions, you'll fail.

But every other diet guru tells me I SHOULD snack!

"No snacks" is the rule that people seem to have the most trouble accepting. But I think it's also the most important rule.

People act as if snacking is this natural thing that would be cruel to deprive themselves of. But the truth is, historically speaking, snacking is a very recent eating behavior. No one did it to any degree worth mentioning until very recently - when we promptly started getting fat. According to an analysis of USDA food consumption data by David Cutler at Harvard University, 90 percent of the increase in calorie consumption in men in the United States since 1977 has come from between-meal eating. For women, it's 112 percent -- calories from meals have actually gone down. (Journal of Economic Perspectives "Why have Americans Become More Obese?" Page 101) http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmshapir/obesity.pdf

So with this one rule, just two words, you've got a 90-plus percent solution to the problem of over-consumption.

You'll find the same correlation when you look at the issue across societies: obesity rates move in lockstep with calories derived from snacking. The skinny French snack on average less than once a day compared to our three ( http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/fren ... t-fat-diet ). The even skinnier Chinese barely snack at all ( http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v11/n ... 3132a.html ).

The reason snackers eat so much more food is simple: it's impossible for them to keep track of how much they're eating without resorting to unsustainable behaviors like counting calories. They can't eyeball excess anymore, as they could with discrete meals. Excess sneaks right past them in lots of tiny increments, none of which seems like much in itself, but adding up, at the end of the day, to a tremendous amount.

Why is it that despite these pretty shocking statistics you almost never hear anything but pro-snack messages? Simple. "Follow the money." You can't sell "no snacks." Snacks, on the other hand, especially the booming "healthy" snack segment, are a multibillion-dollar industry. And the surest sign of having made it as a diet guru these days is having your name on an "energy bar" of some sort, so they're all in on it, too.

(Lengthier anti-snack jeremaid here - http://everydaysystems.com/podcast/episode.php?id=28 )

[Kathleen]

Hey Man,

I've only lost 15 pounds in a year, and I have 65 to go, so I am very disappointed by the slow weight loss.

The big change for me has not been the change in weight. It's been the loss of a constant feeling of being starved. Every hour. Every minute.

With this diet, I literally was gripping the edge of my chair to get through the first few weeks of no snacking. Then it got easier. After several months, I realized I didn't even think about food between meals.


Kathleen

[reitschule]

I think to answer your question one would just need to glance around at the nation of snackers we have become.

Do we look healthier than our ancestors, do we look fitter, leaner, trimmer?

No, but I have noticed that people who do work out and are very healthy swear by eating 5 or 6 times a day. The difference is those 5 or 6 times of eating isn't the same kinds of foods or portions that we have been eating.

I used to be one of the workout warriors eating 5-6 times per day. Perhaps "warrior" is a misnomer -- I always did more reading than actually lifting weights. But it's a bad habit. I began to eat much more frequently in high school, along with taking a weight gainer and protein powder, when I was on the football team and tired of being 6'3 160lbs beanpole skinny (the grass is always greener). I gained maybe 15 lean lbs, but kept up the eating habits into my early 20s as I began to yo-yo in bodybuilding. By 23 I was finally over my 16yo goal of 200lbs...and flabby. I read about the NoS diet and the benefits of caloric restriction and intermittent fasting, and gradually moved from standard NoS to eating 3 meals on day 1, 24hour fast then 1 meal on day 2 -- something I never thought I would be able to do while I was acclimated to near-constant grazing.

Does it really matter as far as weight loss is concerned? I don't think so; how many calories you're taking in per day is what matters. Personally, I like the feeling of being genuinely full (not *stuffed*, but full) after a meal, and counting calories is a drag, so I just eat less often. It may be slightly less metabolically efficient, but it's worth it to cut out the conceptual overhead.

[reitschule]

Hey Man,

I've only lost 15 pounds in a year, and I have 65 to go, so I am very disappointed by the slow weight loss.

The big change for me has not been the change in weight. It's been the loss of a constant feeling of being starved. Every hour. Every minute.

With this diet, I literally was gripping the edge of my chair to get through the first few weeks of no snacking. Then it got easier. After several months, I realized I didn't even think about food between meals.


Kathleen

Hi Kathleen,

Was the 15lb loss gradual or largely at the beginning? If the latter, I would hazard a guess that it began to slow down after your diet got easier and the feelings of hunger abated. To lose more weight you will have to take steps to re-awaken that hunger, so I hope you didn't part on bad terms so to speak.

[Hey Man]

Hey Man,

I've only lost 15 pounds in a year, and I have 65 to go, so I am very disappointed by the slow weight loss.

The big change for me has not been the change in weight. It's been the loss of a constant feeling of being starved. Every hour. Every minute.

With this diet, I literally was gripping the edge of my chair to get through the first few weeks of no snacking. Then it got easier. After several months, I realized I didn't even think about food between meals.


Kathleen

I would say on any diet or weight control way of eating - 15 pounds is not really that effective in a year. It would seem that something is a little off - be it how often you exercise or what you are eating. A one to two pound a week weight loss is perfectly acceptable after an intial jump of weight loss in the beginning.

[wosnes]

I would say on any diet or weight control way of eating - 15 pounds is not really that effective in a year. It would seem that something is a little off - be it how often you exercise or what you are eating. A one to two pound a week weight loss is perfectly acceptable after an intial jump of weight loss in the beginning.

You'd be right in saying that, too, especially if you're talking about the diets that cause you to be a calorie accountant or deprive you of groups of foods or the foods you most enjoy (any treats) or cause you to feel extreme guilt if you do eat those foods.

But No-S is more about moderation, about changing the habits that led to weight gain and will encourage weight loss. It's about not giving up any of the foods you enjoy, but maybe enjoying a little less of them a little less often without guilt.

In his article Our National Eating Disorder Michael Pollan wrote:

No wonder we have become, in the midst of our astounding abundance, the world's most anxious eaters. A few years ago, Paul Rozin, a University of Pennsylvania psychologist, and Claude Fischler, a French sociologist, began collaborating on a series of cross-cultural surveys of food attitudes. They found that of the four populations surveyed (the U.S., France, Flemish Belgium and Japan), Americans associated food with health the most and pleasure the least. Asked what comes to mind upon hearing the phrase ''chocolate cake,'' Americans were more apt to say ''guilt,'' while the French said ''celebration''; ''heavy cream'' elicited ''unhealthy'' from Americans, ''whipped'' from the French. The researchers found that Americans worry more about food and derive less pleasure from eating than people in any other nation they surveyed.

No-S lets us continue to enjoy food and eating.

Our National Eating Disorder:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magaz ... =cse&scp=1

[DaveMc]

I would say on any diet or weight control way of eating - 15 pounds is not really that effective in a year. It would seem that something is a little off - be it how often you exercise or what you are eating. A one to two pound a week weight loss is perfectly acceptable after an intial jump of weight loss in the beginning.

I think one needs to think about this as being for the long haul: if you're going to be able to keep up this mode of eating for the rest of your life, then it doesn't really matter how fast you lose. Sure, you might be able to lose weight faster using other methods, but are you going to be able to sustain them indefinitely? I think there's a danger of viewing weight loss as a project to be completed, as if you can force your way through a temporary phase and then stop once the scale says what you want it to say -- that sort of mind-set is what leads to gaining all the weight back, since you get to the magic number and say, "Great, now I'm done." What I like about NoS is that it's simple and convenient enough that I can picture keeping with it forever -- so what do I care if the weight loss is at a rate of a quarter pound a week?

Another thing to keep in mind is that even maintaining a constant weight is already a victory: most people tend to get heavier over time, so any rate of loss already puts you ahead. (And, again, maintenance is your eventual goal: sooner or later you're going to stop losing weight, and then the idea will be to just keep up your habits and stay where you are.)

[Hey Man]

For me, the goal is to lose weight at a good pace and in the process learn new moderation/portion habits. You have to understand, I am 380 pounds. 15 pounds in a year is just not acceptable for me personally.

What is ironic is that I actually lose weight quite quickly if I actually stick to a diet and workout program, but unfortunately food has won in the past.

So it will be trial and error with the No S Diet, until I find a happy medium that allows me to lose the usual pound or two weekly. I do like the idea of this way of eating, but it has to work for me and I may be required to make adjustments if I find that i am not losing. It's really all about the choices you are making for the 3 meals a day and how much exercise you are getting.

[Blithe Morning]

What is ironic is that I actually lose weight quite quickly if I actually stick to a diet and workout program, but unfortunately food has won in the past.

On No S, it's much harder for food to win.

There's an old joke that pertains here (slightly modified): Losing weight can be fast, easy and permanent as long as you only want two of the three.

I would bet at 380 lbs that if you did vanilla No S with exercise you'd lose much more than 15lbs a year at the beginning.

[wosnes]

For me, the goal is to lose weight at a good pace and in the process learn new moderation/portion habits. You have to understand, I am 380 pounds. 15 pounds in a year is just not acceptable for me personally.

What is ironic is that I actually lose weight quite quickly if I actually stick to a diet and workout program, but unfortunately food has won in the past.

So it will be trial and error with the No S Diet, until I find a happy medium that allows me to lose the usual pound or two weekly. I do like the idea of this way of eating, but it has to work for me and I may be required to make adjustments if I find that i am not losing. It's really all about the choices you are making for the 3 meals a day and how much exercise you are getting.

If you're 380 lbs, not snacking and cutting down to more reasonable portions is going to make a big difference in your weight rather quickly. You may even lose much more than a pound or two per week initially. As for Kathleen, obviously she's a woman and we women tend to have a much more difficult time losing weight, especially after we reach "a certain age." It's hormones and such.

S days aren't license to go wild -- with a few exceptions: Thanksgiving, Christmas and maybe Super Bowl Sunday (and maybe only if your team is playing). They are license to relax a little and enjoy the foods you like.
I don't think you got to 380 lbs eating 3 squares a day.

At first, concentrate on the habits: no snacks, no sweets, no seconds -- and only one reasonable serving of whatever is being served at a meal.

You might find this helpful for a simple idea of what reasonable portions are:
http://www.prevention.com/cda/article/p ... d.portions

[kccc]

Fifteen pounds may not sound like a lot, until you recognize that (a) before then, Kathleen was gaining - so NO loss would actually have been progress and (b) she focused initially on habits, not worrying about weight, in order to address her food issues. Most of that loss (if I recall correctly) is relatively recent. (Kathleen, correct me if I'm wrong - I probably shouldn't be speaking on your behalf here.)

My point is, there's a wide range of weight loss, depending on where people are and the choices they make. You might like to read the testamonials page to get as sense of the variety.

One thing to remember - this way of eating is like starting with maintenance. By the time the weight is off (and it WILL come off if you're eating 3 sensible meals), maintenance is so ingrained that you don't even think about it.

[TexArk]

Just to reinforce what KCCC has said so well.

Many of us on this board have lost weight many times in our lives by following a strict "accounting" "restricting" style diet. I have done that several times in my life along with exercising 60-90 minutes daily. Some are able to maintain their loss because they can continue doing this forever. Bright Angel comes to mind. However, most of us reached a point where we could not maintain a loss by focusing on counting, measuring, and generally focusing on food and the scale. So we came to NoS truly needing to learn maintenance first. The elimination of snacks automatically controls calories as well as eliminating food thoughts and decisions except for 3 times a day. And as others will attest, if you are not snacking you reach each meal hungry and ready to enjoy the meal. And, if the hunger is too strong we are allowed milk or juice.

Of course, you will lose weight if you are 100% NoS compliant and are getting a little exercise along the way. The more weight you have to lose the more lbs. per week you will lose. As you get closer to a normal weight it will slow down considerably.

For most of us the slow weight loss comes because we regress and have binges that negate some of our "perfect" days. As we keep the HabitCal we can see what we are really doing each day. It is slow for us because we are having to change bad habits and learn new ones. That is why we think we are successful if we are not gaining. Remember our pattern has been to go on a restrictive diet, lose, and then regain those pounds plus more. The longest I have maintained a weight loss has been 4 years of vigilant counting.

Hope all of this helps give you some information. The book really will be helpful to you in explaining the rationale.

[Kathleen]

Alas, I lost more weight at the beginning. I may actually have gained weight in the last few months. My low was 196.6, which occurred on June 21 and one day in August.

What happened?

Well, I think I can say that it's the human capacity for self-deception. I went down to one S Day on the weekend and then I started to tweak N Day eating -- it's OK to have sugared pop since I don't usually have pop, and it's OK to have dark chocolate since it's good for you, and ... you get the idea.

My scale broke last week. I'm not weighing myself much going forward. I decided I'd stick with this diet even if I don't lose any more weight. Am I satisfied at 200 pounds? No, but I have a husband and four children, and they need me to focus on something other than my weight.

Do I expect to be stuck at 200 pounds? No, I don't. I think I'll lose more weight now that I'll be on the lookout for more thoughts of "I can have this because..." I went back to both Saturday and Sunday being S Days.

Kathleen

[reitschule]

Alas, I lost more weight at the beginning. I may actually have gained weight in the last few months. My low was 196.6, which occurred on June 21 and one day in August.

What happened?

Well, I think I can say that it's the human capacity for self-deception. I went down to one S Day on the weekend and then I started to tweak N Day eating -- it's OK to have sugared pop since I don't usually have pop, and it's OK to have dark chocolate since it's good for you, and ... you get the idea.

My scale broke last week. I'm not weighing myself much going forward. I decided I'd stick with this diet even if I don't lose any more weight. Am I satisfied at 200 pounds? No, but I have a husband and four children, and they need me to focus on something other than my weight.

Do I expect to be stuck at 200 pounds? No, I don't. I think I'll lose more weight now that I'll be on the lookout for more thoughts of "I can have this because..." I went back to both Saturday and Sunday being S Days.

Kathleen

I just read your thread in the daily check-in forum, and you have read and thought much more about dieting than I have. You are an intelligent, sensitive, and interesting person. Unfortunately, I think that gives you an even greater capacity for the aforementioned self-deception! I always associate good habits with a kind of zen-like stupidity If you follow No sweets *strictly* (no pop, no chocolate, no cookies, no candies, no juice drinks, no adding packets of extrinsic simple carbohydrates to anything), you will lose additional weight. Congratulations on what you have already lost.

[kwonset]

but I have a husband and four children, and they need me to focus on something other than my weight.

Kathleen, you've been at No S much longer than I have, but over my many years I have tried lots of diets and other ways of eating. For me, this No S plan means I think much less about food than on any other diet have tried. I do try to plan out a nutritious, tasty meal, but the fact that it can be anything is hugely freeing to me. Granted I am not cooking for a family anymore, and I don't have to serve others desert or snacks and deny myself them.

I don't know how much weight I'll lose; but I feel so enabled by being free of calorie counting and thinking about 'forbidden' foods that I am optimistic that whatever the weight loss is, I'll be ok with it.

[Mavilu]

I think to answer your question one would just need to glance around at the nation of snackers we have become.

Do we look healthier than our ancestors, do we look fitter, leaner, trimmer?

No, but I have noticed that people who do work out and are very healthy swear by eating 5 or 6 times a day. The difference is those 5 or 6 times of eating isn't the same kinds of foods or portions that we have been eating.

I work out and I am very healthy and I eat three meals a day, sometimes two.
I was born in South America and this is how I was raised to eat and I was naturally very slim.
In fact, the excess weight I had to fight off was the one I put on once I came to the U.S. and I bought this idea that I have to eat all the time in order to eat less or in order to get my metabolism going or in order to ward off diabetes, blahblahblah, I did that for nearly ten years and I'm still paying for that mistake; I should have remembered what my [slim] parents told me.
Trust me: the snacking thing is balderash.

[Kathleen]

reitschule,
My husband would agree with you 100%!!! He told me to stop tweaking the diet and just follow it!
Kathleen

kwonset,
I think much less about dieting on No S than I did on other diets. Given what I have written over the past several months, you can imagine that it was my one and only "hobby".
Kathleen

Hey Man,
There's a lot more to this diet than weight loss. Lots of people lose weight. The problem is that, over time, it gets harder and harder to keep it off. Almost no one keeps weight off. I myself managed to lose about 30 pounds after college and keep it off for 10 years. This diet is about ending chaotic eating and putting food consumption in its proper place -- as the author of Mindless Eating said, the solution to mindless overeating isn't mindful eating. It's mindless eating without overeating. That's what this diet does. I hope my kids learn from my mistakes. I am quite confident that they will never follow The Peanut Cluster Diet and expect to lose weight. My hope is that they will observe that this is a way to live well.
Kathleen