At long last, I found time to squeeze out another podcast segment:
http://everydaysystems.com/podcast/episode.php?id=28
Reinhard
A 90% diet solution -- in 2 words (podcast)
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
-
Jammin' Jan
- Posts: 2002
- Joined: Thu May 05, 2005 2:55 pm
- Location: The Village
-
florafloraflora
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 7:03 pm
- Location: Washington, DC USA
Thanks for the great poscast. What could be more wonderful than a new baby?! We have TWO coming! My daughter's first in August and my son and daughter-in-law's third in September! Babies everywhere!
Discovered NoS: April 16, 2007
Restarted once again: July 14, 2011
Quitting is not an option...
If you start to slip, tie a knot and hang on!
Remember that good enough is... good enough.
Strive for progress, not perfection!
Restarted once again: July 14, 2011
Quitting is not an option...
If you start to slip, tie a knot and hang on!
Remember that good enough is... good enough.
Strive for progress, not perfection!
Congrats on the new baby, the book, and the podcast. 
Good podcast, too. Snacking is the hardest part to "defend" when I'm explaining No-S. I've just been saying that "for me," it works because I eat healthy meals, and when I cut out snacks I end up cutting out most of the junk. Plus, fewer "food decisions" = fewer places to make bad choices.
Nice to have real data, though.
When is the baby due?
Good podcast, too. Snacking is the hardest part to "defend" when I'm explaining No-S. I've just been saying that "for me," it works because I eat healthy meals, and when I cut out snacks I end up cutting out most of the junk. Plus, fewer "food decisions" = fewer places to make bad choices.
Nice to have real data, though.
When is the baby due?
-
TigerCrane
- Posts: 40
- Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 6:24 pm
-
stevecooper
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm
I always thought the No-S diet was over-long, and mostly padding. Now you admit it. Fourteen words indeed!
I liked this one. I've read the start of the paper you recommended -- so far it looks very accessible, and I'd suggest people go off to the source and have a read.
Snack-Meal Independance; What's very interesting to me is the idea that snacks don't affect how much you eat later. I'm not quite sure how to account for that, but it's a key idea. It definately ties up with my behaviour when I'm not dieting.
It does intrigue me, though. Why don't snacks make you guzzle less at mealtimes?
I liked this one. I've read the start of the paper you recommended -- so far it looks very accessible, and I'd suggest people go off to the source and have a read.
Snack-Meal Independance; What's very interesting to me is the idea that snacks don't affect how much you eat later. I'm not quite sure how to account for that, but it's a key idea. It definately ties up with my behaviour when I'm not dieting.
It does intrigue me, though. Why don't snacks make you guzzle less at mealtimes?
Another great term, Steve. Now that I've gotten the book out, moved the sites to the new server, and released the habitcal I can finally focus on making those content updates I've been talking about forever (including a bunch of great quotes from you). As soon as baby comes, that is (was due yesterday).Snack-Meal Independence
Why don't snacks diminish our appetite beyond an immediate few minutes? I suspect that our bodies simply don't really register them because they make no sense -- they're a phenomenon that didn't really exist until very, very recently. Why should we have a mechanism to process events that never happen? Plus, of course, our body isn't very good at using hunger to regulate intake to begin with (it's a starvation avoidance mechanism -- superabundance of food also wasn't an issue until now). So snacks are kind of a double whammy -- novel abundance in a novel form.
As an interesting side note, the author of the article, David Cutler, is one of Barak Obama's top policy guys (came up with his health care plan). Not taking any political positions here, just thought it was interesting.
Reinhard
-
stevecooper
- Posts: 124
- Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 2:56 pm
Reinhard wrote: "Why don't snacks diminish our appetite beyond an immediate few minutes? I suspect that our bodies simply don't really register them because they make no sense"
Gastric Emptying
I had a look for ideas around the net about the way the stomach clears itself. The medical phrase seems to be 'Gastric Emptying.' Mmmm....
Anyway; I found this, which describes the way our bodies process food over time.
Have a look at the first graph on the page;
there's a blue line showing what happens when you eat a meal -- there's a little time before you start clearing it out, then you get rid of the food in a roughly linear way. I wondered if you only get that if you've eaten a big meal; maybe, if you only eat a snack, you immediately begin digesting - the graph goes up but immediately descends. Maybe something special happens for Big Food...
Big Food and Fattynol
And now I have a half-baked theory...
What if that half-an-hour marked something the body does only with big meals? Some kind of 'i have eaten well' signal -- maybe a burst of neurotransmitters that latch on to your hunger glands and says 'whoa, there, big fella!' I'm gonna call this theorised neurotransmitter Fattynol.
Next time you come to eat, you eat based on how much Fattynol is sloshing around. Low Fattynol == lots of food.
If you snack, you don't get properly full. That means you never get a Fattynol release. Because your Fattynol levels are low when you next eat, you eat loads -- even though you've eaten the extra calories.
Et voila! A perfect explaination. There's no actual evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
The Snack That Would Be Lunch.
A few more thoughts.
We seem to have two types of eating event;
1) small eating events, or snacking
2) big eating events, or meals
if Meal-Snack Independence is true, then there must be a threshold, between snack and blow-out meal. The Snack That Would Be Lunch.
That threshold is just enough to count as a meal. Anything over that, and maybe you're eating too much. Below that, and it counts as snacking. The one-plate-that-doesn't-look-stupid rule seems to be a guideline for finding that threshold.
Note how, in this model, it's much worse to eat a slightly too small meal, that doesn't satisfy and makes you feel hungry for hours, than it is to eat a slightly-too-big meal that stops you snacking or feeling hungry as the day wanders on.
Gastric Emptying
I had a look for ideas around the net about the way the stomach clears itself. The medical phrase seems to be 'Gastric Emptying.' Mmmm....
Anyway; I found this, which describes the way our bodies process food over time.
Have a look at the first graph on the page;
there's a blue line showing what happens when you eat a meal -- there's a little time before you start clearing it out, then you get rid of the food in a roughly linear way. I wondered if you only get that if you've eaten a big meal; maybe, if you only eat a snack, you immediately begin digesting - the graph goes up but immediately descends. Maybe something special happens for Big Food...
Big Food and Fattynol
And now I have a half-baked theory...
What if that half-an-hour marked something the body does only with big meals? Some kind of 'i have eaten well' signal -- maybe a burst of neurotransmitters that latch on to your hunger glands and says 'whoa, there, big fella!' I'm gonna call this theorised neurotransmitter Fattynol.
Next time you come to eat, you eat based on how much Fattynol is sloshing around. Low Fattynol == lots of food.
If you snack, you don't get properly full. That means you never get a Fattynol release. Because your Fattynol levels are low when you next eat, you eat loads -- even though you've eaten the extra calories.
Et voila! A perfect explaination. There's no actual evidence for it, but it is scientific fact.
The Snack That Would Be Lunch.
A few more thoughts.
We seem to have two types of eating event;
1) small eating events, or snacking
2) big eating events, or meals
if Meal-Snack Independence is true, then there must be a threshold, between snack and blow-out meal. The Snack That Would Be Lunch.
That threshold is just enough to count as a meal. Anything over that, and maybe you're eating too much. Below that, and it counts as snacking. The one-plate-that-doesn't-look-stupid rule seems to be a guideline for finding that threshold.
Note how, in this model, it's much worse to eat a slightly too small meal, that doesn't satisfy and makes you feel hungry for hours, than it is to eat a slightly-too-big meal that stops you snacking or feeling hungry as the day wanders on.