Hi everyone!
Well for a few days I got back into No S, and I truly love the way of eating and I especially love this board.
But one part of my mind keeps nagging me when I get hungry between meals that I am slowing down my metabolism. Then I do some research to prove that nagging thought wrong, and it seems all the info out there is telling me I should be eating more often.
Is this true? Are we doing damage to our metabolism by forcing three larger meals?
I want to eat this way for its simplicity. But please help me shut up this voice in my head which is trying to steer me off course.
Thank you so much!
Cynthia
Please help convince me...
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
Eat three *normal* meals...
The large size is only for the beginning stages of habit formation...
I only "overloaded" my portions for the first few months..
Snacking is an unaccountable source of calories... If you are so worried about having a slow metabolism,,,,
Crank up the exercise and time your meals so that you start early in the day with breakfast... That really resets and revs up the metabolism too..
My metabolism changed dramatically when I hit thirty... It takes so much effort and exercise to burn calories... But I don't at all blame the three meals a day.. If they were all huge, then I'd be worried...
So far, the combination of NOS and regular exercise has resulted in about a 25 lb loss over a year or so, for me...
I am very happy with this
Good luck Cynthia!
Peace and Love,
Deb
The large size is only for the beginning stages of habit formation...
I only "overloaded" my portions for the first few months..
Snacking is an unaccountable source of calories... If you are so worried about having a slow metabolism,,,,
Crank up the exercise and time your meals so that you start early in the day with breakfast... That really resets and revs up the metabolism too..
My metabolism changed dramatically when I hit thirty... It takes so much effort and exercise to burn calories... But I don't at all blame the three meals a day.. If they were all huge, then I'd be worried...
So far, the combination of NOS and regular exercise has resulted in about a 25 lb loss over a year or so, for me...
I am very happy with this
Good luck Cynthia!
Peace and Love,
Deb
Cynthia-
Well, I guess the question is, what information are you coming up with, and where is it coming from? Is it scientific studies? Sites/companies/people promoting their own agenda (such as their own weight loss programs)? Friends? Chain e-mails?
If it is scientific studies, I'd be curious to know what they are. I haven't seen too many (I get "The Wellness Letter" every week and they ususally discuss new studies and stuff like that when they come out.) If it's friends, I guess it depends on where they get their information. Pretty much anything else should be taken with a grain of salt.
I have a feeling - completely unscentific but just a hunch - that any so-called "damage" to metabolism would be minimal to damage that is done by just staying overweight or roller-coaster weight loss and re-gain.
Well, I guess the question is, what information are you coming up with, and where is it coming from? Is it scientific studies? Sites/companies/people promoting their own agenda (such as their own weight loss programs)? Friends? Chain e-mails?
If it is scientific studies, I'd be curious to know what they are. I haven't seen too many (I get "The Wellness Letter" every week and they ususally discuss new studies and stuff like that when they come out.) If it's friends, I guess it depends on where they get their information. Pretty much anything else should be taken with a grain of salt.
I have a feeling - completely unscentific but just a hunch - that any so-called "damage" to metabolism would be minimal to damage that is done by just staying overweight or roller-coaster weight loss and re-gain.
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.
Hi cynthia, I think the key equation to weight loss is input vs. output (ie, calories consumed vs. calories burned). This is the one fundamental parameter.
Everything else is optimizing.
And it seems to me that worrying about slowing down your metabolism is secondary to getting your total daily food intake under control.
If you are really worried about it, virtual plate 3 meals each day and nibble throughout the day. But I think 3 meals is often enough to not worry about metabolism. I eat 2 meals per day and have lost quite a bit of weight doing so.
Everything else is optimizing.
And it seems to me that worrying about slowing down your metabolism is secondary to getting your total daily food intake under control.
If you are really worried about it, virtual plate 3 meals each day and nibble throughout the day. But I think 3 meals is often enough to not worry about metabolism. I eat 2 meals per day and have lost quite a bit of weight doing so.
JWL[.|@]Freakwitch[.]net
damaging your metabolism? I don't think so...
For thousands of years folks in "rich" societies ate three meals a day, if they were lucky (many ate far less). In the past few hundred, we've managed too eat too much, too often, and get fat and sick from it.
Eat three meals and be happy with it.
Eat three meals and be happy with it.
Kevin
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."
1/13/2011-189# :: 4/21/2011-177# :: Goal-165#
"Respecting the 4th S: sometimes."
-
Shameless Hussey
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:15 pm
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin usa
I have found, ten weeks into this, that limiting meals to 3 a day allows me to enjoy my food more.
I thought for sure that I'd never be able to get through the day without snacking, but eating a balanced meal, and a meal-sized-meal (not a diet-sized meal) does the trick just fine.
For what it's worth, I'm averaging a pound-a-week weight-loss.
I thought for sure that I'd never be able to get through the day without snacking, but eating a balanced meal, and a meal-sized-meal (not a diet-sized meal) does the trick just fine.
For what it's worth, I'm averaging a pound-a-week weight-loss.
I have found that rather than slowing things down, longer spacing between feedings speeds things up. I think that's the point in time you burn fat. You have had enough time to burn through your last meal, so now your body can start working on fat stores.
It also seems that the "latest" diet news is if you don't eat after dinner and go til breakfast the next day with no food, that is a great "mini fast". Not enough time to slow down the metabolism, which I think has been greatly over estimated, but enough time to get some serious fat burning going on.
Peetie
It also seems that the "latest" diet news is if you don't eat after dinner and go til breakfast the next day with no food, that is a great "mini fast". Not enough time to slow down the metabolism, which I think has been greatly over estimated, but enough time to get some serious fat burning going on.
Peetie
I feel a tad silly for posting the question, but I am glad I did because I feel 100% convinced. I suppose I was a bit panicked as I sometimes get before I commit myself to something because I never stick it out.
I did more research last night and did come across the whole "when losing weight you should eat 4 - 6 times a day" BUT upon further investigation there were an equal amount of stuff out there saying 3 meals is better for some people because they end up eating less calories and there is no solid research to prove there is slowing down of the metabolism.
In fact, on the contrary, similar to what Peetie is saying, is that when you wait a significant amount of time between meals and get that twinge of hunger at about 3-3 1/2 hours after a meal it is the body is shifting from digestion to the fat stores for energy.
So it sounds like, to me, this actually gives our bodies a chance to go into fat-burning mode. Well, now that sounds like a plan to me!
In any case, aside from all the info out there, real or false, the fact is eating three times a day is simple, convenient and you can eat normal, delicious food. I will stick with it.
Thanks for all your input.
I did more research last night and did come across the whole "when losing weight you should eat 4 - 6 times a day" BUT upon further investigation there were an equal amount of stuff out there saying 3 meals is better for some people because they end up eating less calories and there is no solid research to prove there is slowing down of the metabolism.
In fact, on the contrary, similar to what Peetie is saying, is that when you wait a significant amount of time between meals and get that twinge of hunger at about 3-3 1/2 hours after a meal it is the body is shifting from digestion to the fat stores for energy.
So it sounds like, to me, this actually gives our bodies a chance to go into fat-burning mode. Well, now that sounds like a plan to me!
In any case, aside from all the info out there, real or false, the fact is eating three times a day is simple, convenient and you can eat normal, delicious food. I will stick with it.
Thanks for all your input.
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
Hey Cynthia! Don't feel silly at all...
There is sooo much to do about this metabolism/grazing stuff out there..
When I started on NOS, I was a little concerned myself!
The proof is in the NOS pudding!
Also, I have to admit, that I wrote several offlist posts to our lovely Reinhard, when I was in my moments of doubt last year (just around this time) and he just totally helped me through that worry..
I still wish there was some way I could repay him for his wise and kind council!
When I write to people here, I often think of that time and remember how helpful he was to me when I needed help..
A true ENGEL!
There's never any question too silly to ask...
The road towards trusting our own decisions is frought with moments of doubt and despair!
That's why support groups exist!
Have a nice day!
Peace and Love,
Deb
There is sooo much to do about this metabolism/grazing stuff out there..
When I started on NOS, I was a little concerned myself!
The proof is in the NOS pudding!
Also, I have to admit, that I wrote several offlist posts to our lovely Reinhard, when I was in my moments of doubt last year (just around this time) and he just totally helped me through that worry..
I still wish there was some way I could repay him for his wise and kind council!
When I write to people here, I often think of that time and remember how helpful he was to me when I needed help..
A true ENGEL!
There's never any question too silly to ask...
The road towards trusting our own decisions is frought with moments of doubt and despair!
That's why support groups exist!
Have a nice day!
Peace and Love,
DebDo you know how many companies would go out of business if people stopped snacking. My grocery bill has gone down dramatically. I love that feeling of being hungry and really enjoying my meal. As far as how much you put on your plate - enough to satisfy and stop when you are. I always bring half my meal home from restaurants. My body is at peace eating this way - well worth it.
Hi Cynthia,
All this has been said already (I love this group) above but it bears repeating:
3 meals (give or take a meal) is what most people did through most of history. They were skinny.
Food used to be very, very inconvenient to prepare. You couldn't just whip out a powerbar when you needed an extra boost to plow that field or kill that caribou. Almost everyone spent almost all their time preparing it: planting it, growing it, harvesting it, hunting it, cooking it. Snacking is the weird, anomalous behavior that needs justifying, that only people in fat societies indulge in. "Mealing" is profoundly normal, nothing you should be afraid of. *Everyone* used to do it. So why is "mealing" so hard/rare today? Because we've lost the twin supports of scarcity (good riddance!) and tradition. The scarcity part we can't (and wouldn't want to) change, but the "tradition" part no-s can be an effective stand-in for.
Do keep in mind that there is a lot of money to be made on selling snacks of one sort or another. There is no money to be made on no-snacks. Even scientists (and especially pseudoscientists) need money. So keep your grain of salt shaker handy when reading the next condensation of a condensation of a study done who knows where.
Lastly, I've been on no-s for about 4 years now. I'm over 40 pounds down, beyond any "ideal" I'd previously imagined for myself, without any yoyoing. I enjoy my meals (and weekend treats) tremendously, and haven't ever had any occasion to worry about my metabolism.
Please don't ever hesistate to ask questions like this. If you're wondering, a hundred others are too.
Best of luck, keep us posted,
Reinhard
All this has been said already (I love this group) above but it bears repeating:
3 meals (give or take a meal) is what most people did through most of history. They were skinny.
Food used to be very, very inconvenient to prepare. You couldn't just whip out a powerbar when you needed an extra boost to plow that field or kill that caribou. Almost everyone spent almost all their time preparing it: planting it, growing it, harvesting it, hunting it, cooking it. Snacking is the weird, anomalous behavior that needs justifying, that only people in fat societies indulge in. "Mealing" is profoundly normal, nothing you should be afraid of. *Everyone* used to do it. So why is "mealing" so hard/rare today? Because we've lost the twin supports of scarcity (good riddance!) and tradition. The scarcity part we can't (and wouldn't want to) change, but the "tradition" part no-s can be an effective stand-in for.
Do keep in mind that there is a lot of money to be made on selling snacks of one sort or another. There is no money to be made on no-snacks. Even scientists (and especially pseudoscientists) need money. So keep your grain of salt shaker handy when reading the next condensation of a condensation of a study done who knows where.
Lastly, I've been on no-s for about 4 years now. I'm over 40 pounds down, beyond any "ideal" I'd previously imagined for myself, without any yoyoing. I enjoy my meals (and weekend treats) tremendously, and haven't ever had any occasion to worry about my metabolism.
Please don't ever hesistate to ask questions like this. If you're wondering, a hundred others are too.
Best of luck, keep us posted,
Reinhard
-
gratefuldeb67
- Posts: 6256
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:26 pm
- Location: Great Neck, NY
