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.
I've sent in my request. I hope they add No-S to the board. Here's what I said:
Please add the No-S diet to your Diet Review page! It's a sane, sensible system of moderate eating. I have seen results - 1.75 inches lost from my waist and 4.2 pounds lost - since I started in April. While the weight loss is slow, it's sustainable for life. And for me, that's the best part of this program. I can do it anywhere, anytime, all the time. Thanks.
I sent mine in too. I figure we're not all using the same wording and we have our own e-mail addresses -- we're clearly "real people," not Reinhard's dopplegangers.
I let them know that my two younger daughters pleaded with me to go on the diet. How many diets can lay claim to people wanting to go on the diet for reasons other than to lose weight?
Kathleen
PS. My 10 year old calls this The S Day Diet. She told me "Focus on the positive!" She isn't on this diet to give up snacks or to lose weight. She's on the diet to get anything she wants on Sunday!
Last edited by Kathleen on Wed Jul 22, 2009 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
I am thinking that they will take issue with the no snacking because conventional diets that are MD/registered dietician approved always seem to include "healthy" snacks to stave off hunger and keep your blood sugar level, blah, blah, blah. Other than that, I think would approve it as one of the most sane and doable diets out there.
Starting date: June 22, 2009. Starting wgt: 220. Goal 120. Current weight: 198. Mindset: Celebrating moderation.
I don't think they have to "approve" the diet to review it -- there's some God awful stuff on that list and they duly trash it in the review.
But I have yet to get anything less than a positive response from any doctor or nurse I've talked to about it -- some are even stocking the book in their waiting rooms.
The ubiquitous pro-snacking message is mostly commercial -- I don't think there's much medical evidence behind it. From my pubmed research writing the book, I found far more articles presenting evidence against it.
Okay - I misunderstood. I thought they either gave a diet a stamp of approval or not.
That is good to know that MDs are putting it in their offices.
I had a seen a review of No S on a forum of all diets and it got a very high rating but they would not give it 5 stars because of the no snacking. I remember reading something about if you forgo snacks you would tempted "overeat" at dinner. The same old stuff that is conventionally taught in almost every article I read that is written by a registered dietician.
I do think the snacking is commercially based because the dieticians will always say "healthy snack" and the advertisers will put "healthy snack" in big letters on their food items and the public buys it in more ways than one.
I have to say my experience is that when one is dieting and eating meals that are too low in calories, fat, carbs, too diet focused whatever THAT is what leads to snacking and overeating, not the other the way around.
Starting date: June 22, 2009. Starting wgt: 220. Goal 120. Current weight: 198. Mindset: Celebrating moderation.
Bushranger wrote:And "whole" food at that. None of that diet, low-fat, skim, reduced, healthy, light, sugar free, tasteless, cardboard in a bottle filth for me!
Did I over do it? I over did it didn't I?
Well, I AM wondering how you get cardboard in a bottle, but other than that -- not too much overdone!
I have no problem requesting that WebMD review No-S, but I don't think we should expect a stellar review. I read the reviews of the two "diets" that are most similar to No-S (The Morning Banana Diet and French Women Don't Get Fat), and those reviews weren't bad, but they weren't great, either. In the review of the Morning Banana Diet, they said:
Eating whatever you like at lunch, dinner, and snacks is no recipe for weight loss. To lose weight, you need to be physically active and control calories. And to stay healthy, you should choose healthy foods.
Not specifying what to eat could be problematic, since they're equally or more interested in healthy choices as weight loss.
"That which we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do. Not that the nature of the thing itself has changed but our power to do it is increased." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
"You are what you eat -- so don't be Fast, Easy, Cheap or Fake."
"Even though they don't have the slightest idea what a healthy choice IS."
To me that is the puzzle and a huge problem. One guru will tell you healthy is a sugar laden commercial cereal because it is low in fat and calories and another guru will tell you eat all the butter you want but don't have any bread to put it on - put the butter on your steak.
I just read this article this morning in the NY Times. This author says to just forget it and accept your weight because it was decided when you were in the womb. Yes, folks there is nothing you can do.
The irony of this article is just a while ago there was an article that Manhattan had one of the lowest obesity rates in the city of New York because they are weight conscious and mindful of their eating and exercise is a way of life. Go figure.
Starting date: June 22, 2009. Starting wgt: 220. Goal 120. Current weight: 198. Mindset: Celebrating moderation.
Healthy to me is something as reasonably close to "ye olde days" as possible with some common sense thrown in for good measure. The less processing steps the better.
For example, traditionally made pasta beats packet ones that use "extras" to preserve them, etc.
Traditional butter beats margarine in my books too. Sure it's fatty, but it's not a fake chemical plastic grey sludge that they colour yellow. Yeah, I'm looking at you margarine! Anyway, if you eat enough butter for it to be an issue you have bigger problems than your choice of butter vs margarine.
It includes a lot of skepticism about the idea that eating more often creates some sort of metabolic magic that increases your BMR, and basically the article keeps coming back to the basic idea that losing weight boils down to consuming less -- and some of the people quoted acknowledge that eating more often means having more opportunities to overeat (a familiar concept around here).
I added my comment to the website. I asked my friend, who introduced me to this plan, how she found out about you and she told me she saw nothing when she searched "diet" and in desperation for something that seemed reasonable, she googled "no diet" and you popped into the picture. She has been a fan since that day! I laughed at her until she lost 20 pounds while I gained 15 trying to count points. I am now a convert as is my husband!
I notice NoS isn't on there, but all it would take would be someone willing to create a page for it and edit that list to include the page ... Unfortunately I'm not in a position to volunteer to be that someone, but perhaps some enterprising forum reader might feel like it?
I am now a convert as is my husband!