 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / January 2004No S Diet
This isn't necessarily low carb, but you can do it in conjunction with low-carb (or high-carb!), if you want. Might be worth a look for those who are having trouble sticking with vanilla low-carb. I like to think it's worth a look even if you don't stick with it -- the site is intended to be entertaining as well as practical. http://www.nosdiet.com I guess I should mention I wrote the thing. Comments welcome. Reinhard Great Site! Lots of good information and easily digested with humor...your points about willpower and habitual eating are well formulated and articulated. Heck, if there can be a grapefruit diet or 2 lbs diet or neaderthin diet...why not a No S diet? Good Luck! Kira in SC 225/199/140 LC since 8-6-03 >This isn't necessarily low carb, No actually it has absoutely nothing to do with low-carb and is in fact some individual's made up diet based upon ... well nothing much at all. >but you can do it in conjunction with >low-carb (or high-carb!), if you want. Might be worth a look for those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Reinhard It's moronic and unsimple. No sweets, but yes to sugar added to things and yes to all fruits, does that include all fruit juices? Yes to jellies, yes to peanut butter, "Because it is simple, sustainable, and you aren't really depriving yourself of anything. You don't have to sacrifice anything " Except being hungry and dont eat sweets No seconds... so basically you advocate what every other failed diet does... don't eat when you are hungry. Just sit there and feel hungry. That mentality was probably the birthing ground for bulemia. Basically everyone is fat because they are fat pigs who gorge and overeat. You state "No Snacks" as one of three "critical" rules then spend no time explaining such a thing. (guess it isn't that important a rule). And to your logic about lower heart disease rates, you will find bread in other countries is VERY different from the stuff we eat here. In European countries most breads are supposed to be very hard crusted no refined flour breads. Those breads would be considered stale by most americans. "White bread" which caused a nutrional deficiency throughout the U.S. when it first came out is almost absent in some european countries. When people from EUrope have visited one of the things they complain about it the crappy bread and cheese. AMericans eat american cheese (sometimes labelled as "CHeese food" because it isn't cheese) & cheedar & mozzarella). In other countries a small supermarket will dedicate an entire isle to cheeses with a mind boggling variety. It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that our bread is nutritionally vacant fluff?? Or that most of our foods are similar? Or that the US is the only country that is pushing for genetically manipualted(to be sweeter amongst other things) fruits and vegetables to be accepted everywhere? Or that diet sweetners have been banned in other countries as unsafe for human consumption? And you said obesity doubled since the 1980's. Well the low-fat recommendations came out in the 70's and byt the 90's all the low fat frankenfoods were taking over the market. Despite the exercise crazes of the 80's and 90's Americans got fatter. The explanation is everybody decided to eat more. DId it ever occur to you that reducing fat was a trigger for greater hunger. I certainly hope people don't take your page seriously. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) >>This isn't necessarily low carb, >No actually it has absoutely nothing to do with low-carb and is in >fact some individual's made up diet based upon ... well nothing much >at all. beautiful_idiot@yahoo.com (Reinhard Engels) wrote: >>but you can do it in conjunction with >>low-carb (or high-carb!), if you want. Might be worth a look for those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >>Reinhard >It's moronic and unsimple. Since when does a diet have to be complex and intellectual to work? MOF, that's one of the biggest problems that contributes to "book" diets and their extremely high failure rates. > No sweets, but yes to sugar added to things >and yes to all fruits, does that include all fruit juices? Yes to >jellies, yes to peanut butter, > >"Because it is simple, sustainable, and you aren't really depriving >yourself of anything. You don't have to sacrifice anything " >Except being hungry and dont eat sweets What's wrong with that. who says hunger is "bad". who says that getting rid of junk sweets is "bad." >No seconds... so basically you advocate what every other failed diet >does... don't eat when you are hungry. Not every other failed diet says that at all. >Just sit there and feel hungry. Works for me. Do you have sex every time you are horny? >That mentality was probably the birthing ground for bulemia. Bulimia has little to do with hunger. >Basically >everyone is fat because they are fat pigs who gorge and overeat. Basically everyone is fat because they overeat. >You state "No Snacks" as one of three "critical" rules then spend no >time explaining such a thing. (guess it isn't that important a rule). Maybe he will now. >And to your logic about lower heart disease rates, you will find bread >in other countries is VERY different from the stuff we eat here. > "White bread" which caused a nutrional deficiency >throughout the U.S. when it first came out is almost absent in some >european countries. White bread did what? > It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that >our bread is nutritionally vacant fluff?? Or that most of our foods >are similar? It' s not the food, it is the processing f it. We have an overabundance of good food and if you buy the crap, then you don't get what you paid for. > Or that the US is the only country that is pushing for >genetically manipualted(to be sweeter amongst other things) fruits and >vegetables to be accepted everywhere? Untrue. Food genetic research is international. >Or that diet sweetners have been >banned in other countries as unsafe for human consumption? Maybe their sugar lobbyists are stronger. >And you said obesity doubled since the 1980's. Well the low-fat >recommendations came out in the 70's and byt the 90's all the low fat >frankenfoods were taking over the market. Despite the exercise crazes >of the 80's and 90's Americans got fatter. The explanation is >everybody decided to eat more. DId it ever occur to you that reducing >fat was a trigger for greater hunger. This is an extreme extrapolation of untruths, distortions and downright crapola. >I certainly hope people don't take your page seriously. >DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) I did. Xposted for the utility of Dr. Stephen Nagler and Dr. Andrew Chung. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >> It's moronic and unsimple. > > Since when does a diet have to be complex and intellectual to work? I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the self-described, so-called "Trainer" poseur on this one. That's why I developed the easy to follow Two Foot Diet. I developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. Inspired by Dr. Chung's scientific approach, as described on his website, in 2003, my wife and I attended an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of midgets"  SignatureSteve Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003 >>>This isn't necessarily low carb, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >MOF, that's one of the biggest problems that contributes to "book" >diets and their extremely high failure rates. It's not simple, the rules have exceptions and all kinds of weird goods and bad with no rhyme or reason. Just because I boil it down to a sound byte doesn't mean it is simple. And Yes I want to put my body on a diet totally lacking in intellectual merits. I want to eat stupidly simple. This is a plus to people. Well I know people like this. My brother would make up his own diets. Broccoli and tomato soup. Nothing but those two. He would eat just those two things every day. It is similar to fasting. Sheer boredom and nutritional starvation would cause him to lose weight. He's proven over and over that his silly two-food diets work. But the weight comes back cause he can't stay on them. His diet is simpler that NoSdiet and is even less intellectual, but you are an idiot if you think that is a valid method to controlling your weight problem. >> No sweets, but yes to sugar added to things >>and yes to all fruits, does that include all fruit juices? Yes to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >What's wrong with that. who says hunger is "bad". who says that >getting rid of junk sweets is "bad." I guessing you have read the NoSdiet or the above quote of the diet's benefit. I repeat the quote for you. "Because it is simple, sustainable, and you AREN"T REALLY DEPRIVING YOURSEELF OF ANYTHING. You don't have to sacrifice anything " If one is hungry and desires food and you deprive your body of the food it is hungry for, then you ARE depriving yourself. Some call that a typical starvation diet. You do have to sacrifice major sweets, but you can eat other sweets like jellies, probably jams, add sugar to coffee, tea (then sweetened soda must be okay if sweetened coffee is), eat sugary fruits. This diet boils down to willpower and really nothing else. Stop being a pig and eat less. And the definition of sweets apparently basically desserts. Don't eat desserts, but fruits, jellies, peanut butter are all okay. Of and breads are good because they are in the bible. No other reasoning apparently. Stoning people to death and crucification are in there too but I don't think they are good things. >>No seconds... so basically you advocate what every other failed diet >>does... don't eat when you are hungry. > >Not every other failed diet says that at all. Any caloric-restrictive diet says that. >>Just sit there and feel hungry. > >Works for me. Do you have sex every time you are horny? That's what masturbation is for. >>That mentality was probably the birthing ground for bulemia. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Basically everyone is fat because they overeat. Because they willfully overeat. And every skinny person from the age of 2 up is skinny because they look at their plates and think I'm hungry but I can't eat anymore because I will get fat. That is the natural extension of your belief. Skinny people stop eating because they will themselves to stop, not because their hunger is satisfied. >>You state "No Snacks" as one of three "critical" rules then spend no >>time explaining such a thing. (guess it isn't that important a rule). [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >White bread did what? After refined white flour entered mass production in the U.S. and white bread became ubiquitous in the staes new diseases appeared (pellagra & beriberi, never heard of them? there's a reason for that). By the 1940's three million cases of Pellagra killed 100,000 people in 30 years. They were believed to be contagious because an entire family or prison would get it. It was realized it was dietary. SOmething was suddenly missing from people's diet. The U.S. government passed a law requiring the missing nutrients to be artifically replaced into mass produced breads(now made with refined flour only). Next time you go to the grocer notice that every bread says "enriched" it has to by law. This was the first enrichment of bread. The government has since added other things to bread to offset other nutritional absences in the US diet. Who knows how many other nutrients have been stripped away by mass production. Here is a historical timeline: http://www.smartbread.com/newsroom/grainsremainbase.html#historical A nice summary from MSN ENcarta: In the 20th century, industrial and technological improvements made the time-consuming flour-refining process less expensive. White flour, once considered a delicacy for the upper classes, replaced whole wheat flour as the cheapest, most widely produced flour. Until the early 20th century, white flour was not fortified with the vitamins and minerals lost during the refining process, and conditions caused by vitamin deficiencies became more prevalent as white bread replaced whole wheat bread in popularity. Cases of beriberi, a condition resulting from a lack of thiamine, and pellagra, caused by dietary niacin deficiencies, increased dramatically. Many governments, including the United States, began enforcing mandatory vitamin and mineral fortification requirements. These programs have been quite successful, and cases of beriberi and pellagra are now very rare in industrialized countries. >> It couldn't possibly have to do with the fact that >>our bread is nutritionally vacant fluff?? Or that most of our foods [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Untrue. Food genetic research is international. Reaserch and feeding your research to children are two different things. The US imposed strict tariffs against France in retaliation of them refusing to accept genetically modified produce from the United States. They weren't willing to feed their children frankenfruits and our government sought to punish them economically. I read an article that said US scientists were searching the rurals of Mexico looking for corn that hadn't been cross pollinated with genetically manipulated corn from the US markets. (corn cross pollinates freely) They found genetic markers of gene manipulation in all U.S. corn. Despite that gene-corn is banned from mexico, they had been unsuccesful in locating a natural product. >>Or that diet sweetners have been >>banned in other countries as unsafe for human consumption? [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html >Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) >>>It's moronic and unsimple. >> >>Since when does a diet have to be complex and intellectual to work? >>MOF, that's one of the biggest problems that contributes to "book" >>diets and their extremely high failure rates. >It's not simple, the rules have exceptions and all kinds of weird >goods and bad with no rhyme or reason. Just because I boil it down to >a sound byte doesn't mean it is simple. You claimed the No S diet to be "unsimple". Diets can and should be simple. The more complicated they are, the higher the failure rates and the more out of the reach of the less than intellectual. >And Yes I want to put my body on a diet totally lacking in >intellectual merits. I want to eat stupidly simple. This is a plus to >people. I would agree to the last sentence. >Well I know people like this. My brother would make up his own >diets. Broccoli and tomato soup. Nothing but those two. He would eat >just those two things every day. It is similar to fasting. Sheer >boredom and nutritional starvation would cause him to lose weight. Yep. >He's proven over and over that his silly two-food diets work. But the >weight comes back cause he can't stay on them. Nope. >His diet is simpler that NoSdiet and is even less intellectual, but >you are an idiot if you think that is a valid method to controlling >your weight problem. Agreed. >>>Except being hungry and dont eat sweets Mu: >>What's wrong with that. who says hunger is "bad". who says that >>getting rid of junk sweets is "bad." >I guessing you have read the NoSdiet or the above quote of the diet's >benefit. I repeat the quote for you. >"Because it is simple, sustainable, and you AREN"T REALLY DEPRIVING >YOURSEELF OF ANYTHING. You don't have to sacrifice anything " > >If one is hungry and desires food and you deprive your body of the >food it is hungry for, then you ARE depriving yourself. Some call that >a typical starvation diet. Hold on. Because you are "hungry" does not mean you need to eat. B/c you are hungry does not mean that you need to satiate. Starvation is not reduced food consumption unless it is below nutritional needs. > You do have to sacrifice major sweets, but >you can eat other sweets like jellies, probably jams, add sugar to >coffee, tea (then sweetened soda must be okay if sweetened coffee is), >eat sugary fruits. This diet boils down to willpower and really >nothing else. Stop being a pig and eat less. All diets ultimately boil down to levels of self discipline. >>>No seconds... so basically you advocate what every other failed diet >>>does... don't eat when you are hungry. >>Not every other failed diet says that at all. >Any caloric-restrictive diet says that. No and here is proof. http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp The 2PDiet is not aimed at calories but is typically, in practice, caloric-restrictive. >>>Just sit there and feel hungry. >> >>Works for me. Do you have sex every time you are horny? >That's what masturbation is for. lol You get the point though. No one should give in to every desire or urge and hunger is no different. >>>Basically >>>everyone is fat because they are fat pigs who gorge and overeat. >> >>Basically everyone is fat because they overeat. >Because they willfully overeat. And every skinny person from the age >of 2 up is skinny because they look at their plates and think I'm >hungry but I can't eat anymore because I will get fat. That is the >natural extension of your belief. Skinny people stop eating because >they will themselves to stop, not because their hunger is satisfied. No, my belief is that Americans have lost their way when it comes to the amount of food they believe they need and the amount of food they actually eat. Skinny people rarely eat the amount of food that obese folks due. MOF, the more obese an individual may be, the more the difference in the amounts eaten relative to skinnies, ime. >>> "White bread" which caused a nutrional deficiency >>>throughout the U.S. when it first came out is almost absent in some >>>european countries. >> >>White bread did what? >After refined white flour entered mass production in the U.S. and >white bread became ubiquitous in the staes new diseases appeared >(pellagra & beriberi, never heard of them? there's a reason for that). Heard of all, seen cases recently of pellagra. >By the 1940's three million cases of Pellagra killed 100,000 people in >30 years. They were believed to be contagious because an entire family [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >produced breads(now made with refined flour only). Next time you go to >the grocer notice that every bread says "enriched" it has to by law. Yes, but white bread alone did not >>> "White bread" which caused a nutritional deficiency throughout the U.S." >Who knows how many other nutrients have been stripped away by mass >production. Bunches stripped, many added. think fluoride and dental health. >>> Or that the US is the only country that is pushing for >>>genetically manipualted(to be sweeter amongst other things) fruits and >>>vegetables to be accepted everywhere? >>Untrue. Food genetic research is international. >Reaserch and feeding your research to children are two different >things. Still the research is international. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap970210.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > >This isn't necessarily low carb, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's moronic and unsimple. big ugly chip your shoulder much? sheesh. If you're such an expert, why are you so f.cking fat? SignatureJC Eat less, exercise more. -- > > >This isn't necessarily low carb, [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > I certainly hope people don't take your page seriously. > DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) > >This isn't necessarily low carb, > No actually it has absoutely nothing to do with low-carb It has this to do with it: if you're having trouble with low-carb, but like the basic premise, there is nothing in this plan that contradicts it. You can do both. I thought there might be one or two people in this "support" group who fit that description. >and is in > fact some individual's made up diet based upon ... well nothing much > at all. Yes, it's this individuals made up diet.. sorry, thought I admitted that up front... It's based on psychology. It's based on the premise that for most people being fat is not about biochemical intricisies but bad habits. > It's moronic and unsimple. No sweets, but yes to sugar added to things > and yes to all fruits, does that include all fruit juices? Yes to > jellies, yes to peanut butter, The reason I don't worry about borderline foods is because: 1) they represent a very small portion of the problem 2) they represent a very large portion of the pain in the a.s It's just not an effective use of your mental resources. If you forbid too far you get diminishing returns and a much greater likelihood that you'll quite because you can't stand it. And your life will be that much less enjoyable. > "Because it is simple, sustainable, and you aren't really depriving > yourself of anything. You don't have to sacrifice anything " > > Except being hungry and dont eat sweets It's all timing. You can eat sweets on s-days. That's a delay, not a sacrifice. I don't find that I'm hungrier than I used to be. I think I'm less so. I've gotten an excellent sense of how big a meal has to be to keep me going. > No seconds... so basically you advocate what every other failed diet > does... don't eat when you are hungry. Just sit there and feel hungry. No, it's very specific: one physical plate. > That mentality was probably the birthing ground for bulemia. I think someone with a limited number of meals would be *less* likely to throw them up, don't you? > Basically everyone is fat because they are fat pigs who gorge and overeat. I think that's a reasonably accurate statement (there are exceptions, of course). It certainly was the case with me. > You state "No Snacks" as one of three "critical" rules then spend no > time explaining such a thing. (guess it isn't that important a rule). What's confusing to you about no snacks? I have to admit, I did think that one was clear. > And to your logic about lower heart disease rates, you will find bread > in other countries is VERY different from the stuff we eat here. In [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > everybody decided to eat more. DId it ever occur to you that reducing > fat was a trigger for greater hunger. Thanks for enlightening me about European bread! Don't let my name fool you, I'm pretty ignorant in that department. Yes, European dark bread does exist. I'm rather fond of it. But most of what they eat, though delicious, is made from highly refined white flour. From what I understand, brown rice is held in disgust by most Asians. And asking for whole wheat pasta would probably get you deported from Italy. A lot of things happened since the 1970s. Do you really think the decisive factor was people wolfing down fat free (and don't forget sugar free) cookies with a feeling of impunity? Sure people did this, to an extent. But I think they talked more than they did. They certainly also had plenty of super sized big macs to wash it all down. > I certainly hope people don't take your page seriously. > DiGiTAL_ViNYL (no email) I'm sorry it bugged you so much. I'm happy the people who lost weight on the nosdiet it took it seriously! Thanks to all the posters who seemed to get something out of it. And to the "ruler" guy who mocked me. Funny, but don't you think it's much funnier if it also works? You might also want to check out my exercise site: http://www.shovelglove.com finally...... you could just call it the Common Sense Diet too.... > This isn't necessarily low carb, but you can do it in conjunction with > low-carb (or high-carb!), if you want. Might be worth a look for those [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Reinhard |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.