No Snacks, No Seconds, No Sweets

[mickjam]

The most success I've had managing my weight in the last number of years was by following these three simple rules as best I could.  For reasons I cannot fully explain, after some months I strayed away from it and gained back all the weight..  Now I am back, mixing in some 16-8 IF to goose it along.  

There is a book out there called the No S Diet, with a pretty active FB page.  The three rules are caveated with 'except on days that begin with S, and Special Days (Christmas, birthday, etc.)'  Obviously you cannot binge continuously in the weekend, nor can you declare every second day a special day (my dog's birthday!).  For my part, at least for now, sweets are not part of any mix.  They are my kryptonite, so easier to stay away.

Anyone else ever try something like this?

[Dominique]

---

@mickjam wrote:

Anyone else ever try something like this?

---

Haven’t tried it, but it sounds similar to the 5:2 Diet, except with the 5:2 Diet, you eat "normally" 5 days of the week and (heavily) restrict calories the remaining 2 days, whereas the No S Diet has you (moderately) restrict calories 5 days of the week and eat "freely" the remaining 2 days.

Glad to hear it floats your boat!

[Glenda]

@Dominique  Dominique,  I've always read that you just restrict calories to 500 or 600 on the 2 days in the 5 - 2 diet.  Recently someone wrote that you eat one restricted calorie meal on the 2 days.  Considering the other time restricted diets like the 8 - 16   I wonder if the 5/2 works better if you don't spread the 500 calories out all day.  Do you know or have an opinion?    I think I might do better with anything  that can be more habit and routine as in every day than 5 2 .  What do you think?  Can a strong habit be built on every other day?

[Dominique]

I personally believe the timing of your calories (whether it’s within the same day, or between various days of the week) only plays a minor role. What really matters are total calories at the weekly level, and how they match your activity (total energy expenditure) during the same period.

Let’s take the following imaginary examples (Monday to Sunday):

1) No S Diet: 1200-1200-1200-1200-1200-1500-1500

2) 5:2 Diet: 1600-500-1600-1600-500-1600-1600

Both results in a total caloric intake of 9000 for the whole week. All things being equal (same person, same activity level etc.), they will yield the same result in terms of weight management. You could also have eaten 1286 calories every single day of the week (1286 x 7 ≈ 9000).

In the end, it’s a matter of personal preferences: choose the approach you can best adhere to.

[Glenda]

@Dominique  Dominique,  That may be true for weight loss but what about the other health benefits that are supposed to be because your body doesn't have to digest all the time and can repair things instead.    The 5 - 2 with eating off and on all day even small amounts wouldn't free the system of needing to digest a little.

[Dominique]

I don’t think there are specific advantages in fasting with regards to digestion, at least not for healthy individuals who are a normal weight. Is digestion a particular problem for people who eat in the traditional fashion (breakfast, lunch, dinner)? I don’t think so. Sure, they need to digest three times, but they’ll be digesting smaller amounts of food each time. If you eat everything in one sitting (or within a narrow "eating window"), your system will have to work longer and harder. I personally hate the feeling after a large (usually festive) meal, when I ate so much all I want is crush on the couch and take a nap.

I know proponents of intermittent fasting like to tout the alleged health benefits of fasting, but I want to see serious long-term studies showing these benefits, compared to a control group eating the same amount of food in the traditional 3-meal fashion.

[Julia_G]

According to what I have read, the main benefits of IF (besides potential weight loss) are neurological.  We did not evolve to have a constant source of energy.

I listened recently on the radio to a neurosurgeon who said that our brains burn glucose and ketones.  The brain works most efficiently (according to him) when it is allowed to switch between glucose and ketones (which is the same theory behind intermittent fasting).  Apparently the switch comes at about 16 hours without food (so he suggests stopping eating by 7 or 8 pm and skipping breakfast the next morning on several days of the week) so your first meal is lunch (about 16 hours after your previous one).  When he is operating he says he goes longer and doesn’t eat until evening to give his brain a good long stint on ketones before it switches back to glucose.

This is a popular, rather than strictly scientific, article, but I think it’s the same guy I heard speaking on the radio:  https://www.health.com/nutrition/brain-health-intermittent-fasting

I think it is interesting, anyway.  I note that this guy also avoids carbs (presumably to promote ketones), but also there is very good and long term evidence that reducing your carbs (irrespective of your caloric intake) can lower your blood sugar and cholesterol levels.

I know that @Dominique is very much of the old school calories in/ calories out, but my sense from studying the science is that there is increasing evidence that this is just too simplistic.  Not all calories are created equal!  500 donut calories and 500 fish calories have VERY different metabolic effects.

It is, of course, notoriously difficult to do long term nutritional studies because no one wants to be a lab animal for years, because food logging is tedious, and because people are not always either accurate (or even honest) about what they eat and drink.