Quick Question

[willkeeptrying]

Hello Everyone,

If you don't have a lot of time to read, jump down to HERE IS MY QUESTION. Thanks!

Before I ask my question, I first want to say that I really believe this diet to be the most impressive and inspired diet that I've ever studied. I've studied everything from Adkins to South Beach to Glucose Revolution etc.

In the past I've had great success with Body For Life and with South Beach. I've gotten back down to my high school weight with both approaches. I've also gotten back down to my high school weight just by having a treadmill in my bedroom and walking three miles per day and eating sensibly.

With that being said, I REALLY believe that NoS is the way to go. When I read it, it has felt like a breath of fresh air. I LOVE only having to deal with eating food three times a day. That alone makes it worth it.

I haven't had success yet. In fact, I'm not doing very well right now. I don't blame NoS though. I've cheated too much, am not getting enough sleep due to work, am under a lot of stress from work, and not able to get the exercise that I need.

OK, sorry for the long explano, but if there is anyone out there that is also struggling, hang in there, I really believe that this diet is the way to go!

HERE IS MY QUESTION:

Here is my question or request for more information. I've read how in the NoS diet, there is only slight increase in metabolism by "grazing". I would love more information about this. Maybe I missed something in the book. I apologize if there are already posts about this. I would love more information about this topic. I want to believe it is true! This question often comes up when I talk with friends. It is the reason why I bought the book in the first place -- I couldn't believe a diet book would have no snacks.

Thanks very much for more information about this issue. I've read enough successes on this forum to believe it, but I would still like to have more information about it. For myself and also discussing this diet with others.

Thanks again and I've really enjoyed reading through people's posts. Thanks so much for having this forum and maybe after I get this diet down, I'll eventually help others also.

A fellow computer programmer

[Kathleen]

http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4358

[willkeeptrying]

Thanks for the reply! Let me rephrase my question/topic:

What is the evidence out there that eating smaller meals more often or "grazing" helps speed up metabolism?

The reason why I'm bringing this up is that everyone I talk with says that eating snacks is the way to go, but where is the evidence? I'd love more information about what evidence there is or is not so I can share this information with others.

I love how in the NoS diet you don't eat snacks. I think it is great! I'd like some information to back that up as I talk with others. I'm interested in any evidence. I've never heard of ANY study that proves that eating snacks between meals increases metabolism or that the food is metabolized better.

Thanks for any and all help!

[la_loser]

First of all, welcome!

I have not been a "researcher" as such of various diets that I've tried and I don't recall what any of those may have claimed about metabolism. In my experience, snacks are encouraged with many other diets because you are allowed to eat so little at your meals that you'd have to have something to "tide you over" as the saying goes.

Something I read somewhere recently--I don't remember where--talked about the fact that up until more recent years, snacking was not considering a necessary part of a diet. . .Think about it-every grocery store, actually stores that aren't even grocery stores, dedicate a growing area to "snacks" and that is marketing, not necessarily nutrition--besides most of the stuff sold in those sections aren't that nutritious anyway!

A few posts that come to mind that address snacks.

Snacks ignite our appetite: http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4422

What Mavilu's doctor said (and also another doctor) about No S http://everydaysystems.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=4282

And from Reinhard's own comments on the nosdiet.com site:

But every other diet guru tells me I SHOULD snack!

"No snacks" is the rule that people seem to have the most trouble accepting. But I think it's also the most important rule.

People act as if snacking is this natural thing that would be cruel to deprive themselves of. But the truth is, historically speaking, snacking is a very recent eating behavior. No one did it to any degree worth mentioning until very recently - when we promptly started getting fat. According to an analysis of USDA food consumption data by David Cutler at Harvard University, 90 percent of the increase in calorie consumption in men in the United States since 1977 has come from between-meal eating. For women, it's 112 percent -- calories from meals have actually gone down. (Journal of Economic Perspectives "Why have Americans Become More Obese?" Page 101)

So with this one rule, just two words, you've got a 90-plus percent solution to the problem of over-consumption.

You'll find the same correlation when you look at the issue across societies: obesity rates move in lockstep with calories derived from snacking. The skinny French snack on average less than once a day compared to our three. The even skinnier Chinese barely snack at all.

The reason snackers eat so much more food is simple: it's impossible for them to keep track of how much they're eating without resorting to unsustainable behaviors like counting calories. They can't eyeball excess anymore, as they could with discrete meals. Excess sneaks right past them in lots of tiny increments, none of which seems like much in itself, but adding up, at the end of the day, to a tremendous amount.

Why is it that despite these pretty shocking statistics you almost never hear anything but pro-snack messages? Simple. "Follow the money." You can't sell "no snacks." Snacks, on the other hand, especially the booming "healthy" snack segment, are a multibillion-dollar industry. And the surest sign of having made it as a diet guru these days is having your name on an "energy bar" of some sort, so they're all in on it, too.

Go to that page of the website and there are some links to check out as well. If you haven't ordered the book, you'll enjoy reading it; it fleshes out the info contained in the website, but there's definitely a plus to having the book in your hand!

If you've been reading the posts the last few days, you probably saw Reinhard's comment that those folks joining right now are beginning as we start the "trickiest two weeks" of the year. So way to go--dive right in and grab hold of those S's and just say no! But not today or tomorrow!

[willkeeptrying]

LA,

Thanks for the nice reply! I do have the book and I absolutely love reading it. I first bought the book because I couldn't believe "no snacks".

I keep trying to google, but no luck yet finding any real facts. Everyone keeps saying that snacks between meals helps keep metabolism raised or that the body is more efficient metabolizing small meals, but no facts anywhere!! This is what I'm looking for. If efficiency is burning calories and not getting fat, is it an increase in efficiency of 1.5% if I snack and eat small meals instead of three bigger ones? I'm so curious what the actual research is. How did we get to the point that everyone says eat snacks if it isn't backed up by science? I'm not saying that science has to back up everything, but everyone keeps saying eat snacks and I don't see the evidence!

I really appreciate the replies. Just putting my two cents in, but I'm really impressed with this community. I continue to read several posts and I'm amazed how supportive everyone is, even when someone complains about the diet! That's way cool!

So, I'm still holding on to the idea that snacks are not the answer to losing weight. I'm going to still stay off snacks. I would love to see where these "experts" are coming from who say we need to snack. I don't see the evidence and so far, I'm having a hard time finding any evidence. Maybe I'm searching the wrong words or search terms in Google etc.

Thanks for any and all help. If/when I do find any worthwhile information I will post it here. If anyone else knows of factual findings about snacks, I'd love to read those.

Sorry for the long convo! I'm just amazed that there isn't a wealth of information about this issue considering everyone says snacking is the way to go. I'm glad NoS stays true to not eating snacks!

[Blithe Morning]

I searched Google Scholar for frequent eating metabolism. It seems you would need to have access to some British journals for full text of the first two. Neither my University or of my local library have many British journals. Do any of our board members from across the pond have access through work or a library?

Role of dietary carbohydrate and frequent eating in body-weight control.
Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 2007
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10997651


Snacking: implications in body composition and energy balance
Journal:
British Food Journal
Year:1995 Volume: 97 Issue:5 Page: 12 - 15
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/v ... tId=870279


Influence of Periodicity of Eating on Energy Metabolism in the Rat
Journal of Nutrition Vol. 93 No. 4 December 1967, pp. 541-545
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/4/541

[vmsurbat]

Here is a link to one easy-to-understand explanation:

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/g ... metabolism

Note that the emphasis is to engage in exercise to increase metabolism rate, but it does mention snacking and cites a study. Note the study is done on *athletes* and also note that *all* eating spikes metabolism rate.

HTH,

[reinhard]

Thanks for this excellent question, willkeeptrying!

Though diet gurus treat it as gospel truth, the evidence for frequent meals increasing your basal metabolism is VERY shaky (hence your difficulty in finding it). I was being rather charitable in assuming, for the sake of argument, that it is in fact true.

I can't see more than the abstract here, but the conclusion is pretty clear:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494

"Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. "

So snacking most likely doesn't make sense on ANY level -- not even the metabolic one I give it credit for in the book.

Reinhard

[willkeeptrying]

Thanks to everyone for the replies and information. I look forward to reading the articles and I'll also continue to research and post what I find over time. I have to agree that the reason why it is difficult to find the information is because there isn't much data/research available.

I'll continue to be amused while the "experts" continues to advocate eating snacks

Thanks again for all the help and support and I look forward to putting more time into this and will report back with what I find soon. I'm not expecting to find a whole lot, but I'll still put in a good amount of effort to see what can be found.

Regardless, I don't want snacks to be a part of my life!

Eric