SubscribeThe No-S Diet: Keeping Dieting Simple
The No-S Diet is the simplest diet I've ever come across. It has just three rules:
- No snacks
- No seconds
- No sweets
Except (sometimes) on days that start with an S.
The author, Reinhard Engels, does explain those rules on his No S Diet site (and he's also recently writtena book on the No S Diet). So what exactly do the rules mean? And can it really work?
No snacks:
This is about "when" not "what" and means not eating between meals. You can eat whatever you want at mealtimes (including snack foods, such as chips, candy, and so on). Of course, since you're only allowed one plateful, you might want to go for something a bit more filling than empty junk food...
No seconds:
This means not going back for more: fill your plate once, and that's your lot! Particularly good for buffets, or if you tend to "graze" on leftovers.
No sweets:
This doesn't just refer to what we in the UK call "sweets" (candies) but covers anything which is mostly sugar. You need to use your common sense here: fruit is fine, of course, but ice-cream, full-sugar soda, etc is definitely out.
Except (sometimes) on days that start with an S:
All the rules are relaxed on Saturdays, Sundays and pre-designated Special days. But that doesn't mean you should start gorging as though you'll never see a bar of chocolate again - enjoy your treats, without feeling guilty at all, but don't go completely overboard.
Testimonials from those who've tried it insist that it does work. Enthusiasts highlight increased enjoyment of their food, an end to the "bloated" feeling after a meal, and greater appreciation of treats at the weekend.
For example, one successful No-S-Dieter wrote that:
No S avoids the pitfall of having to do things perfectly. I can choose the foods I like to eat, and am never very far from an s-day. "I can have chocolate at the weekend" is far more liveable with than, "When I reach my perfect weight, I can have some chocolate".
And I can certainly attest that being "good" during the week and relaxing at the weekend is a great way to lose weight or maintain your weight loss. For the past eighteen months, I've been following this sort of eating pattern, and recommend it on The Office Diet, as it tends to suit Monday-Friday, 9-5 workers well. It allows planning ahead for some truly satisfying treats: I'd rather have a gorgeously gooey slab of chocolate cake at the weekend than have chocolate ice-cream for pudding every day...
So if you're feeling overwhelmed with complicated diet advice, or if you hate the thought of having to give up all your treats for an indeterminable period of time, why not give the No S Diet a try ... and let us know how you get on!
Awesome, thanks for covering this diet. The first time I lost weight was with a very similar diet.
I never understood how one could "snack" and still lose weight. Once I start snacking it's game over.
Reply*whew*
Sure glad whiskey doesn't start with an "s".
ReplyScotch? :)
ReplySbeer? Stequila? Svodka? Scabernet? Shots?
ReplyI think I would gain weight if I didn't snack. I don't really eat 3 "meals," in the traditional sense, but much more closely (and intuitively, without trying) follow the "6 small meals" plan. Even with that, I snack, but they are healthy snacks - I rarely eat fruit with a meal, but snack on an apple, banana, some grapes, whatever. If I try to eat a big meal, or if I go several hours without eating, I gorge myself and eat waaaay too much at once, and then I feel bad and can't move, and so I don't get any exercise.
I realize it wouldn't work for everyone, but I'm a strong advocate of healthy, light "snacks." I totally disagree with the 3 meals a day thing, and think it's not healthy for many people.
ReplyJudy, I can't agree with you more. Some people do much better when they eat 6 small meals a day; however, there are people (my husband) who can snack all day long and still eat 3 meals a day. Some people just don't feel like they have eaten unless they sit down to a big meal. They tend to eat more (calorie wise) in order to feel satiated. So for those, I feel that this diet is a very good alternative.
ReplyI still snack now, but I snack differently than when I was fat. When I was fat, I'd mindlessly put away about half a bag of chips and 6 or 7 cookies easily. I really didn't count any of those snacks as "real food". Now, I plan out my snacks and I count those calories into my daily intake.
ReplyThis is reprinted from the NO S website.
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, disturbingly, 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.
Reprinted from the NO S website.
ReplyMF, you are so right. I actually found this article/thread because I have been wondering why there is so much pro-snack chatter everywhere, when the truth is three meals a day has more historical support as far as health and weight go.
Recently I realized that the best I've ever felt was when I was in Spain. (Tapas restaurants in the U.S. completely distort the food traditions there -- the people I knew were not snacking on small plates of food all day.) In Spain I had a tiny breakfast, large lunch and late moderate dinner. No snacks. I felt energetic, I thoroughly enjoyed meals and I was slim.
Here in the U.S. I have fallen into the trap promoted by magazines and nutritionists of eating raw almonds or some other healthy snack whenever I feel the need for a boost.
I finally got sick of everything revolving around food and my next fix. I got tired of eating so often. I felt like the snacks were just making me more hungry. I got tired of thinking about a half a rice cake with sunflower butter, or celery with cream cheese, all the time. Those are not interesting thoughts!
So I quit. Interestingly, I am now less hungry.
I lost weight immediately. Frankly it's just not elegant to be constantly eating celery or crackers or whatever. Standing in front of the cupboard or sitting at your desk eating a paw-full of food -- It's vulgar. A meal is a meal, and that's a wonderful thing. In between meals, I live life.
My "last 5 pounds" struggle is over. I feel freed from an addiction. I feel centered. And I feel like telling all those people who advise "always keeping a healthy snack on hand" that they're the pawns of the food industry. Honestly, what's so wrong with feeling empty for a couple hours? It's cleansing. And far fewer people have "blood sugar issues" than everyone thinks.
ReplyI want to add to my last comment that I realize a snack like "raw almonds" is not part of the snack bar money machine, but one tends to lead to the other. So while the magazine article might suggest a snack of an apple or some nuts, the snacker usually ends of incorporating packaged snack foods to some degree.
ReplyPart of the major changes I made to my eating patterns when I started losing weight were to stop snacking all the time and to stop eating seconds. I found that just by doing that, I lost a lot of weight because I had been snacking a LOT on very empty-calorie foods. Plus, at mealtimes, I'd eat a couple of platefuls of spaghetti or whatever the entree was. Once I found out what a real portion was, I limited myself to one serving and was surprised at how satisfying it was.
This diet plan sounds like a good one for people who don't like to overthink things too much. It's not that hard to follow...just use common sense. Plus, it's kinda neat because you get days off from the diet, so if you're one of those people that needs a break from the whole diet thing, this could be a good plan for you.
Only one complaint: I wonder how many people would be able to eat whatever they wanted on "S" days without going "completely overboard". What's the definition of going "completely overboard"? It could differ vastly from person to person.
ReplyI've had a similar experience as yours on snacking and all, and am now usually down to three small meals a day, and breakfast after my morning run or workout.
ReplyYes, he makes it fairly clear on the website - I assume even more so in his book - that an "s" day isn't a licence to go nuts. Most people with a lick of common sense will understand that the purpose is to hold off on that one thing you're craving (i.e.maybe a small bowl of ice cream) until you get to an "s" day. I think psychologically, it really can help people trying to lose weight if, instead of thinking "I hate this diet because I'll never get to eat ice cream (or whatever your vice is) again, you can say to yourself that you can still have a reasonable portion of it, you just have to postpone the pleasure for a day or two. Learning to delay gratification a bit is a good thing, it's an attainable goal and can give you a sense of accomplishment. Trying to learn to deprive yourself of things you like "forever" just sets you up to fail in the end.
ReplyWell I see what you are talking about no sweets, exercise and more...Of course those are the main things to do when your on a diet. But remember diets don't work its maintaining your eating habits and exercise the right way don't you agree? Yoga is a good exercise!
ReplyI love that concept because it is so memorable! I also like how it builds in "cheat days" over the weekend. The success of any mass scale nutrition program has to incorporate days where you can bend the rules a little. Look what it did for body for life?
ReplyAnother way to lose weight - compromise a little at certain time provided the rules are followed. Interesting though!
ReplyThis diet is so Stupid, honestly, just eat like a normal human, Stop when you are full and EXERCISE. You will lose weight
ReplySusan.... yeaahh I absolutely agree with you. Here's my problem with it.... while I personally eat very few sweet things, tell me I can't have it except on saturdays and sundays and it's guaranteed to get me to binge on those days and eat in anticipation for all the other non 's' days of the week when i can't eat them.
As far as I'm concerned, all foods have to be psychologically legal (which doesn't mean they are nutritionally equal... but it does mean that I'm allowed to eat both carrots and carrot cake with enjoyment ) and when they are and I'm eating by following what my body wants, the amazing thing is that it knows it wants and flourished on healthy nutitious foods.
Cari
ReplyYou take 7 words to essentially say the same thing the No S Diet says in 4. How is the No S Diet any more stupid than your advice?
A sense of fullness as it relates to stomach volume is much higher for someone who overeats at meal time. By limiting their portions it will help retrain their sense of fullness to a smaller portion. (One Plate)
I myself don't overeat at meals, but I snack in between and over indulge on sweets. (No Snacks & No Sweets) This diet works for me because it addresses these issues while still giving me an opportunity to eat my favorite foods.
By the way I have tried limiting my portions and exercising in the past and find I maintain but don't lose. It is too ambiguous and relies on ones judgment. These three simple rules have made a difference and I have lost weight.
ReplySusan,
It of course seems "stupid" for a fat person who is desperate to be a thin person to just "eat normally" and "excercise" and the weight will fall off. Well I am here to tell you that is complete crap. I have been on a thousand diets and followed them dilligently and while I'd always lose weight initially it ALWAYS returned and I'd end up fatter than when I started. The reason why so many diets fail is because they instruct you to give up so much of what you truly want. You can hold on for only so long through pure will. Eventually that will give out too when your desire for food out"weighs" your desire to look good. There was actually many times in my life that my body was so completely screwed up from dieting that I ate next to nothing and STILL was gaining weight! I would see skinny people in Mcdonalds, eating french fries, pizza, ice cream all the time and I was counting my intsy little calories and still was struggling. I'd have panic attacks just thinking about family meals or special occassions because I'd gain weight from just one night of eating what I wanted.
This is NO WAY to go through life. Having my weight finally be stable over the past few years and my sanity has returned and my metabolism back to "normal" I learned that it's about balance. Not deprivation. THIS diet promotes balance. It allows you to have "your cake" and eat it too, which in my opinion the ONLY thing that will work in the long run.
ReplyI don't know if this diet will work, but I like the sound of it.
Choosing the right diet for you is hard, but it can be done. You just need to compare some diets, then decide which one will work for you long term.
ReplyI don't agree with the whole "these foods are not allowed except on special days or weekends." That seems like it would lead to bingeing. If you have something in the house and you know it's never off limits, you won't be as likely to overeat it. My DH keeps Pop-tarts and Oreos around but they last awhile because if I really want an Oreo, I will just have one. Sure it's not a great choice, but if I told myself I couldn't have it, one would never seem like enough.
ReplyJust goes to show that there are no so called "metabolic" advantages to the whole 6 meals a day scam that is pushed by companies who sell you bars, shakes and all sorts of frozen meals. It comes down to 2 things....calories in...and insulin control. Plain and simple.
ReplyI'm with you Mike when it comes to marketers promoting shakes, bars etc. although I would argue that thermic effect is part of metabolism - albeit a small one.
Also for many people, eating smaller meals throughout the day can help prevent excess calorie consumption (calories in). In terms of insulin - it certainly depends on what you eat, but eating more frequently can help avert larger peaks and valleys in blood sugar.
ReplyIt's always educational to read comments on what works for different people. I used to be a staunch promoter of multiple small meals. I still encourage "grazing" as it were and believe that many people would benefit from at least an afternoon snack to cut into the long gap that usually occurs between lunch and dinner. I realize though, that this doesn't work for everyone and it isn't wise to try and "pigeon hole" eveybody into any one kind of pattern.
ReplySo true Mike. Many things work for many people. Some can do well to graze...others get too hungry and then pile in too many calories. Others can do 3 meals a day and love it. Some may do intermittent fasting and see results. On..and on. Many different ways as long as the calories are still low for the day, and insulin is kept in check (as that will signal all the fat burning hormones, and not the fat storing hormones...and sugar is the #1 enemy). Also improving insulin resistance will be key too, and that is where resistance based exercise comes in.
ReplyIm a big snackvocate as well.
but can easily see how it might not work for everyone.
M.
ReplyI don't like being told "No"...Just because you say i can't have something, i'll go have it anyway. ha ha! So yeah...i don't think i would get along with this "diet" very well. ^________________^
I'm 5'3", 104lbs...so for me, when it comes to eating, the equation is simple, i just eat when i'm hungry...(every 2-3 hrs.) and consume probably, on average...1200 kcals / day. So...that's:
> Breakfast - 300 kcals
> Snack - 200 kcals
> Lunch - 250 kcals
> Snack - 150 kcals
> Supper - 200 kcals
> Snack - 100 kcals
Consuming most of my calories earlier on in the day, gives me plenty of energy when i need it. (aka when i'm most "active") Oh and consuming no more than 300 kcals, at each meal, keeps my metabolism in check.
Eating in this manner is awesome 'cause...you never have a chance to feel hungry. You eat something, then next thing you know (fast forward 2.5 hrs. later) BAM! "What's this...another meal?" lol You're always eating something...so, your blood sugar levels never drop and you never have to deal with hunger pangs.
1200 kcals may not seem like alot to some ppl (keep in mind that i'm short and small)...but besides contortionist training, modeling and the occasional "walks in the park"...I'm the biggest nerd/couch potato you'll ever find. (mostly sedentary) I love my video games and cartoons! *smiles*
Mouse &hearts
ReplyAfter a recent dr. visit I was looking for a way to deal with my 11 year old's weight gain. It wasn't drastic, but it did signal what could turn into an alarming trend if we ignored it. I struggled with it because I didn't want to imply that the way he looks wasn't acceptable, and I did not want to put him on a "diet" and begin that whole cycle for him. Because of his genetic body type, I think he will always have to work harder than others - especially his younger brother- at keeping weight off.
When I read about this no-s diet, it seemed like a good solution. I announced that our whole family seemed to be eating a few too many sweet things and snacks so we were ALL going to start following this no-s rule I had heard about. The word diet never had to come up, and no-one was singled out.
It really does work well with kids to have a very simple, straightforward household rule like this to follow about eating. I did modify it a bit for my boys - they can have a snack after school and at bedtime as long as it's a fruit or vegetable - they just don't get to rumage through the fridge or pantry for whatever might catch their fancy anymore. If they bug me to buy junk, I suggest we wait until the weekend and bake a small batch of cookies or whatever so we can have one as a treat on Saturday and Sunday. If I told them they could NEVER eat it again I'm sure they would rebel and eventually figure out a way to buy or trade for it when I wasn't around.
This is a great plan for families to follow and I don't think of it so much as a diet as a really common-sense approach to eating. At the same time I introduced this, a friend decided to deal with her kid's weight gain by banning all sweet or junky food "forever". I think she lasted two weeks.
My sons are really active so I haven't introduced them to axe-swinging though! (Might not be the best choice considering some of the sibling rivalry that goes on here...)
ReplyThat's great! I always snack on the weekends but now I dont have to feel so bad! Simple and easy to follow, will give it a go
ReplyI looked through the noesdiet.com, but I didn't seem to find any place for salad and fruits. Specially fruits...
Replysalad and fruits would just be considered part of your meal. Aren't they part of a meal now?
ReplyWhen I first saw it, I thought it meant no S as in plural, so one hamburger instead of 2, and one scoop of salad instead of more.
Now that would be a decent diet.
ReplyWell, it would be just one hamburger instead of two, because I think having two hamburgers would be considered "seconds". I don't get the salad part though - no reason you couldn't just go to town on a veggie salad. You talk about scooping it though, so maybe you mean something like macaroni or potato salad with lots of mayo or dressing? can't think of many other kinds of salad that require scooping.
ReplyThat diet sounds pretty stupid. Planned snacking between meals can increase adherence to low-calorie diets, and you have to burn more calories than you expend to lose weight.
I know when I leaned out on 1900 calories per day (with a periodic refeed) I ate six meals a day. There's no way I could have gone six hours between meals eating only three times a day.
ReplyNo full-sugar soda, no diet soda. Drink water.
ReplyHi, I'm the author. I'm glad about half of you like it!
Just a quick very response regarding the snacking:
1. Historically speaking, snacking is a very recent phenomenon. It just wasn't done much until about 30 years ago (when we promptly started getting fat). It's still not done much in most parts of the world. So it's not some weird novel thing not to snack; it's profoundly normal. And calorically, it makes a huge difference. In the United states, over 90% of the increase in calorie consumption since 1976 has come from between meal eating (112% for women, calories from meals have actually gone down). In other words, snacking represents almost the ENTIRE problem of over consumption.
2. Though I think 3 meals is plenty (it certainly is by historical standards), you can technically do No-s with 4 meals --people have, successfully. The main problem is the continuous "permasnacking" that so many Americans and other first worlders engage in: one continuous stream of food all day long. The problem with eating like this is that it's impossible to get a sense of how much you're eating without obtrusive and (for most people) unsustainable behaviors like counting calories. Limiting yourself to discreet meals lets you see excess again. If you're overeating, it's really obvious.
Most of the information in the book is available for free on the website -- please do take a look. It may not be for everyone, but it does actually seem to work remarkably well for some people.
Reinhard
ReplyHi Reinhard,
Glad you chimed in! You bring up some interesting points about snacking. I tend to agree that it seems to be a cultural phenomenon. I wonder though if I may pick your brain a bit.
Do you think that it is the phenomenon of snacking itself that has sparked the rise in obesity or is it more the WHAT we are snacking on?
How much do clories count in your opinion? Is eating 3 squares a means to eat less calories or vice versa?
If someone is hungry between meals, what advice would you give them? What about for those who have erratic schedules and can't eat at regular times?
The data you present is a good case, however it seems to be correlative rather than causitive. My argument is that WHAT you are snacking on is the most important factor.
I think 3 meals can and does work for many - however many people have also failed with this system. I like the simplicity of the concepts you present and would like to read your book someday.
Thanks again for presenting your point of view!
ReplyI think the whole constant snacking phenomenon is definitely a huge part of the obesity problem that we're facing now. It's a combination of what we're snacking on as well as how much we're eating it. Processed foods like Oreos and chips have been around for a hundred years, but people didn't eat them the way they do now. Back then, kids maybe ate 2 cookies after school as a snack. Now, they come home after school and munch on half a box of them while they play video games.
ReplyAdvertising execs definitely play into our head hunger too...they make it seem like you're going to die if you don't eat every 20 minutes. They're always showing some starving guy in a meeting at like, 2:00 and he's ready to die from hunger (even though he ate 2 hours ago) and he eats a candy bar and that gives him enough fuel to last through the meeting. Or the McDonald's snack wrap commercials that tout that not snacking in the afternoon leads to bad decisions due to low blood sugar. The truth is, you really don't need to eat THAT often. One or two planned snacks is fine, but eating all day really does lead to eating hundreds of extra calories that we don't need.
Im a big snackvocate as well.
but can easily see how it might not work for everyone.
ReplyThis seems like a pretty simple program. I like the concept. The only S i dont agree with is Snacks (i think of them as 'mid meals'. There is a lot of litrature to suggest that the right snacks ie fruit,yogurt,protein shakes, dry fruits are good between meals and help with weight loss.
ReplyThe several small meals having a metabolic advantage has been debunked for years now.
Quote:
Bellisle F, McDevitt R, Prentice AM.
INSERM U341, Hotel Dieu de Paris, France.
Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people's habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a 'nibbling' meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. 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. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation.
PMID: 9155494 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
ReplyMike -- here's some "teaser content" from the book to answer your question about the "what" vs. the "how often" of snacking:
Quote (from pages 32-33):
...it wasn’t the size of individual snacks
that increased, but their frequency— the “grazing”
that diet gurus love to praise. As Harvard economist
David M. Cutler pointed out in his 2003 paper interpret-
ing these data: “The average number of snacks increased
by 60 percent over this period [1977-2003], thus more snacks per
day— rather than more calories per snack— account
for the majority of the increase in the calories from
snacks.” So, although it might be tempting for some
to keep snacking frequently while focusing on making
those snacks smaller or healthier as a way to reduce
total snack calories, there is no historical precedent for
such behavior. We didn’t get fat because we ate bigger
or less healthy snacks; we got fat simply because we ate
more snacks.
(end quote)
You can find the Cutler paper here:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~jmshapir/obesity.pdf
(Table 2 on page 101 and the surrounding text is most directly relevant)
As for what to do if you get hungry between meals: 1) drink 2) tough it out wait for habit to re-train your appetite. It's like Pavlov's dogs. If you associate food with meals and not with (say) watching TV, you'll learn to get hungry then and not in between. Remember that most people in most places throughout world history didn't snack, so it's not like you're trying to train your appetite to do weird circus tricks, but on the contrary, something profoundly normal.
Finally, yes it does all boil down to reducing calories. There's no magic going on here. But you don't have to *count* calories to reduce them -- in fact, counting calories is terribly ineffective for most people. No-s gives you a long term, sustainable short cut to reducing calories. It gives you a "good enough" approximation as to how much you're eating: by sticking with three single plate meals, you can *see* it -- in fact, it's hard *not* to see it.
Reinhard
ReplyI have done a variation of this diet for the past 3 years without even knowing it. I decided long ago that diets are a waste of time and only make you fat (I have a lifetime of proof) and decided no more deprivation. I will eat what I want within moderation and it's worked like a charm. The irony is that the less I prohibit myself the more likely I am to make better, healthier choices. The minute I tell myself I can't have a cheeseburger I immediately have to have one!
While MY way worked very well I still noticed that my weight plateued and it would quickly rise or fall after small excesses or slips. This was very frustrating and made me worry too much about my weight too much. I wanted to just NOT think about it and eat what I wanted. With MY way I found that I'd still do the same old tricks; eat a big lunch, skip dinner to make up for it. OR I'd avoid social settings to avoid eating and potentially gaining. This was bad.
I've done the "No S" for only 2 weeks now and it's working shockingly well. I honestly thought because I'm almost 40 that it would be impossible to lose weight now and I'm stuck where I am, a womens size 12. I can live with it, but would much rather be an 8, but the fact was I was NOT willing to give up everything I enjoyed to make this happen.
It seems the "No S" fills in the gaps where my own home grown version lacked. I've found simply avoiding sugar has not only helped me lose weight rather quickly, but my energy levels and moods have stabilized in ways I never thought imaginable. I used to be ALL OVER THE PLACE, up, down, happy, sad....my moods were so unpredictable and my energy was very low most of the time. I am sold on this diet. Even though I swore off diets forever I'm glad I found this one. I think I can finally have my cake and eat it, like a thin person, like I've always wanted!!!!!
Reply