work stash suggestions...

On 8/16/2004 8:31 PM, Beverly wrote:
"JMA" wrote in message
...

"A Ross" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Annabel Smyth wrote:

I find many of the Americans on this newsgroup (are you
new, by the way?
If so, welcome!) seem to think one must eat snacks all
day long and
avoid any feelings of hunger or one's weight-loss plan
is due to fail.


Personally, I'm healthier (and thinner) now with eating
six times a day than I was when eating three. YMMV, of
course.

Amy

168/115

Same here!

Jenn


I'm a member of that group, too. I've been doing this since the mid 80's -
wonder when it will fail me?

Beverly

VBG I guess we'll have to keep on waiting! ;-)


--
jmk in NC

On 8/16/2004 8:31 PM, Beverly wrote:
"JMA" wrote in message
...

"A Ross" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Annabel Smyth wrote:

I find many of the Americans on this newsgroup (are you
new, by the way?
If so, welcome!) seem to think one must eat snacks all
day long and
avoid any feelings of hunger or one's weight-loss plan
is due to fail.


Personally, I'm healthier (and thinner) now with eating
six times a day than I was when eating three. YMMV, of
course.

Amy

168/115

Same here!

Jenn


I'm a member of that group, too. I've been doing this since the mid 80's -
wonder when it will fail me?

Beverly

VBG I guess we'll have to keep on waiting! ;-)


--
jmk in NC

In article ,
Annabel Smyth wrote:


And probably fine if you don't have anybody else to
think about; when
you have a family to cook for (or, in my case, a
husband; the daughter
has grown and flown), you can't do that, or you'd be
cooking two
separate meals every evening (and life is FAR too short
to do that!).


I find it very easy to combine my WOE with my family's
preferred WOE. I prepare one meal, along with a big
salad of romaine and other assorted goodies. I have a
heaping helping of salad, and have a portion of
whatever meat--whether it be chicken, steak, or
pork--cut up on top. Very yummy and filling.

Or, for instance, last night it was pasta night. For
myself I steamed summer squash and broccoli and poured
a cup of tomato/meat sauce over top. Simple,
satisfying, not much work, and I am partaking in our
family tradition of dinner together every night.

Amy
168/115

JMA wrote in alt.support.diet on Tue, 17 Aug 2004:

I cook separately for my husband and have for years since we have different
likes and dislikes. I don't feel it's taken that much time off of my life
since I was in the kitchen cooking anyway. Then again, my meals are rather
small, mostly a single serving of protein (meat or tofu), a vegetable or
two, and a salad. We even have 2 different salads since I like more
vegetables and different lettuce in mine than he does.


We eat the same meals, which basically mean we don't eat anything he
dislikes (luckily, that's not a great deal and mostly the same as my
dislikes!). I should like to have butter beans again one of these days,
though.... I have never cooked separate meals for any of us, although
if he is *really* late home (like 9.00 pm or later), I occasionally eat
mine first and leave him to reheat his. Or if we are both out at
different times, I'll let him make himself an omelette, which he likes.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/88.5/80kg

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:23:26 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:

Beverly wrote in alt.support.diet on Mon, 16 Aug 2004:

It's a WOE that helps keep the metabolism and blood sugar levels on an even
keel and is endorsed by many diet plans. It normally consists of 5-6
smaller meals a day instead of 3 larger meals. Often people who go too long
between meals have a tendency to overeat at meal times. It's just a matter
of choice and works very well for many people.

And probably fine if you don't have anybody else to think about; when
you have a family to cook for (or, in my case, a husband; the daughter
has grown and flown), you can't do that, or you'd be cooking two
separate meals every evening (and life is FAR too short to do that!).


Couldn't you just eat less of the food you prepare for your husband?
It's not the type of food that differs in the 5-6 meals a day
approach, it's the quantity. Or -- radical thought -- let him get his
own dinner? (I mean, I don't care if you eat 3 times a day or 6, but
this doesn't seem like a good reason to me.)

Chris
262/141/ (145-150)

A Ross wrote in alt.support.diet on Tue, 17 Aug 2004:

Or, for instance, last night it was pasta night. For
myself I steamed summer squash and broccoli and poured
a cup of tomato/meat sauce over top. Simple,
satisfying, not much work, and I am partaking in our
family tradition of dinner together every night.

So you had two extra saucepans to wash up, no? Why could your family
not have also had summer squash (what is this, by the way?) and broccoli
as well as their pasta - it would have gone a long way towards their
"five a day" requirements!
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/88.5/80kg

Chris Braun wrote in alt.support.diet on Tue, 17 Aug 2004:

Couldn't you just eat less of the food you prepare for your husband?

I *could*, but the point is, I know I wouldn't! No, for me, the
European approach works best - I've tried the other way, and know it
doesn't work for me.
--
Annabel - "Mrs Redboots"
90/88.5/80kg

In article ,
Annabel Smyth wrote:

A Ross wrote in alt.support.diet on Tue, 17 Aug 2004:

Or, for instance, last night it was pasta night. For
myself I steamed summer squash and broccoli and poured
a cup of tomato/meat sauce over top. Simple,
satisfying, not much work, and I am partaking in our
family tradition of dinner together every night.

So you had two extra saucepans to wash up, no? Why
could your family
not have also had summer squash (what is this, by the
way?) and broccoli
as well as their pasta - it would have gone a long way
towards their
"five a day" requirements!


Oh, they had squash (marrow?) as well--It's just that I
didn't have the pasta. And to consider nuking a bowl of
squash extra work--or the clean up after--is silly. I'm
not that lazy.

Amy
168/115

In article ,
Annabel Smyth wrote:

A Ross wrote in alt.support.diet on Tue, 17 Aug 2004:

Or, for instance, last night it was pasta night. For
myself I steamed summer squash and broccoli and poured
a cup of tomato/meat sauce over top. Simple,
satisfying, not much work, and I am partaking in our
family tradition of dinner together every night.

So you had two extra saucepans to wash up, no? Why
could your family
not have also had summer squash (what is this, by the
way?) and broccoli
as well as their pasta - it would have gone a long way
towards their
"five a day" requirements!


Oh, they had squash (marrow?) as well--It's just that I
didn't have the pasta. And to consider nuking a bowl of
squash extra work--or the clean up after--is silly. I'm
not that lazy.

Amy
168/115

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004 12:23:26 +0100, Annabel Smyth
wrote:


And probably fine if you don't have anybody else to think about; when
you have a family to cook for (or, in my case, a husband; the daughter
has grown and flown), you can't do that, or you'd be cooking two
separate meals every evening (and life is FAR too short to do that!).

Well, that's what I've done for about the past 20 years, for various
reasons and by my own choice. I'm so used to it now, I don't even
think about it any more.

I have found, all my life, that if I eat between meals, I am eating
extra food that I don't need. I prefer the European way of eating two
small and one large meal each day, and nothing else, except possibly the
odd cup of tea or coffee.

I tend to eat like this, too. I just can't quite work out how to eat
at different times to people around me as no one I know eats several
small meals a day.

janice