Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shangri-La Diet - setpoint success at last

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • See, I'm not completely sold on the "set point theory". I just don't thing your body/brain is that dumb. And if there was any credence to it why in the world would you want to trick yourself out of it? Seems more likely that when you hit a stall there is more metabolic healing that needs to take place (assuming there is more weight that needs to be lost), or perhaps your goals are culturally motivated and the weight your at is perfectly healthy. Just thinking out loud. I'm sure this works, but I'm just more inclined to attribute it to other mechanisms. Sorry to be a party pooper.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
      See, I'm not completely sold on the "set point theory". I just don't thing your body/brain is that dumb. And if there was any credence to it why in the world would you want to trick yourself out of it? Seems more likely that when you hit a stall there is more metabolic healing that needs to take place (assuming there is more weight that needs to be lost), or perhaps your goals are culturally motivated and the weight your at is perfectly healthy. Just thinking out loud. I'm sure this works, but I'm just more inclined to attribute it to other mechanisms. Sorry to be a party pooper.
      My theory at to why this works goes into a deeper understanding of psychological responses to food. I'll have to see if I can find any evidence that backs up our brain and bodies reacting differently to flavorful calories as opposed to calories with no flavor at all. I think the set point idea might be part of it, but it is WAY too simplistic to attribute the entire success of this diet simply to it.
      "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Neckhammer View Post
        See, I'm not completely sold on the "set point theory". I just don't thing your body/brain is that dumb. And if there was any credence to it why in the world would you want to trick yourself out of it? Seems more likely that when you hit a stall there is more metabolic healing that needs to take place (assuming there is more weight that needs to be lost), or perhaps your goals are culturally motivated and the weight your at is perfectly healthy. Just thinking out loud. I'm sure this works, but I'm just more inclined to attribute it to other mechanisms. Sorry to be a party pooper.
        I totally buy the appetite suppression angle but I share your doubts about the set point thing. I think there are points where your body can settle in and get comfy with a certain weight and if you want it to change you have to "up your game". I think the appetite suppression helps people to get past that gnawing ravenous feeling long enough to calm down and develop a better relationship with food. It takes the "frantic factor" out of it.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
          In the "Eat Fat, Grow Slim" book, Enig and Fallon are advocating CO for both the appetite suppression and the metabolic boost reasons.

          MCT oil is often recommended on ketogenic protocols as a more palatable option for people who find regular CO gag inducing including children.
          From my brief searchings, I find some people who say they use MTC oil (or refined coconut oil) on this plan and CLAIM it helps. But then I see people who use the glucose solution or the light olive oil and claim to have the same success. I don't see any specific writings or mentions from the creator on MTC oils, or medium chain triglycerides in general however. I think the appetite suppression is probably the biggest reason people see success on this diet (assuming they do at all, not everyone did).
          "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

          Comment


          • I guess Cod Liver Oil would have too strong of a flavor to work, it would be nice to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I tried it today with the CO I had on hand and found that unrefined is too good tasting, I had to really pinch my nose not to taste it.
            Life is death. We all take turns. It's sacred to eat during our turn and be eaten when our turn is over. RichMahogany.

            Comment


            • Coconut oil also boosts the thyroid and raises body temperature. It boosts the metabolism. The 100+ grams of carbs a day probably helps the thyroid also.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Urban Forager View Post
                I guess Cod Liver Oil would have too strong of a flavor to work, it would be nice to kill 2 birds with 1 stone. I tried it today with the CO I had on hand and found that unrefined is too good tasting, I had to really pinch my nose not to taste it.
                Yep, I'd use refined for this reason.

                And I'd pass the light olive oil option up for the obvious reasons.
                "The cling and a clang is the metal in my head when I walk. I hear a sort of, this tinging noise - cling clang. The cling clang. So many things happen while walking. The metal in my head clangs and clings as I walk - freaks my balance out. So the natural thought is just clogged up. Totally clogged up. So we need to unplug these dams, and make the the natural flow... It sort of freaks me out. We need to unplug the dams. You cannot stop the natural flow of thought with a cling and a clang..."

                Comment


                • i also have doubts about the set point theory, but i also don't understand the set point theory, so . . .

                  Comment


                  • All of the functions in our bodies are regulated by strict homeostatic-inducing mechanisms. We have a "setpoint" for our body temperature, our circulating blood sugar levels, electrolytes, hormones, rate of hair and skin growth, rates of tissue regeneration and tissue death. Why would it be such a stretch to think that we have a "setpoint" for our weight as well?

                    We just haven't figured out how it works yet. I don't know how my computer works on the inside either, but I can still use it...

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by marthat View Post
                      All of the functions in our bodies are regulated by strict homeostatic-inducing mechanisms. We have a "setpoint" for our body temperature, our circulating blood sugar levels, electrolytes, hormones, rate of hair and skin growth, rates of tissue regeneration and tissue death. Why would it be such a stretch to think that we have a "setpoint" for our weight as well?

                      We just haven't figured out how it works yet. I don't know how my computer works on the inside either, but I can still use it...
                      I'm not saying that the setpoint thing couldn't be possible. I just think that Occam's razor would say that a perfectly straightforward explanation of appetite suppression=eating less=weight loss doesn't need to have the setpoint aspect to be plausible.

                      Comment


                      • again, not saying it's impossible either, just confused about it.

                        right now, i set around 128 with no real effort. my body just sort of naturally goes there. during 'bad times' such as bad diet and/or emotional eating (with some controls), I'll get up to 135 or so.

                        So, say set point is right here. My appetite is adequately suppressed through IF (or whatever mechanism is doing that), such that I'm eating 15-1700 calories per day.

                        If this lowers my set point, how low will it go? What is reasonable and/or likely? Also, would this mean consuming less -- such as going down towards 14-1600 or even lower?

                        Calorie restriction -- you know, those who do it for longevity -- are looking at anywhere from 1000-1500 cals/day depending upon the person, and i was just wondering what this was doing. or if that is part of it or what. IDK. Just ideas in my head.

                        Comment


                        • I think our body's 'set point' is the level at which we're most comfortable eating in terms of calories. That is, WE regulate our weight by how we eat.

                          For example, I have a friend who has lost some weight, and is currently 120 lbs. She looks and feels great at this weight, but she had a desire to get back to her college weight (she's 48 now), and so she lost to 115 lbs. She felt fine, but she realized that she wasn't willing to eat at the caloric level that would allow her to maintain at 115 lbs. At 120 lbs, she's comfortable with her eating.

                          I suspect that most people who don't have weight issues and disregard calories eat at a similar caloric level from habit, so their weight stabilizes at a weight consistent with their food consumption. That isn't a 'set point' for the body; if the person ate a lot more, he/she would gain weight and similarly by restricting, the person would lose.

                          As to 'how low' a person can go, the stories I've read of anorexia suggest that if a person limits eating enough, the body will respond accordingly--to the point of death if there's no intervention.

                          Comment


                          • I started yesterday with two tablespoons of virgin pressed unrefined coconut oil. One when I got home from work (3pm) and another at 8pm. I couldn't believe how well the appetite suppression worked. I chased both doses with water and so it I tasted nothing. I've never lost weight in over two years of primal so I'm really curious how this will work for me.

                            Comment


                            • I wasn't saying I would EAT macadamia nuts. I would swallow them like pills with a glass of water. Maybe halves. I tried swallowing beef tallow like pills this morning but it got stuck in my throat. Chunks too big.

                              It doesn't bother me to skip a meal, but it does bother me to be hungry. I am interested in appetite suppressant. I don't know if I like the whole flavorless thing. I mean, as soon as you open the container you can smell it so trying to completely avoid taste and smell seems like an exercise in futility.

                              By the way, Enig's book is titled Eat Fat, Lose Fat.

                              You can download a free PDF of Eat Fat and Grow Slim, a book by Richard Mackarness written in 1960. It is a low carb/high fat book.
                              Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by emmie View Post
                                I think our body's 'set point' is the level at which we're most comfortable eating in terms of calories. That is, WE regulate our weight by how we eat.

                                For example, I have a friend who has lost some weight, and is currently 120 lbs. She looks and feels great at this weight, but she had a desire to get back to her college weight (she's 48 now), and so she lost to 115 lbs. She felt fine, but she realized that she wasn't willing to eat at the caloric level that would allow her to maintain at 115 lbs. At 120 lbs, she's comfortable with her eating.

                                I suspect that most people who don't have weight issues and disregard calories eat at a similar caloric level from habit, so their weight stabilizes at a weight consistent with their food consumption. That isn't a 'set point' for the body; if the person ate a lot more, he/she would gain weight and similarly by restricting, the person would lose.

                                As to 'how low' a person can go, the stories I've read of anorexia suggest that if a person limits eating enough, the body will respond accordingly--to the point of death if there's no intervention.
                                In a fully functional animal, including humans, there are several feedback mechanisms to let the brain know the body is 'full', it isn't a conscious decision. Sure, a person can consciously overeat and get fat, or be force fed and get fat, and in essence, when eating a SAD high in sugar and seed oil, we are force feeding ourselves beyond what the brain can compensate for--so it does the best it can...the brain initiates survival strategies like physiological insulin resistance, for instance.

                                The feedback in the hunger-driven systems is normally accomplished by those things that are hard to understand--insulin, leptin, ghrelin, cortisol, melatonin, etc...

                                Any normally functioning animal, including humans, should be able to be fed ad libitum or 'free choice', meaning that you should be able to live in a banquet hall full of all the foods in the world and you'd only eat what you need to thrive. It's also well known that there is an internally controlled weight setpoint. The normally functioning body wants to stay at a certain weight and has ways to make minor changes...most of the excess calories you consume are burnt at night while you sleep through the manipulation of uncoupling proteins and increased body temp. I don't think this can keep up, though, with constant overfeedings on poor nutrition foods.

                                The weight setpoint is more obvious in animals...take a flock of pen-raised chickens; feed them ad libitum, with allowances for sex and breed, they will all be the same weight. Look at a herd of deer or a troop of monkeys--they are all weight normalized within a narrow band. I think if you could go back in time, you'd see the same thing in a village of paleolithic people.

                                Dogs, cats, hamsters, birds, chickens, pigs, cows, horses, monkeys...the list goes on, can all be fed 'free choice'. Humans are capable of this as well, but just as with animals being fed free choice, if you throw them a treat, they will eat it despite being full. Throw your dog enough treats and eventually he will become tired of them and they are no longer a treat and he will stop eating them.

                                Humans are constantly being bombarded by treats that lead us to overeat. Most of us have broken feedback loops on hunger, whether from out-of-synch circadian cycles, improper nutrition, psychological issues, medical issues, etc...

                                It seems to me the SLD may be a way to circumvent some of the normal feedback signals and help a person 'get their groove back' so to speak concerning a weight set-point.
                                Last edited by otzi; 01-06-2013, 10:02 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X