[QUOTE=otzi;1052053]That's what I thought at first, too, but I don't believe it. Even when I would eat 1800+ calories I would be in 'heavy' ketosis on the ketostix, had super keto breath and weird colored urine. I did 45 days of a ketogenic diet from 1 Nov-15 Dec this year and could barely get into the lower end of the color spectrum, even when eating 1000kcal for several days. I think that my liver was converting the protein to glucose so fast I could never get into ketosis, but with the potatoes, your liver doesn't have a say in it--it's done by the little fellows hitching a ride in your guts.
This is just speculation--you may be right. You know a lot more about ketosis than me..[/QUOTE]
I think you are right:
Short chain fatty acids are ketogenic even in the presence of excess carbs.
[QUOTE]The most likely explanation of the ketogenic activity of short
chain (Cl, and lower), even numbered carbon fatty acids in the
presence of an excess of carbohydrate appears to us to be associated
with the inability of the body to store fat containing short chain
fatty acids. [/QUOTE]
I'm doing it. I'd like to drop 10lbs but I'm also super curious! I've been trying to loose these lbs forever- I loose 3 or 4 lbs but it's back within a few days of non-restricted eating.
I think I'll journal it!
Marthat I had the same experience you did with platinum calories--not nearly as effective as flavourless calories. I would also like to point out that a lot of people got launched into the internet world by following Seth's experiments (Todd Becker and his theory of hormesis comes to mind). There are people who have lost a ton of weight doing SLD--some not so much. I think I am one of those people who is excessively sensitive to fat--and I never got as much appetite suppression as others did. Potatoes are providing both appetite suppression as well as fat loss --and Otzi--I am TOTALLY in ketosis and it has not one thing to do with the number of calories I am eating. taters are magic!
[QUOTE=Zach;1048231]Refined coconut oil has no taste. Its usually solid at room temp so just take a spoonful and wash it down with some water.[/QUOTE]
I saw a blog about making your own ' chocolate' with coconut oil, did it, tastes ok. Might be useful.
Melt 150g of coconut oil in pan or bowl over hot water
Add 50 g of 100% cocoa powder
Add a teaspoon of honey or some other sweetener if you want it.
Pour onto a tray or into mini moulds if you want chocolate shapes.
I broke up some walnuts and poured it over that
allow to set.
I find it is a nice way to make that coconut oil more palatable, and it's a cheapish chocolate with nowt else in it
That said, is the idea to have literally NO flavour, or is it just a case of getting the oil down any way you can?
No flavour at all. The chocolate can be eaten with your nose clipped to avoid any non-tongue flavours, then rinse your mouth out before removing the clips. I never got into noseclipping - too weird for me. But many folks use them to allow them to eat flavourful foods without tasting them.
BTW, the tongue sensors of sweet, sour, bitter and salty, plus umame, don't count. This is about the flavour/aromas that are sensed in the upper back of the palate and nasal passages. It's like those nerves have a direct link to the appetite centres of the brain - who knows, maybe they do!
quick question because I couldn't find it on the links.
Can you verify that this is the basic process?
Step 1: eat your normal diet, as SLD will naturally suppress appetite, thereby naturally decreasing your caloric intake;
Step 2: one hour after eating/drinking (including tea?) something flavorful (even if non-caloric), you have your dose of oil (i'm using about 1/2 tsp coconut).
Step 3: don't drink or eat anything flavorful for an hour after the oil -- effectively, this means water only for two hours, if a drink is desired or required.
Step 4: eat next meal so long as it is outside the flavorless window.
In my case, I'm looking at the coconut oil simply replacing my 'snack.' I tend to have about 100-150 calories at snack time (a few nuts, maybe some fruit), then the other calories (15-1700 per day average) divided between two meals. Then, we'll see what happens. Also, i might alternate between oils -- cod liver (nose holding!), flax, and coconut. Just for health benefits of the different oils.
I admit, I don't fully grasp the set point business and how that relates to calories, any insight on this would be interesting to read.
Not sure anyone understands the exact mechanism or why it works, even Seth. But it's a working hypothesis and he has links to the science that he used to develop the hypothesis. There's obviously a biochemical/hormonal/neurological mechanism underlying the "setpoint" adjustment but I've not seen anything that will clearly point to it.
Seth Roberts is a psychologist and professor, not a biochemist/anatomist/neurologist. To my mind, this is another example of what Gary Taubes referred to as the problem of specialization. While all kinds of relevant research is being done in one field, such as cardiology, and being published in [I]their[/I] professional journals, the diabetologists are oblivious because it's not being reported in [I]their[/I] journals. It took a psychologist to look at the brain/body processes from a new perspective and possibly find a new mechanism. Definitely an "outside-the-box" perspective.
At some point in the day or night, in a period of no other flavours ingested (between meals, or upon waking, or upon retiring), take your shot of calories (generally as some type of pure fat) in a method that allows you to prevent any flavours from entering your nose. It's OK if you sense sweetness or saltiness, but no defined flavours. Think about how you lack taste when you have a bad cold.
The "classic" application is to have a tbsp of oil mid-morning and mid-afternoon between meals. I found it easier and more effective to take it all at once. I used to take 2 tbsp of oil at mid-p.m.
Eat your regular diet, but eat only when you are hungry and eat only what your body tells you is enough. It may be half of your previous usual intake. It's "appetite reduction", not true hunger prevention and you will still get hungry when you really need food. But all the background "noise" of appetite, environmental cues, hormonal cravings, etc is muted to silenced. It's a peaceful food relationship. Maybe not as big a deal here on the primal boards, but for those with SAD diets and cravings, it can be a big deal.
I can imagine.
I noticed since starting IF that I have no compulsion to emotionally eat. It ws a long-term bane of my existence and a lot of hard work. I would have to go through many steps to make sure I didn't emotionally eat, or I would choose to consciously emotionally eat.
Since IF, I never feel hungry, really. So, even if i feel like emotionally eating, I cannot bring myself to do it!
I'm not sure that I need appetite suppression, you know?
What I'm wondering is what "set point" means -- not the exact mechanism.
Does it mean that your body has a "set point" at where it likes to keep it's weight, and using this method, your body changes it's "set point" from say 135 to 125, and as such you eat for the 125 lb body, and hten loose weight to get there? And will it reduce it again? or is there a point where it will stop?
When I was a vegan triathlete, I weighed in at 118. I wasn't over-hungry. I did eat a fair amount. When I went vegetarian, I focused on yoga (vigorous vinyasa) rather than tri-training, though I walked a lot (about 7 mi/day in two long walks). I popped up to about 128. Still, it was only one clothing size change (from size 2 to size 4), and I stayed there until pregnant. After pregnancy, took 14 months to get anywhere, but when we got to NZ, I was around 130-135. Still, size 4, but a bit 'puffy.'
Went primal, and immediately dropped down to 128 again.
I think I would like to be somewhere between 120-128. . . I'm at 128 now (i was weighed a few weeks ago). . . and I am wondering if this is a 'set point' sort of issue.
Like, is my set point 128? could it go down to 118? (not that I necessarily want to be that small, i'm just wondering).
I'm willing to try this. If it gives you appetite suppression, this might be useful to me.
So today, for an example, I went out for breakfast and had only black coffee. Then I went for a hike. Partway through the hike I got really hungry so I had something small to eat. I got home at 2:30. I wanted to see if I could fast until dinner, but I was really hungry. So I took a spoonful of coconut oil. It took a while but I stopped feeling quite so hungry and it looks like I can make it to dinner.
If I could do this on work days, have breakfast around 11 and then coconut oil sometime later in the day, maybe I could see what happens. I want to eat less but I get hungry and once I eat, I tend to eat too much. If this could help me change my ways, that would be great.
I think what people are missing is that the point of the Shangri-La thing is that the calories you consume are FLAVORLESS. In that sense, things like fat shakes, bombs, and Bulletproof coffee can't be compared. Those have quite a BIT of flavor to most people.
I think there's got to be a psychological link between extra calories in an environment completely lacking of any taste stimulating properties that makes it different in some key respects to just a regular "fat snack" type of strategy.