Any normally functioning animal, including humans, should be able to be fed [I]ad libitum[/I] 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.
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.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so here's where I am confuzzed.
we look at the OP, heatseeker.
For years, she's doing a good, basic PB thing. She is doing vigorous hot yoga several times a week, if not daily. She adds in various forms of weight training (currently crossfit), she's likely active in other ways, too (running, walking, whatever). She says as much.
She does this on a primal diet and is happy and healthy but her body stops at X point (say, 165). She does IF, she does more like 100% primal, calorie restriction, different exercise, more sleep. . . whatever you can think of, she does it. Her body stays around 165.
It would stand to reason, therefore, that her set point is 165, and no matter what she does, her body will work to keep her at 165. Right?
Now, she does SLD. If 165 was her "set point" eating freely (as she was eating freely) and getting good exercise/sleep/lifestyle, then it stands to reason that her body would not go below that set point. Ie, that her set point couldn't be lowered -- her body is just happy there.
Yet, she tries SLD, and she loses 13 lbs right off (or in several weeks/months). That takes her down to 152. Then, say, she keeps doing SLD and she goes down 13 more. That puts her at 139. Then, say, she continues and loses another 13 lbs. And now she's at 126. And then she goes "right where I want to be."
Now, is this her new "set point?" If it is, then going back to regular primal, no SLD, same number of calories/exercise/sleep, etc would mean that her body now stays at this set point, right? Or, will it only stay there if it has the extra CO or other flavorless calories?
I described before how i have been as low as 118. My current "set point" seems to be around 128. If SLD is correct, "set point" can be moved, but to where? How low will it go?
I mean, can I move my "set point" down to 118 (not saying I want to, btw), just using this method, while still eating roughly the same amount of calories (or eating freely without a problem of feeling hunger, etc as I am now), and thereby being leaner and weighing less? Or will it drive me toward fewer calories, but then I'll stay at my current set-point of 128? Or what? I'm confused. :)
LOL I am confused about this whole thing, although I just read the whole thread.
I do have coconut oil in my BP coffee each day, plus today I got MCT, so might try and have a spoonful each day anyway.
Am planning to ditch the BP coffee.
Not trying this thing per say, as I want to stick with eat moar fat for 30 days before I try something new though.
Just trying to understand this whole thing.
Agreed this is rather confusing. Yet the past 2 days, for the hell of it, I've added some coconut oil in a "no flavor" window. My appetite for supper was down. Less food needed to feel full, which is pretty interesting, as I'm one who likes large meals. Maybe just a blip, but it might be worth experimenting with.
[quote]Now, is this her new "set point?" If it is, then going back to regular primal, no SLD, same number of calories/exercise/sleep, etc would mean that her body now stays at this set point, right? Or, will it only stay there if it has the extra CO or other flavorless calories?[/quote]
First of all, [b]zoebird[/b], you described my diet/exercise/lifestyle, and setpoint issues, for the past few years perfectly! Either I've articulated myself better than I thought on these boards, or you're extremely good at extrapolating details. :)
And your question has been raised a couple times in this thread, though not as eloquently. The answer is: I have no idea. It's something about which I'm curious, too. I guess when I get to my goal BF%, I'll stop taking the oil and just see what happens.
[quote]Is the root of the diet's success in appetite suppression or in the "trick" of the oil?[/quote]
Reiterating something I said way in the beginning of the thread, I've done straight up calorie restriction, just white-knuckling my way through for weeks on end at 1100-1200 calories per day, and experienced no weight loss. Doing flavorless oil + calorie suppression, though, = weight loss. Draw whatever conclusions you will.
Oh, and I hope [b]Ripped[/b] takes careful note of that last paragraph. Eat less calories, oh really, dude? Thanks, that is SUPER helpful. NEVER would have thought of that on my own.
This appears to be the original source document for the Shangri-La Diet. 77 pages...
That article is a lot to chew. But. I don't mind chewing. ;)
It appeared from what little I read on seth robert's blog that one has to continue the flavorless calories indefinitely. The setpoint doesn't really "stick". People gain weight when they stop. Could be a lot of reasons why they gain weight, like they stop so they eat more, but I don't really know. And I don't know for sure if the not "sticking" thing is the same for everybody.
Yesterday I was looking for MCT oil (didn't find it) and found coconut oil capsules. I considered buying them because then you would not taste the oil at all. But they were way too expensive.
So, does taking a couple of tablespoons of oil in the evening, 1 hr after anything with "taste" and before bed or whatever suffice? Is this the basis of it or is there more?
[QUOTE=otzi;1053965]This appears to be the original source document for the Shangri-La Diet. 77 pages...
Actually thats right along the lines of what I was looking for. Thanks!
Oh, BTW.....3 raw egg yolks shot while pinching your nose might be good for this too (I don't pinch mine, but I'm making it Shangrik-La adaptable). I was doing a 24hr "fast" the other day and made this my lunch. Probably 150-200 calories, but I was quite happy till supper. Yeah it was a bit of a cheat.
[QUOTE=Neckhammer;1054214]Actually thats right along the lines of what I was looking for. Thanks!
If you make it through, please give us your digested, distilled version--it's a pretty daunting paper!