Page 16 of 175 FirstFirst ... 614151617182666116 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 1743

Thread: Shangri-La Diet - setpoint success at last page 16

  1. #151
    zoebird's Avatar
    zoebird is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    8,089
    Primal Fuel
    Here is what I got from the paper (so far):

    1. when nutrient poor foods were available, animals ate more calories to receive nutrients; when nutrient rich foods were available, animals ate fewer calories.

    2. we have learned behaviors around flavors -- over time, our body recognizes certain flavors as food, and other flavors as not-as-good food. When available, we tend to eat the more flavorful foods in abundance (believed because those were seasonal. . . or less available). This is the food-reward feedback system -- the "pavlovian" part.

    3. our bodies have a mechanism of food storage cost/benefit analysis. if nutrients are low, storing them may be less costly than utilizing, and excess calories can benefit in terms of creating more fat to store (cost being carrying that fat, of course); if nutrients are high, storing them is more costly than utilizing -- and fewer calories are consumed, thereby the person is leaner.

    I understand that 1 + 2 + 3=

    A. when we eat foods that we like the flavor of, but that are nutrient poor, we keep consuming calories to make up the deficit. . . which understanding calories in/out, leads to fat gain.

    B. when we eat bland foods or foods that we like that are nutrient rich, we tend to consume fewer calories, which helps with weight loss or maintaining at "set point."

    C. by combining nutrient rich calories (flavorless oil) and divorcing it from food-flavor recognition/enjoyment, it becomes a nutrient rich source of calories, causing the body to desire fewer calories overall, but it's also a non-desired caloric origin, so it doesn't have the whole food-reward mechanism.

    What I still don't understand is set-point lowering. So far, there's a lot about how animals have a set point, but not how it goes up/down.

    But, I have to say that the more nutrient dense food I eat, the less I eat. so that demonstrates that aspect.

  2. #152
    Paleobird's Avatar
    Paleobird Guest
    I read it too and I am even more skeptical now. First of all the entire thing is based on an unproven *assumption* that the set-point is influenced by this taste/calories association. It says as much in the first paragraph.

    Also I don't get how anyone can say that an iso-caloric dose of sugar water and oil are going to have the same effect internally as long as you hold your nose. The interior of the body is not that clueless. It knows the difference. (The possibility of using oil is not even mentioned until the very last sentence. The whole paper up until then is all about the sugar water.)

    Also, how does he claim that fructose water is flavorless? Wouldn't it be sweet?

    This whole theory stems from him observing that he had some new (to him) sodas while on vacation in France and lost weight. Could be more than a few confounding variables going on there. Then he replicates this back home in an n=1 and calls it data? I call it confirmation bias.

    I get what he is saying about junk food particularly from chain restaurants having a pavlovian association effect. This is very similar to the whole food reward and hyper-palatablity theories. So I can see how flavorless calories sneaked in this way would not have this effect of artificially inflating appetite signals. But he has not convinced me that it would actually lower the set point other than by just the obvious mechanism of "taking the edge off" of one's hunger leading to lower consumption and lower weight.

  3. #153
    Ripped's Avatar
    Ripped is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by heatseeker View Post
    Oh, and I hope Ripped 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.
    Good. Most people are too retarded to get this part. That's why they're disgustingly obese.

    As for the diet theory, I just want to know one thing. Are there any isocaloric studies
    Proving that it works compared to other diets? Yes or no?

    If no, then that only proves my point. If you're eating more because you "think" you're hungry, then you better think again. You don't know what real hunger is.

    I have an idea. Next time you think you're hungry even though you've clearly already eaten plenty, remind yourself that there are children in Africa dying of starvation who would be blessed if they were lucky enough to eat even 10% of what you already ate today.

  4. #154
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripped View Post
    Good. Most people are too retarded to get this part. That's why they're disgustingly obese.
    'Roid rage much?

  5. #155
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,729
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    'Roid rage much?
    Otzi he has evoked the moral high ground by ending his rant with the famous "theres starving kids in Africa!".....anything you say is futile as you can not argue with such a saint.

  6. #156
    Neckhammer's Avatar
    Neckhammer is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,729
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    'Roid rage much?
    Otzi he has evoked the moral high ground by ending his rant with the famous "theres starving kids in Africa!".....anything you say is futile as you can not argue with such sound reasoning.

  7. #157
    otzi's Avatar
    otzi Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post
    I read it too and I am even more skeptical now. First of all the entire thing is based on an unproven *assumption* that the set-point is influenced by this taste/calories association. It says as much in the first paragraph.
    I don't think anyone here has a dog in this fight--it's just a neat phenomenon that needs dissecting...I went to Google Scholar and searched "Loss of smell obesity" "Loss of taste obesity" and a couple other combos and got quite a few interesting hits like:

    ScienceDirect.com - Physiology & Behavior - Sweet tooth reconsidered: Taste responsiveness in human obesity which says "We hypothesize that sensory preferences for dietary sugars and fats are determined by body-weight status and may affect the patterns of food consumption."

    and: http://philosophy.scurvy.net/docs/cl...psychology.pdf which says "Obese, mildly overweight and normal weight females rated glucose solutions of increasing concentrations for perceived intensity and pleasantness. Obese and mildly overweight subjects found increasingly sweet solutions more pleasant than did normals. Weight loss by dieting did not affect this relationship. Weight loss due to intestinal bypass surgery altered ratings of the pleasantness of glucose solutions, making them appear more similar to ratings given by normal weight individuals. Finally, after weight loss by dieting, all weight groups found the sweet taste of milkshake pleasant even after a preload and consumed large amounts of the milkshake. Prior to weight loss, ingestion of a preload had produced lowered pleasantness ratings and reduced consumption."

    and: http://philosophy.scurvy.net/docs/cl...psychology.pdf a review of the Shangri-La diet which says "So Roberts tried to game this Stone Age system. What if he could keep his thermostat
    low by sending fewer flavor signals? One obvious solution was a bland diet, but that
    didn't interest Roberts. (He is, in fact, a serious foodie.) After a great deal of
    experimenting, he discovered two agents capable of tricking the set-point system. A few
    tablespoons of unflavored oil (he used canola or extra light olive oil), swallowed a few
    times a day between mealtimes, gave his body some calories but didn't trip the signal to
    stock up on more. Several ounces of sugar water (he used granulated fructose, which has
    a lower glycemic index than table sugar) produced the same effect. (Sweetness does not
    seem to act as a "flavor" in the body's caloric-signaling system.)
    The results were astounding. Roberts lost 40 pounds and never gained it back. He could
    eat pretty much whenever and whatever he wanted, but he was far less hungry than he
    had ever been. Friends and colleagues tried his diet, usually with similar results. His
    regimen seems to satisfy a set of requirements that many commercial diets do not: it was
    easy, built on a scientific theory and, most important, it did not leave Roberts hungry.

  8. #158
    Ripped's Avatar
    Ripped is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by otzi View Post
    'Roid rage much?
    Thank goodness no!! Just a jerky way of expressing myself on these matters.

    Being formerly obese myself, I suppose I have somewhat of a chip on my shoulder when it comes to this stuff.

    Why? Because I used to also believe in a lot of silly myths common in an industrialized nation filled with gluttons who think its normal to have rolls and rolls of fat hanging off them, and it only perpetuated my own problem.

    But once I learned to think differently about food, I dropped most of the extra weight and kept it off.

    IF actually helped A LOT!!! You get used to it, then you don't get hungry all the time anymore and food tastes better when you do eat; you appreciate it and enjoy it more. Once the fat is gone, your hormones work better and you fill up quicker. These days I rarely feel hungry after dinner, because my body tells me that I'm full.

    In other words, eating less often has an appetite suppressing affect. That is of course if you don't just think you need to eat for some stupid reason such as someone told you so.

  9. #159
    Ripped's Avatar
    Ripped is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    505
    Quote Originally Posted by Neckhammer View Post
    Otzi he has evoked the moral high ground by ending his rant with the famous "theres starving kids in Africa!".....anything you say is futile as you can not argue with such sound reasoning.
    My "naturally thin" friend used to tell me "eat less", that was his answer to obesity. I always used to think the answer HAD to be more complicated than that, because "insert excuse".

    Years later through extensive research and trying many diets, I did in fact realize that the answer was to eat less. He said, "so I was right all along all these years?"

    Yes he was, and I wish I knew that 20 years ago.

  10. #160
    marthat's Avatar
    marthat is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,053
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleobird View Post

    Also, how does he claim that fructose water is flavorless? Wouldn't it be sweet?
    Somehow, it's not about tongue-based taste sensations, but about the flavour - all those aromas, chemicals etc. that hit the sensors in the back of your nose/pharynx area and are the more complex sensations of flavour. They seem to have a direct line to the pleasure centres of the brain or something. When you can avoid that stimulation, by holding your breath, using noseclips or whatever, you get the calories without triggering the flavour/calorie association. Similar to having a bad cold, when you can still sense salty or sweet, but nothing tastes like anything.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •