Shangri-La Diet - setpoint success at last page 18

[Ripped]

A couple years ago, a company came into town called "Ideal Weight". they gave free seminars and offered counselling to people, sold them supplements and packaged meals. 8 or 10 people where I work went on the plan and all lost huge amounts of weight. I started Primal about the same time and lost a little slower. Now 2 years later, all of them are off the plan and have gained all their weight back. They say things like, 'it's not sustainable' or 'I'd rather be fat than starving all the time'.

When people first noticed I was losing so much weight, they assumed I was on Ideal Weight. After all those folks gained it back and I haven't they started asking questions. I point them to paleo/primal, but most aren't really interested. People want quick fixes and gimmicks. I have helped a few people to see that what you eat is way more important than anything.

To tell an obese person to 'just eat less' is such a cop out. I think if an obese person's first attempt at dieting was the Shangri-La Diet and they lost a bunch of weight without ever really learning how to eat healthy, it would be a huge failure. But for someone on a Primal Journey, why not give it a try. If nothing else, you'd be incorporating some healthy fats in your diet for a while. If you started gaining--quit. If you started losing--woo hoo!

What can I say? I've learned to be more flexible than that. And I've made it work for me.

I don't argue that primal is not healthy or anything like that. I actually like it. But there are ways to eat other foods and still find some sort of balance.

[Ripped]

Sorry, but eating less of the wrong foods is not enough when you have a deranged sugar metabolism. You are talking about living in constant misery and, in my case, physical pain. Eating less didn't make me smaller, it only made me hungrier.. until I got to the point I was hungry all the time even right after a large meal.. so I just went hungry. I don't go hungry now and I'm more than 30 lbs smaller.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, you're right, I lost 50 lbs and kept it off for life. But I don't know what I'm talking about.

All diets work because you are eating less calories. If you lost 30 lbs, its because you ate less calories. You may not have consciously realized it while you were doing it, but you did.

The key to success as I see it, when fat loss is the goal, is to find a way to cut calories as necessary without making it uncomfortable. If you can do that, you're golden. Personally, when I'm really focused and want to lose, I'll go for foods that are low in calories but fill me up.

Earlier this year when I wanted to drop 10 lbs, I did it that way. I went with mostly meat and A LOT of vegetables. I added a little bit of fats from cheese and mayonaise, and allowed reasonable cheat days once per week. It worked.

I balance it out by not doing that all the time.

[Ripped]

i don't like talking about my serious issues that much because frankly, who cares right?

but i'm getting a little annoyed. not at you specifically. but this type of post.

i went through many years very depressed, sometimes my appetite would be high, most times it would be low and the remaining amount of time it would be zero

for an extended period of time i ate literally nothing more than a few bites of food a day

i didn't gain weight, and i sure as hell didn't lose it either. why? because i am a special snowflake just like every one else. eating less worked for you, it doesn't work for me. my body should have cannibalized a great deal of its fat stores but it did not

until you (and the sugar pushers) can tell me why exactly your ways do not work for me, it'd work in your favor by adding at the end of your posts the letters I M O

So sometimes you ate a lot and other times you didn't eat at all. The word balance comes to mind and that's why your weight didn't change. (From your post I can't gather wether or not to gain or lose was of interest to you.) But anyways, it sounds to me like the mathematics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still working out in such a case.

By the way, wouldn't you be eating less calories if you ate less sugar? I think so. Because doesn't sugar have calories in it?

[zoebird]

Yes, you're right, I lost 50 lbs and kept it off for life. But I don't know what I'm talking about.

you ain't dead yet, are ya?

anyway. I do believe you can keep it off for life.

All diets work because you are eating less calories. If you lost 30 lbs, its because you ate less calories. You may not have consciously realized it while you were doing it, but you did.

The key to success as I see it, when fat loss is the goal, is to find a way to cut calories as necessary without making it uncomfortable. If you can do that, you're golden. Personally, when I'm really focused and want to lose, I'll go for foods that are low in calories but fill me up.

Earlier this year when I wanted to drop 10 lbs, I did it that way. I went with mostly meat and A LOT of vegetables. I added a little bit of fats from cheese and mayonaise, and allowed reasonable cheat days once per week. It worked.

I balance it out by not doing that all the time.

I'm glad it worked. Part of the reason why it worked is because you have a functional metabolism.

There are a lot of people who do not have a functional metabolism for a variety of reasons -- largely hormonal and gut reasons.

And, there may be someting to this "set point" theory, as well, and if people are seeing results (ie, consuming fewer calories because of appetite suppression and/or more nutrient rich food therefore consuming less -- which is touted in a variety of sources), then perhaps you don't know everything about "how this works."

And before you get all fucking huffy about how awesome you are at your weight loss, I also lost about the same amount of weight 10 years ago.

I gained that weight due to a combination of pituitary tumor (hormonal issues) and emotional eating. But, my emotional eating wasn't different from before the pituitary tumor, nor my caloric intake during/after really, so it truly was the hormones.

What solved the problem? Figuring out how to manage the hormones through certain dietary and lifestyle changes.

I also lost the weight as a vegan, eating 700 calories per day more than I do now, and about 200-400 more than I did before going vegan. I was also a triathlete at the time, so i probably needed the extra, yeah?

So, it's not always a calories in/calories out "put down the fork" admonishment.

I also went through a pregnancy, and it too 14 months to loose the excess weight not becuse I overate during pregnancy OR lactation (i ate the recommended amounts, followed hunger, etc), but because of *hormones*. When my son started relying more on food for nutrition than breas tmilk (even though he continued to nurse until he was 3), then my body let go of the excess fat with *no change* in what *I* was doing. I wasn't eating less, I wasn't exercising more, I didn't have more nutrient rich food, etc. My son was nursing as often, but his body wasn't relying on it for primary nutrition, which meant the content of the milk changed and my body adapted.

I'd only gained 25 lbs in pregnancy, but I held onto it for the full 14 months after. :P and, all in my arms and upper back and breasts. But I looked like a big lady from the waist up! LOL I was size 6 from waist down, and then dropped to size 4 once the weight fell off, and back to normal sizes.

So, I'm just saying -- none of this had anyhting to do with forks or cookies or caloric intakes or whatever.

Thus, I repeat cori.

[bloodorchid]

So sometimes you ate a lot and other times you didn't eat at all. The word balance comes to mind and that's why your weight didn't change. (From your post I can't gather wether or not to gain or lose was of interest to you.) But anyways, it sounds to me like the mathematics of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is still working out in such a case.

By the way, wouldn't you be eating less calories if you ate less sugar? I think so. Because doesn't sugar have calories in it?

the sugar pushers are on another thread assuming everybody's body wlrks the same as theirs. Much like you are here.

The period of almost no food lasted for months. Literally. No exageration.

no weight lost

Please tell me why reduced calories didn't work if it's that simple

[heatseeker]

Hey, Ripped, I respect that you want to talk about how you lost a lot of weight by restricting calories, but this thread is about the Shangri-La Diet and why/how it works. I've been really enjoying the discussions, hypotheses, and references presented by people with a more science-attuned mind than my own. But now you've kind of hijacked the thread. If you want to keep talking about your own weight loss and how other people should just do what you did (you've conveniently ignored the many posts by myself and others who DID do what you did and lost no weight, but oh well), might I suggest you go start a new thread entitled, "Hey Fatties/Dummies: Eat Less" and leave us to our topic? Thanks.

[AshleyL]

Because your body's energy systems were deranged, broken. This guy thinks that since his work correctly, everyone else's must work correctly as well.

Nope, I have have stuck with 1,200 calories a day with no weight loss in sight- only hunger... and I am an active person, I have livestock to care for, you can't skip a day when animals are relying on you to be fed, have a warm dry place to sleep or get their udders milked out. I move, I garden I like to be outside.

Your body is a billion times more complicated than a savings account. I could eat 2,000 calories a day being off sugar and grain and high carb stuff and be on a slow losing plane. 1,200 with a different makeup and be hungry and heavier.

[Leida]

I am giving it a shot, but I made my first blunder - I brushed my teeth ~ 40-45 min after eating a bit of coconut oil first thing in the morning before going out of the door. I dunno how to correct this, so just in case I had another bite of coconut oil > 1 hr after brushing my teeth and did not drink anything but water afterwards. I even squeezed my nose when i was eating my non-refined coconut oil, but I had to let go and take a breath a couple of times, while eating the oil - I never really swallow it in one bite, just let it melt in my mouth and take little 'sips' to stretch out the eating experience. Is that another blunder? Do you have to throw the fat back consuming calories without the experience of eating?

[Ouis]

A bunch of us over at Seth's forum perfected the "nose blocking" technique for swallowing oil. You don't "have" to pinch your nose. The maneuver is internal rather than external--moving the back of your tongue/palate back to block off your nose. Most of us have done it when we haven't wanted to taste something we are eating--the trick here is to "noseblock" for about 15 minutes following swallowing the oil, while rinsing with water. Sounds strenuous, but can be done!

[Leida]

Uhm, you know, it is becoming to sound like every other diet concept out there: on the surface no big deal, super-easy, but as you try to start doing it, it becomes much, much more complicated. (Sigh) Should have known it was another one of those too good to be true.... I think I should just go back to eating meat, vegetables, and trying to keep fruit down & not worry about perfect eating windows, and not sniffing coconut oil. Just tired of things being too complicated the moment you dig a bit deeper.