Re: Shangri-La Diet

Quoted message said:

Interesting. Thanks for the post.

I found a little bit more data from the author of the diet for those
who want to try it:

"(a) 90 ml (6 tablespoons) or less of fructose per day should be
sufficient to cause substantial loss of appetite and weight loss; (b)
that the amount of water in which the fructose was mixed did not
matter, but that it must be unflavored; and (c) the fructose water
should be drunk between meals. To lose weight they would have to
consume fewer calories than usual, I said, but the fructose water
should make it possible to do so without unpleasant hunger."

I'm starting my own self-test. I'll be using a protein powder called
Protein Delite, which is expensive but delicious in milk, and an
unflavored fructose made here in Norway with a GI of 23.

My main sources of protein will be the protein powder, milk, eggs,
high fibre cereal and bread, and fish and chicken. These will also be
my sources of fat.

I won't be trying to lose a lot of weight, maybe five or six kilos.
Rather, I am trying to reduce body fat percentage.

If the fructose works, that will be an improvement over the standard
low-carb diet by lowering the fat percentage considerably. It seems
counter-intuitive, though, but I will report my results in a couple
months.

Tea and toast with butter would be nicer. I think its called
"eleven's". Honey in the tea, and a plain non-fat yogurt for me. I
didn't have any toast. To hold me over until lunch at 2 pm. Its
interesting to see how one might work the olive oil in as an afternoon
treat. Maybe in a salsa. Its really true how a cup of tea with
sweetener is effective in quelling the munchies. And actually, I just
realized that a cup of vanilla soy milk is also effective. Could that
be counted as a Seth Robert's fat?.

Tea and toast with butter would be nicer. I think its called
"eleven's". Honey in the tea, and a plain non-fat yogurt for me. I
didn't have any toast. To hold me over until lunch at 2 pm. Its
interesting to see how one might work the olive oil in as an afternoon
treat. Maybe in a salsa. Its really true how a cup of tea with
sweetener is effective in quelling the munchies. And actually, I just
realized that a cup of vanilla soy milk is also effective. Could that
be counted as a Seth Robert's fat?.

In article <[email hidden]>,

cardarch said:

Tea and toast with butter would be nicer. I think its called
"eleven's".

In an article re this diet, the inventor stressed that it was important
that the sugar or oil NOT be a tasty snack. He took plain sugarwater or
oil. He believes that yummy tastes trigger a biochemical reaction that
raises the body's setpoint and makes us want "More! More!"

I can't remember where I found the article, sorry.

--
Karen Lofstrom [email hidden]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm different in exactly the same way! Yes." -- K.

Karen Lofstrom said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

cardarch said:

Tea and toast with butter would be nicer. I think its called
"eleven's".

In an article re this diet, the inventor stressed that it was important
that the sugar or oil NOT be a tasty snack. He took plain sugarwater or
oil. He believes that yummy tastes trigger a biochemical reaction that
raises the body's setpoint and makes us want "More! More!"

I can't remember where I found the article, sorry.

--
Karen Lofstrom [email hidden]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm different in exactly the same way! Yes." -- K.

He believes in weight set point theory. Namely, that the body has a
particular target in mind for what it should weigh, and it will use
feedback to control body function to get there. So if over the set
point, signals to eat will be reduced. If under the set point, strong
signals to eat will be produced.

So if you believe the body has a set point, the big question becomes,
can the set point be changed? He correlates two things in the food we
eat - taste and calorie density. Historically, a wide variety of
tasty, high energy foods were not usually available. (e.g. Stone Age
living) However, in the instances when they were, (e.g. tribe kills a
big game, or finds plentiful wild plants to harvest) the set point of
the population quickly rises so that the body packs on fat to last
through any lean time which might arise. When those lean times come,
the body quickly recognizes that the flavor of the available foods has
markedly decreased - maybe no more meat, just nuts and berries - and
that's one of the triggers for the body to accept a lower set point and
therefore send less signals to eat. So the tribe loses weight, but
maybe without the hunger pangs we would feel - the bland food meal
after meal convinces their bodies that high calorie food is not
available, so their lower set point is appropriate.

So modern people, programmed for a much different time, naturally
gravitate to such foods as hamburgers and pizza - very flavorful and
with a high density of calories.

So Robertson's idea is - can we fake the body out into lowering its set
point and therefore make it want to lower its weight, and stay there.
Eating bland foods would obviously be the answer to his
flavorful/calorie theory. But being a food lover, he rejects that
approach as not practical. So he chanced upon the notion of consuming
sugar water while on a trip abroad. The body would identify the
water's relatively high calorie content, but is "sweetness" deemed
flavorful by the body? In another words, would sugar water fulfill
both the flavorful and high calorie criteria which he believes raises
the bodies set point. He lost 40 pounds on the diet, so his answer to
that question is no.

Eric

Sorry, I'm double-posting, and that makes me nervous 🙂 No doubt the
OT police are going to weigh in on this thread at any moment. (no pun
intended)

I don't know enough about set point theory to say whether it's valid.
I'm hoping our resident nutrition expert will chime in on that one.

But set point theory is maybe just a fancy way of saying that there is
momentum with respect to eating - and that is definitely something I
think we can all relate to. If you're like most people, you've
probably had periods of time when you were exercising regularly and
controlling what you eat. And that was a point of equilibrium that
wasn't all that difficult to maintain. Then there's the other times
characterized by what might be called binge eating. You over eat for a
few days, taking in thousands of calories more than what you need. And
after a few days of that, you wake up, eat a big breakfast, and by 1030
in the morning you're hungry again! Say what? How can that be? Your
body has certainly kicked into a new mode where it's gotten used to the
idea of being overfed, and it doesn't want to give that up easily. The
hardest thing about going on a diet is getting some momentum to
overcome that point. If that's a set point, so be it. But while
gaining weight, the body seems to be in a postive feedback loop.

Eric

Quoted message said:

Sorry, I'm double-posting, and that makes me nervous 🙂 No doubt the
OT police are going to weigh in on this thread at any moment. (no pun
intended)

I don't know enough about set point theory to say whether it's valid.
I'm hoping our resident nutrition expert will chime in on that one.

But set point theory is maybe just a fancy way of saying that there is
momentum with respect to eating - and that is definitely something I
think we can all relate to. If you're like most people, you've
probably had periods of time when you were exercising regularly and
controlling what you eat. And that was a point of equilibrium that
wasn't all that difficult to maintain. Then there's the other times
characterized by what might be called binge eating. You over eat for a
few days, taking in thousands of calories more than what you need. And
after a few days of that, you wake up, eat a big breakfast, and by 1030
in the morning you're hungry again! Say what? How can that be? Your
body has certainly kicked into a new mode where it's gotten used to the
idea of being overfed, and it doesn't want to give that up easily. The
hardest thing about going on a diet is getting some momentum to
overcome that point. If that's a set point, so be it. But while
gaining weight, the body seems to be in a postive feedback loop.

Eric

The OT police aren't upset about the taxation trolls, so why would a
diet upset them?

Does this guy have good numbers for cholesterol, blood pressure, etc.?
You know, the 8 hours a day he spends standing causes him to burn an
extra 80 calories a day versus if he spent the same time sitting--which
all by itself is enough to lose 8 pounds per year. Lose 8 pounds a year
for five years and you have lost 40 pounds. The article doesn't say how
long it took him to lose 40 pounds.

Fructose is supposed to be a major culprint in fat storage, and has been
demonized into the CAUSE of the obesity epidemic:
http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/news-ng.asp?id=61668-soft-drink-fructose-obesity

Set point theory is pretty complex. Basically the body "wants" to stay
at particular weight, and will trigger behaviors and processes to stay
at that weight--more eating, craving different types of food, less
exercise, conserving heat, etc. The idea is that there are
evolutionarily-controlled, non-psychological brain mechanisms that make
you do behavior that "defends" a particular weight. One of the earliest
books on the subject is The Dieters Dilemma.
Madelaine

I'm not the only one with doubts:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/11/195411.php

Madelaine said:

Fructose is supposed to be a major
culprint in fat storage, and has
been demonized into the CAUSE of the
obesity epidemic:

I assume he doesn't drink all that
much fructose water, compared with
kids that "Do the Dew" all day long.

Having said that:

"Because insulin and leptin, and possibly
ghrelin, function as key signals to the
central nervous system in the long-term
regulation of energy balance, decreases
of circulating insulin and leptin and
increased ghrelin concentrations, as
demonstrated in this study, could lead to
increased caloric intake and ultimately
contribute to weight gain and obesity
during chronic consumption of diets high
in fructose."

Interesting that everyone latched onto
the sweet options.

Madelaine said:

I'm not the only one with doubts:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/11/195411.php

I have doubts, too, but look at
the last comment which notes
that Roberts is taking only a
few tablespoons of fructose,
not full glasses.

Eric, Donal, etal:

I have a question?

The way I understood how the body works is that in the absence of food,
the body lowers the metabolism. So, when you eat more, You gain weight
because the excess calories are burned at the lower metabolic rate.

If the eating of some bland food, makes the body believe in the lack of
too much food, wouldn't the body lower the metabolism, causing weight
gain?

The shangri la theory suggest something different. It suggest that in
the presence of bland food, the body thinks that there is less food and
instead of lowering the metabolism, it lower the set point but keeps
the metabolism at the same rate? So, we burn the same amount of
calories but we are less hungry?

On the other hand, with other diets, the body thinks that there is less
food, but instead of lowering the set point it lowers the metabolism.
So, when we go back to eating more, we gain weight because we haven't
lowered our set point?

HMMMMM? Am I understanding the theory properly?

I'll give it a try. I usually don't eat breakfast except for some
coffee. If I exercise for less than an hour, I can do fine with my
stored glycogen. If I go for longer, I eat a granola bar every 45
minutes and wash it down with gatorade. If I eat breakfast, I get
ravenous and don't stop eating all morning. Not having breakfast hasn't
been a problem for me. I have done century rides and longer rides, and
half ironman's w/o breakfast, but eating during the event.

Since I already drink coffee, I will start using sugar instead of sweet
and low. Since I don't like coffee that much, I will not like it any
better. I will also drink a couple of spoons of oil. By the time lunch
comes, I should be less hungry and I should eat less. Sounds
interesting. I will also have coffee with sugar and some plain bread in
the afternnon. Hopefully I'll be less hungry in the evening.

Andres

Quoted message said:

Karen Lofstrom said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

cardarch said:

Tea and toast with butter would be nicer. I think its called
"eleven's".

In an article re this diet, the inventor stressed that it was important
that the sugar or oil NOT be a tasty snack. He took plain sugarwater or
oil. He believes that yummy tastes trigger a biochemical reaction that
raises the body's setpoint and makes us want "More! More!"

I can't remember where I found the article, sorry.

--
Karen Lofstrom [email hidden]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I'm different in exactly the same way! Yes." -- K.

He believes in weight set point theory. Namely, that the body has a
particular target in mind for what it should weigh, and it will use
feedback to control body function to get there. So if over the set
point, signals to eat will be reduced. If under the set point, strong
signals to eat will be produced.

So if you believe the body has a set point, the big question becomes,
can the set point be changed? He correlates two things in the food we
eat - taste and calorie density. Historically, a wide variety of
tasty, high energy foods were not usually available. (e.g. Stone Age
living) However, in the instances when they were, (e.g. tribe kills a
big game, or finds plentiful wild plants to harvest) the set point of
the population quickly rises so that the body packs on fat to last
through any lean time which might arise. When those lean times come,
the body quickly recognizes that the flavor of the available foods has
markedly decreased - maybe no more meat, just nuts and berries - and
that's one of the triggers for the body to accept a lower set point and
therefore send less signals to eat. So the tribe loses weight, but
maybe without the hunger pangs we would feel - the bland food meal
after meal convinces their bodies that high calorie food is not
available, so their lower set point is appropriate.

So modern people, programmed for a much different time, naturally
gravitate to such foods as hamburgers and pizza - very flavorful and
with a high density of calories.

So Robertson's idea is - can we fake the body out into lowering its set
point and therefore make it want to lower its weight, and stay there.
Eating bland foods would obviously be the answer to his
flavorful/calorie theory. But being a food lover, he rejects that
approach as not practical. So he chanced upon the notion of consuming
sugar water while on a trip abroad. The body would identify the
water's relatively high calorie content, but is "sweetness" deemed
flavorful by the body? In another words, would sugar water fulfill
both the flavorful and high calorie criteria which he believes raises
the bodies set point. He lost 40 pounds on the diet, so his answer to
that question is no.

Eric

I agree with the suggestion of others that there really is nothing new
under the sun. This is just a re-wrap of the 6 meals a day, "grazing"
strategy (which is what I do...only with me it's more like 8 meals a
day. I only sit and chow down once (at dinner; then I almost
immediately fall asleep, unless I drink coffee). Just a little snack
now and then (hand full of raisins, a few almonds, whatever) along with
a non-caloric beverage (water, black coffee, black or green tea, etc.)
keeps your body going without creating the urge to gorge.

I don't believe for a nanosecond in that stuff about the importance of
blandness (e.g. olive oil instead of the almonds; fructose instead of
the raisins). That's just hocus pocus to make you think that it's
something new and revolutionary. It's not.

- Larry

In article <[email hidden]>,

Man o' Tea said:

Madelaine said:

Fructose is supposed to be a major
culprint in fat storage, and has
been demonized into the CAUSE of the
obesity epidemic:

I assume he doesn't drink all that
much fructose water, compared with
kids that "Do the Dew" all day long.

I think Madeline is talking about high fructose corn syrup, which has a
high GI, about 60, because it is fructose mixed with glucose . Fructose
has a very low GI, about 20. An orange, for example, has a GI of about
40.

So if part of your weight problem is a sweet tooth, then if you can
satisfy that urge with a glass of fructose water a couple times a day,
it might work. I've only been doing this for two days, so I can't say.
But I like cookies, and they are available at work. That's my problem.
In these first two days, when I got the urge for some cookies, I drank
the water. That meant I drank a couple of tablespoons of fructose per
day instead of eating a dozen cookies. It is always a question of will
power in the end, but if something as simple as a glass of water with a
teaspoon of fructose in it can shut down the sweet tooth area of the
brain, then it's worth it. So far, and it has only been two days, the
net effect has been I've eaten much less sugar.

Quoted message said:

Having said that:

"Because insulin and leptin, and possibly
ghrelin, function as key signals to the
central nervous system in the long-term
regulation of energy balance, decreases
of circulating insulin and leptin and
increased ghrelin concentrations, as
demonstrated in this study, could lead to
increased caloric intake and ultimately
contribute to weight gain and obesity
during chronic consumption of diets high
in fructose."

Interesting that everyone latched onto
the sweet options.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Man o' Tea said:

Madelaine said:

Fructose is supposed to be a major
culprint in fat storage, and has
been demonized into the CAUSE of the
obesity epidemic:

I assume he doesn't drink all that
much fructose water, compared with
kids that "Do the Dew" all day long.

I think Madeline is talking about high fructose corn syrup, which has a
high GI, about 60, because it is fructose mixed with glucose . Fructose
has a very low GI, about 20. An orange, for example, has a GI of about
40.

So if part of your weight problem is a sweet tooth, then if you can
satisfy that urge with a glass of fructose water a couple times a day,
it might work. I've only been doing this for two days, so I can't say.
But I like cookies, and they are available at work. That's my problem.
In these first two days, when I got the urge for some cookies, I drank
the water. That meant I drank a couple of tablespoons of fructose per
day instead of eating a dozen cookies. It is always a question of will
power in the end, but if something as simple as a glass of water with a
teaspoon of fructose in it can shut down the sweet tooth area of the
brain, then it's worth it. So far, and it has only been two days, the
net effect has been I've eaten much less sugar.

Quoted message said:

Having said that:

"Because insulin and leptin, and possibly
ghrelin, function as key signals to the
central nervous system in the long-term
regulation of energy balance, decreases
of circulating insulin and leptin and
increased ghrelin concentrations, as
demonstrated in this study, could lead to
increased caloric intake and ultimately
contribute to weight gain and obesity
during chronic consumption of diets high
in fructose."

Interesting that everyone latched onto
the sweet options.

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

I agree with the suggestion of others that there really is nothing new
under the sun. This is just a re-wrap of the 6 meals a day, "grazing"
strategy (which is what I do...only with me it's more like 8 meals a
day. I only sit and chow down once (at dinner; then I almost
immediately fall asleep, unless I drink coffee). Just a little snack
now and then (hand full of raisins, a few almonds, whatever) along with
a non-caloric beverage (water, black coffee, black or green tea, etc.)
keeps your body going without creating the urge to gorge.

I don't believe for a nanosecond in that stuff about the importance of
blandness (e.g. olive oil instead of the almonds; fructose instead of
the raisins). That's just hocus pocus to make you think that it's
something new and revolutionary. It's not.

- Larry

Well I consider this post a bit of an endoresement of the diet 🙂 It
certainly contrasts with some other Blogs and messages which seem to
think the diet will severely decrease a persons longevity. If in fact
it's simply the grazing technique wrapped around a low GI beverage, how
could that be so bad?

Eric

Martin Smith said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Man o' Tea said:

Madelaine said:

Fructose is supposed to be a major
culprint in fat storage, and has
been demonized into the CAUSE of the
obesity epidemic:

I assume he doesn't drink all that
much fructose water, compared with
kids that "Do the Dew" all day long.

I think Madeline is talking about high fructose corn syrup, which has a
high GI, about 60, because it is fructose mixed with glucose . Fructose
has a very low GI, about 20. An orange, for example, has a GI of about
40.

So if part of your weight problem is a sweet tooth, then if you can
satisfy that urge with a glass of fructose water a couple times a day,
it might work. I've only been doing this for two days, so I can't say.
But I like cookies, and they are available at work. That's my problem.
In these first two days, when I got the urge for some cookies, I drank
the water. That meant I drank a couple of tablespoons of fructose per
day instead of eating a dozen cookies. It is always a question of will
power in the end, but if something as simple as a glass of water with a
teaspoon of fructose in it can shut down the sweet tooth area of the
brain, then it's worth it. So far, and it has only been two days, the
net effect has been I've eaten much less sugar.

Quoted message said:

Having said that:

"Because insulin and leptin, and possibly
ghrelin, function as key signals to the
central nervous system in the long-term
regulation of energy balance, decreases
of circulating insulin and leptin and
increased ghrelin concentrations, as
demonstrated in this study, could lead to
increased caloric intake and ultimately
contribute to weight gain and obesity
during chronic consumption of diets high
in fructose."

Interesting that everyone latched onto
the sweet options.

I'm not just talking about high fructose corn syrup. Here is the
citation I remembered, but I'm sorry to see it is dated:
http://www.mendosa.com/diabetes_update_28.htm
look at "fructose" about a third down the page.
Fructose was at one recommended as an alternative sweetener for
diabetics, but not any more because of the effect on blood lipids.
Madelaine

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If in fact it's simply the grazing technique wrapped around a low GI beverage, how

could that be so bad? <<

Agreed. I don't see anything "bad" about it. It's just that it's a
bit easier carrying around (or stashing) little bags of (1) dry
roasted, unsalted almonds and (2) sun dried raisins, as opposed to (1)
olive oil and (2) liquid fructose solution.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Madelaine said:

Martin Smith said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Man o' Tea said:

Madelaine wrote:

>Fructose is supposed to be a major
>culprint in fat storage, and has
>been demonized into the CAUSE of the
>obesity epidemic:

I assume he doesn't drink all that
much fructose water, compared with
kids that "Do the Dew" all day long.

I think Madeline is talking about high fructose corn syrup, which has a
high GI, about 60, because it is fructose mixed with glucose . Fructose
has a very low GI, about 20. An orange, for example, has a GI of about
40.

So if part of your weight problem is a sweet tooth, then if you can
satisfy that urge with a glass of fructose water a couple times a day,
it might work. I've only been doing this for two days, so I can't say.
But I like cookies, and they are available at work. That's my problem.
In these first two days, when I got the urge for some cookies, I drank
the water. That meant I drank a couple of tablespoons of fructose per
day instead of eating a dozen cookies. It is always a question of will
power in the end, but if something as simple as a glass of water with a
teaspoon of fructose in it can shut down the sweet tooth area of the
brain, then it's worth it. So far, and it has only been two days, the
net effect has been I've eaten much less sugar.

Quoted message said:

Having said that:

"Because insulin and leptin, and possibly
ghrelin, function as key signals to the
central nervous system in the long-term
regulation of energy balance, decreases
of circulating insulin and leptin and
increased ghrelin concentrations, as
demonstrated in this study, could lead to
increased caloric intake and ultimately
contribute to weight gain and obesity
during chronic consumption of diets high
in fructose."

Interesting that everyone latched onto
the sweet options.

I'm not just talking about high fructose corn syrup. Here is the
citation I remembered, but I'm sorry to see it is dated:
http://www.mendosa.com/diabetes_update_28.htm
look at "fructose" about a third down the page.
Fructose was at one recommended as an alternative sweetener for
diabetics, but not any more because of the effect on blood lipids.
Madelaine

The amounts those papers talk about are much higher than the amount you
use in the sugar water. They talk about 9% of energy from fructose being
the average dietary intake in the US. That's a lot of fructose. I don't
think I'm getting anywhere near that amount. I suspect a lot of it would
have to be coming from high fructose corn syrup, which is used as a
sweetener in sodas and such.

And the experiment used a diet with 17% fructose! That's quite a lot, I
think, if the average diet has 9%. The experiment also didn't include
exercise. I'm doing one to three hours per day of strenuous exercise.

I think the amount of sugar I am getting from the fructose water is
about two tablespoons per day. The only other appreciable sugar I'm
getting is in fruit, unsweetened fruit juice, and a small amount in the
protein powder. The rest of the carbs I'm eating are very low GI, very
high fiber, and I'm eating much less fat than the standard low-carb plan.

I expect this will take two months, if it works, but I will have my
blood tested to be on the safe side.

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Larry Weisenthal) said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If in fact it's simply the grazing technique wrapped around a low GI
beverage, how

could that be so bad? <<

Agreed. I don't see anything "bad" about it. It's just that it's a
bit easier carrying around (or stashing) little bags of (1) dry
roasted, unsalted almonds and (2) sun dried raisins, as opposed to (1)
olive oil and (2) liquid fructose solution.

You buy the fructose in crystal form in a jar, and you keep it in your
desk at work with a workout water bottle. You fill the water bottle with
filtered water from the cooler and stir in a tablespoon of fructose. You
take a swig every time you think about getting something to eat. The
sweetness does seem to satisfy the urge to get something sweet to eat. I
don't know if it is biological or psychological, but I suspect the
latter. I think the blandness is important, because it means your brain
doesn't differentiate it from any specific food. So if you were thinking
of getting a chocolate chip cookie, then your brain is focused on the
taste of the chocolate chip cookie. If you instead give it some other
specific flavor, you haven't quelled the desire for the chocolate chip
cookie. But the bland, pure sweetness of unflavored fructose seems to
cover the whole spectrum of tastes. It seems to quell the desire for the
chocolate chip cookie. I suspect it is just psychological, but, any port
in a storm.