Panasonic Youth rob sanheim writes about software, business, ruby, music, stuff and things

Kathy Sierra, the Shangri-La diet, and common sense

Kathy Sierra recently blogged about her positive experience with the Shangri-La diet (no link love from me). I love Kathy’s blog, her books are great, and she is a great presenter. But she should stick to mind hacks and learning theory instead of advocating diet books.

While, I commend her on success in losing weight, its disappointing to see her promoting a book based on “self-experiments” and bad science. From Kathy’s post:

A UC Berkeley professor named Seth Roberts claims to have found a way to trick the legacy brain into thinking it needs to weigh less. (Which means “lower your set point”, for those who are familiar with that term)

She goes on to say how its not based on any drug/supplement use, and doesn’t require exercise or changing what you eat. Oh, and its based on rat studies.

Where to begin. First of all, the idea of your body having a set-point is well established in the literature. Basically, your body wants to stay at a certain body fat level, and the more you try to get below that (ie get lean), the more your body will fight you. Your set point is set pretty early, probably around puberty, based on genetics and possibly your diet in the early part of your life. All the signals that really make up your set point come from your brain, and have to do with leptin, ghrelin, and a whole bunch of other chemicals that are all interrelated and highly complex.

So your set point is a big reason why its so hard to lose weight and keep it off. The problem with Roberts’ claims are this: once you are an adult, your set point can go up, but its not going to come down. You can diet like crazy and stay lean for years on end, and your body will not reprogram itself to that lower level of leanness. They have followed post-dieted people for years after they’ve successfully less weight, and they still show evidence of being well below their set point (depressed metabolic rate, slower fat burning, etc).

Oh, and the rat studies? Studies in rats and other animals are notoriously unreliable in applying their results to humans. Researchers find it hard enough to do good studies with human subjects regarding diet, particularly where participants self-report food intake. But thats a whole ‘nother issue…

Lyle McDonald, who is insanely obsessed with this stuff and well known for his expertise, has commented often about this. For instance, from this thread:

I have looked for years and seen exactly zero data to suggest that setpoint ever comes back down…….My hunch: if setpoint ever truly adjusts itself back down, you have to get and stay lean for years on end. [emphasis mine] Which, given most people’s tendency to regain weight, might as well be saying that it never occurs.

If there ever is a way to really adjust set point down, its going to be via drugs that operate at the brain level. You can bet big pharma is pursuing this like crazy, but the complexity of the systems involved is daunting.

This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, because up until very very recently obesity was not a major concern for survival. Starving to death during famine has been. Heart disease and diabetes are pretty new on the scene. It makes sense that we would be programmed to fight very hard against weight loss but not against weight gain.

So Roberts tricks with sugar water or olive oil or whatever all really come down to what every fad diet come down to: they trick you into eating less. One possibly explanation is that you follow the regimen of not eating anything for two hours in a day, and you subconsciously eat better the rest of the day to avoid messing up (despite whatever Roberts says about eating whatever you want). Besides, drinking only water or a small amount of olive oil for two hours a day is far more control then most people have over their diets, so its not surprising that people see weight loss when they actually start thinking about what they eat and feel in control of their food intake for once.

So if Shangri-La, Cabbage Soup, Beverly Hills, or the Zone works for you, great! Just realize that it comes down to eating less and moving around more, and not food combining, supplements, or trying to trick your body’s set point. Use whatever tool, diet, or book that helps you get into better eating and exercise habits you can sustain long term. But please, don’t chalk up the success to psuedo-science, voodoo, and rat studies.

(now, I really should do something with those fithackr/er domains….)

it’s not all about calories and exercise:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041115003038.htm

“70% of men lost more weight and fat on a low carbohydrate diet, despite eating more calories”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051109181818.htm

“In a study of rats, Mithieux and colleagues made the surprising discovery that diets heavy in protein spark the production of glucose in the small intestine. That rise in glucose, sensed in the liver and relayed to the brain, led the animals to eat less, they reported.”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140286527/

“The gist of The Diet Cure plan is that food allergies, hormonal irregularities, blood sugar swings, and thyroid dysfunction, among other factors, cause biochemical imbalances that lead to food addiction and weight gain, and that these problems can usually be lessened or eradicated with the proper diet and supplements.

“To be sure, most of these health problems ought to be diagnosed by a medical professional, but they often get overlooked because their symptoms can be numerous and vague …. They’re not easily diagnosed by the common managed-care tests …

“She warns of the dangers of zinc and vitamin B1 deficiencies, two common problems found in chronic dieters, along with protein and fat deficiencies and adrenal exhaustion (which is particularly common in caffeine fiends). … food allergies such as grains, dairy products, and sugar. For those … sugar addicts … she suggests an amino-acid and fish-oil supplement plan to curb sugar cravings…

“Ross’s suggestions may seem radical to many primary-care physicians; her approach to health and weight loss definitely takes a holistic approach. She does, however, back up her suggestions and plan with references to medical studies, …”

It’s like people start taking crazy pills once diets like this ensue. Unfortunately, we live in a world of quick-fix mentality. Successful weight loss brings with it the idea of lifestyle change: making gradual steps towards healthy behaviors, incorporating exercise and diet modifications. Gosh- I can’t say it enough. It is true that some individuals have insulin resistance or thyroid/hormonal disorders, but this is certainly something that must be diagnosed by an MD. Nevertheless, any diet must be individualized…
Now we must fight hard against weight gain. Obesity is killing people. The treatment and prevention of must be a priority.
Thanks for posting about nutrition, Rob. Your blog has finally sparked my interest!

Roberts’ work isn’t based on rats - it’s based on his personal experience. He experimented with himself over a long period of time and then published what works.

Check your facts next time, smart guy.

Keith: the first study you posted was people is very typical of low carb vs non-low carb diets. Low carb diets _always_ lose more weight in the short term due to water loss - less carbs == less water. Typically, studies that measure actual body composition between the two diets show equal results where both dieting groups really eat the same amount of calories (ie their food intake is controlled — not self-reported).

Your second study is in rats, which I already addressed. _The Diet Cure_, well, the title kind of says it all.

Monnie: Thanks, I think about other stuff beyond programming you know =)

Glardo: Actually, I was referring to Kathy’s post, talking about how Roberts’ alludes to rat studies and plans on having human studies done. So if you had read the post you would’ve seen that.

The problem with Roberts’s claims [is]…they’re borne out by the results people are getting when they try his methods. Your argument against lowering a person’s set point seems to be that it’s impossible to do because up until now nobody’s been able to figure out how to do it. You might want to consider the possibilty that Roberts has done just that.

An example of “bad science” might be coming to a conclusion without looking at evidence, i.e. someone criticizing a book he apparently hasn’t read, or a diet he hasn’t really looked into, let alone tried. It can’t be valid, you see, because some other expert says it isn’t. Now there’s the scientific method in action.

I get the impression Dr. Roberts might even agree with you that the diet tricks you into eating less, or more accurately outwits evolved mechanisms that aren’t useful to us in an era of plentiful food. Since his method is so easy. inexpensive and apparently harmless, what’s wrong with that?

A common thread that’s emerging in people’s SLD posts all over the internet is that this diet seems to be different than anything they have tried before. People are finding that they finally do have control over their appetite, their snacking, and just as Roberts suggests, their whole relationship with food. I found from my experience with the SLD that it was no trouble at all to avoid eating during the two hour window because my appetite was significantly reduced.

Indeed. Perhaps you should consider doing some background research and actually READ the book before you decide that it won’t / can’t work. I don’t advocate this diet, nor would I try to dissuade people from trying it - I simply have always had a problem with people passing judgement on any issue without having accessed all possible information - an uninformed judgement is worthless.

People are finding that they finally do have control over their appetite, their snacking, and just as Roberts suggests, their whole relationship with food. I found from my experience with the SLD that it was no trouble at all to avoid eating during the two hour window because my appetite was significantly reduced.

Pretty much my experience. I’m only down about fifty-four pounds and have only been on this since November 13, but I’m fifty and have tried a lot of different things over the years. This has been qualitatively different, all in all.

What is really interesting about it is that you can go to SAMS or Costco, drop five dollars for a couple liters or more of extra light olive oil and try the diet out for yourself. Give it a couple weeks or so and you can report back if you’ve felt the changed mental state.

That way you can report based on experience rather than guesswork.

Actually, he posted a study in HUMANS showing that setpoint DOES go down in humans who have dieted down using bland food whereas it doesn’t for people who continue eating the same food.

If you read his science, it will explain why scientists mistakenly feel that setpoint never goes down.

GilbertZ: do you have a link to that study? Because I find this quote from Roberts (from here):

Roberts: …Human studies are incredibly difficult. I don’t have the resources to do one — to do a big one, anyway — but I certainly hope to do animal tests of the theory. And I certainly hope that other people will test it with humans.

If you’re going to use science as an argument, please cite sources. (And I don’t mean “some other blogger who doesn’t cite either”)

Rob, you can’t throw around accusations of “bad science” and then toss this off: “The problem with Roberts’ claims are this: once you are an adult, your set point can go up, but its not going to come down”. The whole theory of set point may be widely accepted but it’s still only a theory and yet you seem to be privvy to details about it based on….what exactly? I am familiar with Lyle’s work and much admire it, but he does not have all the answers about set point either (and nor would he claim to, I’m sure) so quoting him as saying that he basically doubts it can come down and then writing it up as fact is a pretty good example of “bad science” should anyone need it.

Well, I’ve lost 63 pounds so far on the diet.

I’ve posted “best practices” at:

http://ethesis.blogspot.com/2006/06/shangri-la-diet-best-practices.html

I’d encourage you to rethink. Try the diet, track how it affects your mental state and rethink what you’ve said about it.

I’d really like to suggest that you just give the method a try. You probably have either cooking oil or sugar around the house, it isn’t as if you have to spend time or money in any significant amount to try the SLD for a couple weeks.

Try it, listen to your body and then report.

But then I’m down about 64 pounds from starting on it.

Forget the discussion about the pros and cons of the “scientific method” underlying SLD, aka, Shangra-la “diet”. Leave that to the academics to noodle on. Here are the issues important about SLD for the overweight public:

1) It is cheap and easy to follow (2 tbsp of oil twice daily)
2) It suppresses appetite quickly for most people (no nagging hunger)
3) The weight loss is steady with a few pauses at plateaus along the way

Maybe someday the academics will figure out definitively why the above three items are true. In the meantime, I am down 30 pounds in slightly over four months of SLD.

I have suffered hunger pangs with many diets in my life. SLD is different. My appetite is reduced and I do not constantly crave foods. The tendency to eat between meals disappears and small meals are filling.

Unless one tries the SLD “diet”, their comments are vacuous.

Woody: no, actually one can criticize the SLD based on what we know about diet and calories and the human body. There simply isn’t evidence to show that eating a bit of oil between meals would suppress hunger and lead to magical weight loss, beyond the normal mechanism of eating less and burning more calories.

What I see happening with SLD is similiar to many other “miracle” diets - people start to pay attention to what they eat, and the SLD recognizes the importance of healthy eating along side the exercise. So behavior changes, weight loss happens, but it gets attributed to a magic formula instead of what weight loss comes down to - hard work, eating less, and moving around more. Thats all there is to it.