sethroberts.net forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

I am no longer afraid to eat as much as I want of whatever I want. (This might be the best Shangri-la benefit of all.) -- Heidi

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8   Go Down

Author Topic: Flavourless calorie question  (Read 11247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

akhdar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
Flavourless calorie question
« on: August 06, 2006, 10:49:40 pm »

Hi Seth!

My appetite suppression is glitching at the moment (more detail on my Progress Report) and so I am biting the bullet and beginning on the noseclips. The easiest thing for me would be just to take some regular coconut oil at night (since I have four jars of the stuff. I think that they are reproducing in my cupboard). And so I thought that two tablespoons would be about right. Obviously, I am continuing with the morning oils.

But this led me to wonder: Why is there a maximum limit on the flavourless oils (400 calories) but no maximum calorie limit on the flavourless foods (as far as I understand)? Isn't it pretty much the same principle?

Thanks,

Akhdar
Logged

bean

  • Guest
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2006, 12:15:53 am »

Akhdar,
I am not Seth in case you hadn't noticed, but I thought I'd warn you that coconut oil makes you wake right up and want to bounce around like tigger. Well it did to me anyway, and I slept badly when I took it at night. In the morning it's great though
So if you have problems sleeping, I'd be cautious.
Logged

akhdar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2006, 12:19:02 am »

Oh!

Thanks for the warning, bean.

Isn't it amazing how different oils can affect one in such markedly distinct ways?

Best,

Akhdar
Logged

akhdar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2006, 05:52:11 pm »

But my question remains. Anyone?
Logged

mdc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2006, 07:20:11 pm »

I think it has to do with nutrition.  what percent of your diet comes from oil vs. fruits, veggies, proteins

Logged

akhdar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2006, 08:13:48 pm »

I'm not sure about that. We have not spent much (if any) time discussing nutrition and the SLD.

Seth? Can you weigh in?

I am really puzzled as to why I can ingest most of my daily calories as "flavourless," but must limit the oil to 400 calories. If my diet, as a whole, remains below a certain caloric level, does it matter? It would be easier for me to just drink a couple of extra teaspoons of oil at night (with noseplugs), instead of making a smoothie or some such....
Logged

zdd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2006, 09:04:57 pm »

I have been on the diet for a week and have not read the book; therefore, I feel I'm more than qualified to give an alternative explanation for why the diet works.  People give evolution too much credit.  Evolution isn’t smart enough to figure out that a lot of food means you better stored up for the lean times.  I believe that mind-body organism works on simpler principles and these simple dynamics lead to all kinds of complexity.

One of the dynamics is that pain= pleasure.  Pain leads to pleasure, and pleasure leads to pain.  Early humans ate a lot of food when it was available because it was pleasurable.  After pigging out they had more hunger pain than they started with so they ate more. When they didn't have a lot of food they obviously didn't get a lot of pleasure from food, so they had less hunger pain. The best thing to do when you don't have any food is fast.

This diet appears to make fat people, like me, eat like a thin person.  Food becomes a positive reinforcer--- I'm eating less and enjoying it more.

For fat people eating tends to be a negative reinforcer.  Negative reinforcers are much more pleasurable than positive reinforcers. To be pain-free is nothing, to become free of pain (hunger or emotional) is everything.  A non-eating way to reduce pain is to reduce the pleasure.

Take the flavor out of eating and you take the pleasure out of it. With low-carbohydrate diets this is what happens.  Without the pleasure of carbohydrates what's the point of eating.  With this diet oil is like methadone.  The body gets pain relief without the pleasurable high.  You can eat whatever you want as long as you don't enjoy it too much.

Some people have suggested a way to quit smoking would be to smoke cigarettes without nicotine in them to take away the pleasure.  This diet could help to stop smoking through the loss of associated oral pleasure.

The diet can be explained through Solomon's  opponent-process theory, which says all addiction is the result of an emotional pairing of pleasure and the emotional symptoms associated with withdrawal. Solomon's advice was to eat your dessert first.  It also explains why the French eat their salad at the end of the meal.
 
If there is a set point, I believe it's not a weight set point but rather a pleasure set point. When you don't reach the set point cravings start and when you go over the set point (staying too long at the fair) you get feelings of aversion.

I doubt if the pleasure set point changes very much.  People simply switch sources of pleasure.  Stop smoking, and you start eating more.  Much of the pleasure of being on this diet comes from the pleasure of feeling in control. Once the novelty of control wears off people will have to look for other sources of pleasure or they will go back to getting pleasure from food.


As Buddha said life is pain, and because of this there will always be a compensate drive for pleasure.  Fat people tend to get their daily requirement of pleasure from food, while thin people get their pleasure from sex, exercise, and making fun of fat people.  I'm looking forward to this shift in pleasure.

I believe, one of the reasons people are so reactive to this diet is that people get pissed off when you take their pleasure away from them. It's like when Hickey in The Iceman Cometh took the pleasure out of the other alcoholics drinking by confronting their stories.  No one thanked him.

One of the things this diet has going against it, is that there's not enough pain in it.  I appreciate that people on this forum try to make it more painful by going on about what kind of oil to use and the danger of brushing your teeth with flavored toothpaste.  But that's not going to make you any money in the long run.  You need to do something like start up a chain of methadone dieting centers that charge $2500 with a free yearly oil change.

.

I was not sure where to post this,so I picked this spot at random.
Logged

paulkimelman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 474
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2006, 09:37:55 pm »

Zdd, this is an interesting hypothesis, but I have to disagree. (as an aside, nicotine is highly addictive, and that is reason for taking it away; it gives pleasure because it is addictive, and causes withdrawal pain when you do not have it).

As to pain and pleasure, I think you have it somewhat backwards. We are "given" pleasure by our system as a chemical reward for certain behaviors. This is not conscious, but innate (encourages our survival). Similarly, we experience pain (of various forms) as a caution. We then have complex chemical overrides (such as the fight-or-flight adrenaline/epinephrine hormone) to counteract these when it is in our best interest in terms of survival.

You say that evolution is not smart enough to deal with feast-famine behavior, but consider that it is not smarts. Evolution is a crap shoot. You create 30 variants, and see which one survives. The one(s) that are better able to sustain the hard times are the ones that reproduce. So, over a lot of time, these biochemical pathways come about, many are gross grained and some are very subtle. Some override others (the past is slowly replaced by the future), but each one must have carried an advantage, at least at some time in history.
Logged

akhdar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2006, 10:00:42 pm »

Not that I'm not enjoying this digression. But could someone answer my original question?

Logged

paulkimelman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 474
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2006, 10:36:23 pm »

I believe the answer from mdc was correct. As I remember, Seth confirmed this in another posting. His concern was that you do not make it so that too much of your daily calories come from oil or sugar. So, nose plugged eating and shake are ways to gain more flavorless calories and yet get nutrition, especially protein (dairy protein or soy being the most common).
Logged

zdd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2006, 10:50:26 pm »

it(nicotine) gives pleasure because it is addictive, and causes withdrawal pain when you do not have it

I don't really understand your post. I would fully agree with your statement above. That is my point, flavor gives pleasure  and causes withdrawal pain  when you don't have it ---so you  crave more to remove the pain. Take a way the pleasure (flavor) and you no longer have withdrawal pain. You gave some standard but limited definitions of pain and pleasure.  You can make a case for the opposite of your definitions.  In most cases going for pleasure and avoiding pain are both anti-survival. Most everything that is pleasurable (check out all the 12-step programs) is bad for us, and most everything that is good for us(early to bed early to rise)  is painful.
  You said nothing about how pain in pleasure are interrelated.  What is important is to recognize they are two sides of the same coin. Like they say, "appetite comes with the eating."  Appetite, another name for hunger pains comes with the pleasure of eating.  When you are hungry, you seek the pleasure of eating.  If you keep eating the pleasure will turn into pain.  If you fast after while the pain of not eating will turn into the pleasure associated with a fasting high. I believe the pain-pleasure mechanism as it relates to survival in fat people is messed up.  I believe this diet may be one way to reset the mechanism.
Logged

Seth Roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2570
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2006, 11:10:56 pm »

to answer your question akhdar it is unhealthy to get too much of one's calories from any single food, much less a relatively simple food such as olive oil, walnut oil, etc. flavorless calories can come from diverse foods so there is not that problem. And there is no nutritional requirement for smell molecules.
Logged

paulkimelman

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 474
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2006, 11:25:52 pm »

it(nicotine) gives pleasure because it is addictive, and causes withdrawal pain when you do not have it

I don't really understand your post. I would fully agree with your statement above. That is my point, flavor gives pleasure  and causes withdrawal pain  when you don't have it ---so you  crave more to remove the pain. Take a way the pleasure (flavor) and you no longer have withdrawal pain.

I should have been more clear. Most addictive drugs/chemicals act on brain hormones, especially serotonin (ie. through the transporter, the synopsis sensitivity, the breakdown of serotonin, or the production of it). So, we feel artificial pleasure (or some emotional "high" which is similar). Although serotonin is not all that well understood, one can see that it can act like a reward system for survival. The fact that some drugs/chems override it (create the effect when it is not necessarily a good thing) is the plant world's way of interacting with animals (luring them to pollinate or spread seeds for example). Only because we humans tend to find ways to concentrate such chemicals do we have serious problems with this.

Quote
You gave some standard but limited definitions of pain and pleasure.  You can make a case for the opposite of your definitions.  In most cases going for pleasure and avoiding pain are both anti-survival. Most everything that is pleasurable (check out all the 12-step programs) is bad for us, and most everything that is good for us(early to bed early to rise)  is painful.

I think we need to separate physiological pain and pleasure from "attitude" first of all. But, as to 12 step programs, see above. Most "pleasure" addictions (using pleasure very loosely here) are artificially induced situations. That is, they are to concentrated/synthesized chemicals, human behavior, and other pleasures not available in early human (or animal) history. Even gambling addiction is likely related to survival mechanisms (keep chasing that wounded animal no matter how tired you are; the more aggressive male is more likely to mate with a female; etc. These are rough, but I think you see the point). As to early to bed and all, that is not painful in the physiological sense and not good for us necessarily. However, if you are a hunter/gatherer, it will be the natural way, since you are at a big disadvantage at night.

Quote
You said nothing about how pain in pleasure are interrelated.  What is important is to recognize they are two sides of the same coin. Like they say, "appetite comes with the eating."  Appetite, another name for hunger pains comes with the pleasure of eating.  When you are hungry, you seek the pleasure of eating.  If you keep eating the pleasure will turn into pain.  If you fast after while the pain of not eating will turn into the pleasure associated with a fasting high. I believe the pain-pleasure mechanism as it relates to survival in fat people is messed up.  I believe this diet may be one way to reset the mechanism.

You may be right, but I do not see it. Most of what you call pain would not normally be so considered in the physiological sense, at least as far as I know (does not feed the pain center in the brain, does not stimulate survival hormones, etc). The lure of pleasure is normally enough to get animals to act. Appetite does not turn to pain until you reach very serious levels of deprivation. Appetite is a normal signalling mechanism, just as is sleepiness, wakefulness, sexual arousal, and thirst. These are all from the hypothalamus. The limbic system does also include pain response, but that is a separate part. A way to think of this is that pain means you ignored earlier signals and now it is a survival issue. The normal signals are part of a daily life. Pleasure may fall into that category as well. We get strong pleasure from few things (usually survival related), but a little pleasure from many things of our daily lives.
Logged

akhdar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 649
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2006, 11:44:16 pm »

THANK YOU!
[/color]

Thanks Seth, paulkimelman, and mdc: you were right, you were right, you were right.

Confounding pain and pleasure zdd? The two seem sometimes odd and inextricable. At least to some.....

Ciao.

Akhdar

Logged

zdd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
Re: Flavourless calorie question
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2006, 01:19:04 am »

[size=10pt]The lure of pleasure is normally enough to get animals to act. Appetite does not turn to pain until you reach very serious levels of deprivation[/size]
I guess we are talking about two different things.  To me pain runs from mildly uncomfortable feelings to acute pain.  This is commonly referred to as subjective units of discomfort or Suds.  I'm obviously talking about the unpleasant feeling that originates in the hypothalamus and is released through receptors in the liver and stomach.  This would  usually be a two or three in a one to 10 suds scale.  What you refer to as the lure of pleasure  I would call cravings. I believe most people would call these mildly painful or uncomfortable, and they may be mixed with a degree of pleasure seeking. I believe what people call hunger control is the absence of this discomfort.  It is almost a truism that if you eat highly pleasurable food  there is going to be a rebound of discomfort that motivates you to eat more of the pleasurable food.  The same holds for people have trouble with sex, drugs, alcohol, and gambling.  As they say, the true alcoholic is one drink away from a binge.  I believe this has more to do with dopamine than with serotonin.
The basic principle of the body mind is balance.  The  pleasure in eating the less discomfort or pain that motivates one to eat more.  All the techniques in this program appear to make eating less pleasurable and the result appears to be that people have less unpleasant food cravings. This appears to be fully in line with what the opponent process theory would predict.  In the same way, doing what is his painful or stressful leads to feelings of satisfaction.  This could be in my case, getting up early the morning or for other people exercising.

 Most the time for overweight people I believe they operate more from negative reinforcement (the removal of some discomfort or pain) then from positive reinforcement (attaining comfort or pleasure).
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8   Go Up
 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18