Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/aleche35/boards.sethroberts.net/Sources/Load.php(183) : runtime-created function on line 3
Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment

sethroberts.net forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Please read The End Game: Shutting Down the Forums in the "News, Polls, Announcements" subforum

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27   Go Down

Author Topic: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment  (Read 362945 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

m.c.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 747
    • Pluckychickenheart
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #45 on: April 21, 2009, 09:18:45 AM »

2.  Hedi555 asks how a small amount of oil taken one day could suppress appetite into the following day.  I don't really know for sure.  But I suspect it is due primarily to the fact that it is not just the small amount of oil, but also the time window before and after the oil that strongly suppresses insulin levels.  It takes time for insulin levels to come down after they are high.  It is well known that a high fat meal (which would include pure oil) suppresses insulin and allows free fatty acid levels to remain high in the bloodstream, signaling satiety.  But the fats must be consumed in the absence of glucose, which is why you have to wait a few hours before taking the oil.   And the oil further reduces circulating insulin to a trace level.  Furthermore, low insulin will allow additional fatty acids to be released from the adipose tissue, and continuously burned as a fuel -- so satiety will be maintained for hours and hours...maybe days!    At that point, eating further meals will be done in the context of there already being a lot of fuel in the bloodstream, so the satiety signal will come soon, particularly if the meal is not too large or rich in carbohydrates (or to a lesser extent, high in protein, which also induces insulin).   Continued high fat meals or flavorless oils will continue to suppress appetite.  In fact, besides the SLD, the most effective weight loss method I've found is a high fat diet, with low carbs, but also relatively low protein.   This really leads to great appetite suppression and easy weight loss.  And, after reading the first half of Taubes, I'm more and more convinced it is safe and healthy, even using some saturated fats.  (Salads with a few nuts and goat cheese are great!).

Thanks again Todd!
The above is veeeerrrrry interesting to me. For the past several months I have been taking my oil either mid day or before my evening meal. My AS has been inconsistent. But when I first started oil back in the day I always took it first thing in the am and waited over an hour before I had my coffee. Amazing AS was usually the effect. I stopped doing it because I got tired of waiting to drink my coffee!! :lol: :lol: ( can you say crutch?) Anyhow in the last several days I started taking it first thing in the AM to get it out of the way. Sure enough the AS is back and if I can stall the coffee jones to an hour and a half or more after drinking oil my AS for the day is even better.
It is also worth mentioning that drinking the oil in this manner leads me naturally to choose the kind of dinner meals you described. Fascinating stuff. :)


Logged
Have arrived at the new Normal.

NTB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
    • Getting Stronger
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #46 on: April 21, 2009, 09:49:26 AM »

tek vixen said:

I'm known to be sensitive to sugar as indicated by gestational diabetes...Given a certain amount of carbohydrate, my body was producing an excess of sugar in the bloodstream, more than a normal person would produce.  My insulin levels in response were going high, just not high enough to take care of the excessive blood sugar.  Hmmmmmm.

The one thing I'm struggling with, though, is that once they put me on insulin shots, your theory would predict that my hunger levels would increase.  They didn't.  Actually, it wasn't until they put me on insulin that my rate of weight gain decreased and I was in the normal range for pregnancy.  Any help with why this might have happened?

I would be careful using SW if you have gestational diabetes. I think using oils instead may be worth considering.  In fact, a low carb, high fat diet has been argued for very convincingly in Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution (http://www.amazon.com/Dr-Bernsteins-Diabetes-Solution-Achieving/dp/0316093440) and from the comments on Amazon, it has helped many diabetics where the "conventional wisdom" has failed miserably.

In gestational diabetes, hormones from the placenta block the action of the mother's insulin in her body. This results in insulin resistance, which makes it hard for the mother's body to use insulin. She may need up to three times as much insulin. Gestational diabetes starts when your body is not able to make and use all the insulin it needs for pregnancy. Without enough insulin, glucose cannot leave the blood and be changed to energy. Glucose builds up in the blood to high levels. This is called hyperglycemia.

It sounds like you have insulin resistance, not low insulin, since you require insulin shots just to start normalizing your blood sugar.  If you were not insulin resistant, those insulin shots would bring your blood sugar down low enough that you would get hungry.  I think if you could reduce carbs and eat moderate (but not excessive) protein and to support your baby, you could reduce your body's need for insulin, and that should help.  Because you are pregnant, that is a special situation, so I don't want to put myself in the position of acting like a doctor.  I would certain talk these ideas over with your OB/GYN before doing anything.

The other thing I need help understanding is how your theory predicts the increasing hunger many people get on low carb (or even low cal) diets as time goes on.  It's like the more weight you lose, the hungrier you become until you can't stand it any more.  I would think that as long as you're not changing consumption, insulin levels would stay stable, and so you wouldn't experience this hunger.

You will get hungry only if you are not getting a good supply of sugars or fatty acids into your bloodstream -- either from what you eat, or from what you release from storage (sugars from glycogen in the liver & muscles, or fatty acids from your fat stores).   As you start to lose weight, it can get harder to lose additional weight.  The temptation is to cut back on calories, but that can be a mistake as it may make you hungry, tired, or low in energy.  It may be that you have to increase the amount of fat in your diet to suppress insulin and allow the release of fatty acids and sugars from storage at a faster rate.   Excercise can also help to drop insulin, raise glucagon and speed fat mobilization.  The other problem is that some people eat "high protein" on low carb diets, not realizing that protein at high levels actually causes insulin to rise and convert part of the protein to sugars!  This is glossed over by Atkins and Eades.   So increase the fat and excercise!  But again...I don't know whether a higher fat diet is advisable for someone who is pregnant.  Try increasing fats in baby steps and discuss with your doctor.
Logged
Click HERE to check out the Deconditioning Diet and other self-improvement ideas on my blog "Getting Stronger"

Heidi 555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2009, 10:20:05 AM »

Very stimulating post Todd.  Thanks for taking the time to explain things further.

1. It seems like there should be an easy way for the average person to measure or track insulin levels.  Are there signs to look for that would indicate that one's basal insulin levels have improved?  Can one become more aware of their body's insulin responses through feelings or sensations?  I know for example that I'll get spacey and light headed and say that I'm in low blood sugar and need to eat, but I don't yet understand what that means in terms of insulin levels. 

2.
Quote
It is well known that a high fat meal (which would include pure oil) suppresses insulin and allows free fatty acid levels to remain high in the bloodstream, signaling satiety.  But the fats must be consumed in the absence of glucose, which is why you have to wait a few hours before taking the oil.   And the oil further reduces circulating insulin to a trace level.  Furthermore, low insulin will allow additional fatty acids to be released from the adipose tissue, and continuously burned as a fuel -- so satiety will be maintained for hours and hours...maybe days!    At that point, eating further meals will be done in the context of there already being a lot of fuel in the bloodstream, so the satiety signal will come soon, particularly if the meal is not too large or rich in carbohydrates (or to a lesser extent, high in protein, which also induces insulin).   Continued high fat meals or flavorless oils will continue to suppress appetite.  In fact, besides the SLD, the most effective weight loss method I've found is a high fat diet, with low carbs, but also relatively low protein.   This really leads to great appetite suppression and easy weight loss.
This is a great explanation of why oil by itself is a powerful weight loss medium, even if it isn't flavorless.  There was a woman who posted here for awhile who had great success with a really high fat diet.  Her user name was SandyDown an here is a link to her SLD page: http://boards.sethroberts.net/index.php?topic=6074.0  There are some interesting blogs by people who eat primarily an extremely high saturated fat diet and have excellent results with it. 

3. I think that Clarinette has had even better AS and weight loss when she increases her sugar water.  There is something repulsive about taking too much sugar by itself.  It's hard to do.  I'm not sure what this mechanism is and how it relates to your theory. 

I've often wondered about the length of the flavorless window. 
Quote
Whereas the insulin hypothesis is based on very well established evidence of the rate at which insulin levels decline in most individuals.
So you are suggesting that a 4 hour window (2 hours before and after) would be best in terms of the insulin theory?  Do you think that that would be optimal?  Would even longer be better?  Or other specific suggestions that concern how long it takes for insulin levels to decline.   For example, if one has eaten a high carb meal should one wait even longer?   Some folks here have posted that a longer window gives better results with the oil taking.


Quote
You will get hungry only if you are not getting a good supply of sugars or fatty acids into your bloodstream -- either from what you eat, or from what you release from storage (sugars from glycogen in the liver & muscles, or fatty acids from your fat stores).   As you start to lose weight, it can get harder to lose additional weight.  The temptation is to cut back on calories, but that can be a mistake as it may make you hungry, tired, or low in energy.  It may be that you have to increase the amount of fat in your diet to suppress insulin and allow the release of fatty acids and sugars from storage at a faster rate.
Do you think that just shifting around percentages to higher fat and less protein and carb can make a difference?  Or will taking too many carbs with increased fat block its appetite suppressing effects?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 11:20:17 AM by Heidi 555 »
Logged
It took 1 year of nose clipping
to lose 20 pounds (from about 140 to 120)
Dropped from size 8-10 to size 4
I'm 5' 4.5"

Read about my success nose clipping regular food instead of doing oil or sugar: http://boards.sethroberts.net/index.php?topic=5903.

tek_vixen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1346
  • A mind is a terrible thing to lose!
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2009, 11:21:51 AM »

OOops!  Sorry about that Todd.  I didn't make it clear that the episode of gestational diabetes was in the distant past.  In fact, the resulting baby turned 18 last month.   :shock:  So what you were saying about the mechanisms involved in gestational diabetes makes total sense.  I suspect I still have a certain level of insulin resistance.  Any significant carb intake sends me on a hunger cycle that's hard to break.

Interesting comments about the "high protein" aspect of low carb diets.  I was upping my protein as I got hungrier to try to calm it down.  But I just got hungrier.  Consistent with what you put forth in the last post.  At one point I was adding protein powder to my oatmeal to give it more sticking power, but it seemed to diminish the satiety factor.  So it sounds like I shouldn't bother replacing my empty protein powder can.  Instead, I should add ground flax seed meal to up the fat content and maybe add some chopped nuts too.  And start having some fat on my veggies again.  And buttered air popped popcorn.  OK, this may be doable after all.  And that's what I'm looking for in understanding the mechanisms behind why this work.  I want the practical application.  I don't care who's right or wrong.

Oh, and I've pretty much avoided the SW for the most part because of my tendency to be sensitive to sugar.  I started on oil.  I tried SW when people were having so much success on it.  But I didn't try it more than a couple of times.  It really made me hungry.  And I have to be really careful when I read about others success and remind myself that it's not for me.

T-Vix
Logged


Clarinette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2009, 11:33:37 AM »

Well, at first the SW did make me hungry too and it is not the case now.

NTB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
    • Getting Stronger
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2009, 12:56:34 PM »

I should add ground flax seed meal to up the fat content and maybe add some chopped nuts too.  And start having some fat on my veggies again.  And buttered air popped popcorn.  OK, this may be doable after all.  And that's what I'm looking for in understanding the mechanisms behind why this work.  I want the practical application.  I don't care who's right or wrong.
T-Vix

Good thoughts, tek vixen.  I would be careful with the buttered air popped popcorn, though: http://www.carbs-information.com/popcorn/carbs-in-air-popped-popcorn.htm   
If you have hyperinsulinemia (high insulin levels) this will stoke your hunger because the carbs from popcorn quickly become glucose in the blood.   Green veggies and nuts sound good.   Try avocados too...very appetite suppressing, especially with a little oil & vinegar.
Logged
Click HERE to check out the Deconditioning Diet and other self-improvement ideas on my blog "Getting Stronger"

BJane

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #51 on: April 21, 2009, 06:53:50 PM »

Any significant carb intake sends me on a hunger cycle that's hard to break.

This might suggest that you have high insulin levels (either base levels, or that you have an exaggerated insulin response once glucose hits the bloodstream)... the higher the insulin levels, the faster your body tucks away what comes into the blood stream into storage. If it is tucked away in storage, you don't have that available to you as fuel -- and when you don't have fuel available you become hungry.
Logged

Polaroid Doll

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #52 on: April 21, 2009, 07:22:59 PM »

I was tested for an exaggerated insulin response once. My understanding is that when this happens, too much sugar is removed from the bloodstream, leading to a very hard sugar 'crash', due to blood sugar levels dropping too quickly. It should be obvious then if an exaggerated insulin response is the culprit...

The test was quite nasty, by the way. They provided a bottle of very concentrated sugar-water to be drunk in a short period of time, followed by periodic blood draws. I can state that I've never felt as ill in my entire life as after drinking this sugar-water; I didn't have a 'crash' and no abnormal insulin response was found, but I oscillated wildly between wanting to vomit and wanting to pass out for the first hour-and-a-half after drinking it.  :(
Logged

Kirk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #53 on: April 21, 2009, 10:05:25 PM »

Good stuff, Todd.  Lots to think about.

First, my disclaimers.  My field is software, not biological science.  I am always fascinated when reading the Taubes and Eades of the nutrition world, but it's like when I read about quantum mechanics; I understand about 1% of 1% of 1% of 1%.  So please excuse my scientific ignorance.

You have encouraged me to re-consider the possible benefits of adding oil back into my SLD routine.  I mostly use crazy spicing, but sometimes augment with sugar water.  Perhaps I'll use oil for those times where I would have used SW.

I also had not considered timing of an oil dose to be important.  Now I am willing to test both the timing of the SLD technique, and extending the time window.

I had already started a low-carb experiment several days ago; this discussion motivates me to continue with that experiment.

On the other hand . . .

You described Taubes as disputing setpoint theory, yet in this interview he agrees there is a 'settling point': http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/19/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-12/

You wondered why the location of the setpoint control had not been determined yet.  My doctor just told me that he had gone to an obesity conference to learn from the key speakers that the science is, quote, 'in the Dark Ages'.  So I'm not surprised to hear (for those who believe in the setpoint) that  the center of the setpoint control is unknown.    (My personal favorite hypotheses, and only because I have a twisted since of humor, is that these guys are in control : http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95900616 ).

I find your arguments convincing for the SLD techniques of oil and nose-clipping.  But the analysis, to my laymen eyes, becomes questionable for the SLD techniques of sugar water and crazy spicing.  It seems to place extraordinary importance on preprandial insulin.

Once again, many thanks for your thoughts.  You have given me much to think about, and encouraged me to return to GCBC and attempt to understand it once again.
Logged

goblyn

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1748
  • C'est ne pas une goblyn
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2009, 06:49:28 AM »

You wondered why the location of the setpoint control had not been determined yet.  My doctor just told me that he had gone to an obesity conference to learn from the key speakers that the science is, quote, 'in the Dark Ages'.  So I'm not surprised to hear (for those who believe in the setpoint) that  the center of the setpoint control is unknown. 


HAHAHA!

That doesn't suprise me at all.  For years the vast majority of doctors (and believe me this is coming from someone who's mother, boyfriend, and friends all work in the health care industry, so I know) have been telling people who are overweight that all they need to do is cut calories and exercise more and they'll lose weight.  The medical community seems to consider obesity to only stem from people eating too much and not getting enough exercise, and while this may be the case, there are enough people out there who struggle to lose even a single ounce to prove that maybe this way of thinking is not correct.  I particuarly hate it when you go to the doctor with any sort of complaint (be it sore muscle, or sickness, or whatnot) and they just look at your fat and say "you just need to lose weight, try weight watchers."  Gee thanks for the help doc.

Luckily the tide is definately turning, the doctor my bf works for refuses to use BMI calculators, and advocates alternative diet plans beyond simple calorie restriction (though she does think that SLD is too weird), so at least the medical community is considering that there are some people who need something beyond that.
Logged

Kirk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2009, 02:41:29 PM »

Goblyn, that discussion with my doctor was one of those conversations which linger.  It began when I asked what should be my target weight (he calculated it as about 185) and then he told me not to worry about trying to lose weight.  He'd been to an obesity conference and heard that the science had not progressed beyond calories-in-calories-out, and he wasn't going to provide that kind of guidance any more.  He said he'd had a middle-aged woman in earlier in the week, desperate to lose weight, in tears, and all he could tell her was that there was nothing that could be done; that weight piles on over the years, and as symptoms surface, the medical community will treat the symptoms.  I tried to tell him about my success with SLD, but he didn't want to hear anything.  I was puzzled at the time, but after reflection, it makes sense.  Some people respond well to any change in diet; they could go on WW, Atkins, Paleo, South Beach, Protein Power, or whatever is in the most recent issue of a lifestyle magazine, and they'll lose weight, just because they're eating more healthy foods and probably fewer calories.  Both my wife and my daughter easily lost their excess weight on that general kind of diet.  Then there's the other group, people like the ones who end up on this forum, who struggle to lose weight, and have worked through all the current diets.  Those are the ones my doctor hears from, and he has no answer.  He also told me that he has Big Pharm reps meeting with him every week, saying that if he'll prescribe their 'solution', he'll get a healthy increase in income.  But he's ethical; he's not going to hustle their products.
Logged

Heidi 555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #56 on: April 22, 2009, 05:51:16 PM »

You described Taubes as disputing setpoint theory, yet in this interview he agrees there is a 'settling point': http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/19/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-12/

Kirk, on page 428 of GCBC Taubes says:
Quote
Life is dependent on homeostatic systems that exhibit the same relative constancy as body weight, and none of them require a set point, like the temperature setting on a thermostat, to do so.  Moreover, it is always possible to create a system that exhibits set-point-like behavior or a settling point, without actually having a set-point mechanism involved.
He then elaborates with more examples.  So it sounds like Taubes is disputing the finding of a set point mechanism, but not set point theory. 


And that's what I'm looking for in understanding the mechanisms behind why this work.  I want the practical application.  I don't care who's right or wrong.
Me too.
Logged
It took 1 year of nose clipping
to lose 20 pounds (from about 140 to 120)
Dropped from size 8-10 to size 4
I'm 5' 4.5"

Read about my success nose clipping regular food instead of doing oil or sugar: http://boards.sethroberts.net/index.php?topic=5903.

NTB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
    • Getting Stronger
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #57 on: April 22, 2009, 07:28:58 PM »

You described Taubes as disputing setpoint theory, yet in this interview he agrees there is a 'settling point': http://www.blog.sethroberts.net/2008/01/19/interview-with-gary-taubes-part-12/

Kirk and Heidi555, thanks for making me aware of this interview.  There's a lot of meat there.

The difference between "setpoint" and "settling point" is not a trivial or merely philosophical distinction.  It has quite a real and practical significance.  Taubes makes this clear both in his book (on page 428) and in the interview.  A setpoint is a centrally determined reference quantity used to regulate a system.  For example, the water level in a lake can be set using a level controller that opens gates allowing water to flow in or out until the setpoint level is reached, then the gates close again.  Or a thermostat turns on a heater or air conditioner if the temperature of the house deviates from the setpoint, until the setpoint themostat temperature is reached.  By contrast, a "settling point" is not a causal driving factor but rather the unintentional consequence of a natural dynamic equilibrium that results when a complex system achieves a balance.  So the lake reaches a steady level due when the inflows, outflows and evaporation reach steady state.  Or a house without a thermostat reaches a steady state temperature when the outside heat, internal circulation, leaks, etc. are in balance.

Taubes actually gets into an argument with Seth on just this point in the interview (INTERVIEWER = Seth).  Here's a sampling, from Section 11 of the interview on Seth's blog:

Quote
INTERVIEWER So you read my post about the most surprising thing in your book?

TAUBES What was the most surprising thing?

INTERVIEWER That you didn’t agree that set points play a role in homeostasis.

TAUBES It’s funny – the more I think about it, the more Claude Bernard was brilliant...The fundamental idea of homeostasis is that the body works to maintain the stability of what he called the milieu interieur, which gets translated to “internal environment”... The idea of the set point is that there’s some central controller in the brain that maintains homeostasis, but that’s naive. Rather, there’s an unbelievably complicated mechanism composed of individual settling points. Like the fatty acid concentration on the interior, and exterior of the fat cell. If there’s more fatty acids on the outside of the cell membrane than the inside, then fatty acids flow into the cell, and you get slightly fatter. There’s no brain in charge. The brain may respond, and the hypothalamus sends signals back and forth, and effects changes in hormones in response to changes in the environment

... Well, to understand homeostasis you have to understand this concept of dynamic equilibrium, where there can be hundreds of forces acting simultaneously. And the point is, you’ve got these negative feedback loops all over the body, and they involve the brain, but on some level, the dynamic equilibrium you’re looking at is right at the cellular level. That’s where the forces converge to make us leaner or fatter. And the brain is part of these loops, but to concentrate on the brain misses the big picture.

INTERVIEWER The brain is sensitive to the environment — sure, the set point doesn’t really exist anywhere, and sure it’s a function of about a zillion things, not all of them in the brain, sure. But the reason I like that idea of a setpoint is that it’s easy to imagine something going up and down, rather than a million things going up and down.

TAUBES But the problem is once you oversimplify, there’s a tendency to believe the oversimplification. You should go back and read the papers on settling points. There were a couple, if I remember correctly, written by psychologists from the University of Chicago. You should go back and read those original papers. They’re fascinating, and the point they make, is that you don’t need the brain involved. Like we don’t think of the brain regulating blood pressure. You don’t really think of your brain regulating blood glucose....

This gets to the heart of the issue of this entire blog thread.   As a practical matter, if I believe in a "setpoint" for my weight, the SLD theory tells me I can temporarily "trick" my body into lowering my setpoint by taking shots of oil or sugar water or pinching my nose when I'm eating.  But once I stop doing SLD, I'm doomed to return to my "setpoint" weight which is somehow (mysteriously) predetermined by genetics, or how I grew up, or God or fate or whatever.   It is a somewhat pessimistic and fatalistic view, in that my body is a black box that I can't understand, and I can't really control the outcome over the long term without being stuck on this weird diet.

On the other hand, if I believe that my body is a complex system in dynamic equilibirum, with knowable and adjustable control points, then if I understand those control points I can now change the system and it will shift to a new "settling point".  And it can be a permanent shift. This is a much more empirically verfiable, controllable and -- I think -- encouraging possibility.

I am proposing that the basal insulin level is the key control point of the dynamic system that is our body.  There are other contol points of course, but insulin is the most important and has been very well studied.   If we can reduce insulin level by making good choices over time, we can shift our weights to a new "settling point".   There are actually many ways to lower the basal insulin level, but they take time. We should focus not on quick weight loss that doesn't really change the equilibrium.  That would be like dumping a little water in the lake or buidling a fire to make our house permanently warmer.   Shifting the balance of fats, oils and proteins, reducing our appetite (via the SLD diet or just avoiding very flavorful foods, aromas and other appetite stimulants).  Exercising (not to lose weight but rather to overcome insulin resistance) and even reducing stress via mediation or lifestyle changes (see the Gabriel method for a man who lost 220 pounds by reducing stress).   There is a wide variety of ways to reduce the basal insulin level and the insulin reponse.  If you reduce your basal insulin and keep it low consistently, your body will lose fat and you'll lose weight.  Just like if you widen the river coming out of a lake, the water level will fall.   In both cases, there is no setpoint, just a resulting "settling point".   And what is neat about this, I believe, is that it is sustainable.  Get your insulin down and you'll not only lose weight, you'll have more energy to exercise, your cravings will disappear, you will naturally make good lifestyle choices that help make this a permanent change, with no gimmicks.  In cases of insulin resistance (which many diabetics, pre-diabetics and probably many of the rest of us have), it may also be necessary to use diet and exercise to increase insulin sensitivity, otherwise low insulin levels may induce cravings.

Basically the focus should be on "building a better machine" - making your body more efficient -- not short term weight loss.  By calming the insulin response through careful eating to keep insulin with narrow bounds, stress management and exercise (which does change the insulin sensitivity of our body tissues), we become satisfied with smaller meals and are able to access our fat stores easily.   With a broken insulin response, we will tend to "overshoot" and shunt excess food into deep storage in our adipose tissues, and make it hard to get the fat back out.

Without changing the body's insulin metabolism, I fear that attempts to lose weight will be temporary at best, and a body with a broken insulin metabolism will tend resist weight loss beyond a certain point and yo-yo back to it's previous "settling point", just like trying to pump water out of a lake without changing the dimensions of the lake, tributaries or outflow rivers will only temporarily change the level of the lake.

So, yes, the distinction between a setpoint and a settling point is very important!

I find your arguments convincing for the SLD techniques of oil and nose-clipping.  But the analysis, to my laymen eyes, becomes questionable for the SLD techniques of sugar water and crazy spicing.  It seems to place extraordinary importance on preprandial insulin.

I don't think there is much of a preprandial response to sucrose, because sucrose has no flavor or aroma that the vagal nerve can detect.  (A number of tastes like sweet, salty, etc. are detected by the tongue and not the nose, so they do not induce an insulin response).  I think the key with sugar water is sipping slowly or consumed it in small quantities in order to provide some fuel to the blood stream, but not enough to trigger a noticeable rise in insulin.  If you take the sugar too quickly and insulin kicks in, the insulin will deplete the sugar from the blood, and your cells will starve, so you'll get hungry.  So the key to SW is to observe the SLD time window (longer if necessary to allow insulin levels to quiet down) and sip slowly.

If you don't believe me, try either great reducing or greatly increasing your SW dose or rate of sipping it. Or shorten the SLD window from an hour down to 15 minutes after a meal.  I predict that if you stray far enough from the narrow optimum, you will lose your AS. 

In the case of crazy spices, I do believe you are avoiding a preprandial insulin spike.  Way before the SLD, Pavolov and other physiological behavioral psychologist demonstrated experimentally that familiar flavors taken at the same time as calories conditional the vagus nerve to secrete pre-prandial insulin.  With crazy, unfamiliar spices you are not providing the vagus nerve with any triggers.

..........

What I like about the insulin theory is that it makes very specific predictions that are relatively easy to test.  I wish I could find a way to easily measure blood insulin.   When that happens, I think it will be very empowering to help us manage our weight.  The other thing about reducing insulin is that the health benefits go way beyond weight control.  There is so much literature suggesting that "Syndrome X" -- hyperinsulinemia -- is at the root of so many of the diseases of Western Civilization.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 09:50:51 PM by NTB »
Logged
Click HERE to check out the Deconditioning Diet and other self-improvement ideas on my blog "Getting Stronger"

NTB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
    • Getting Stronger
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #58 on: April 22, 2009, 10:10:17 PM »

I think that Clarinette has had even better AS and weight loss when she increases her sugar water.  There is something repulsive about taking too much sugar by itself.  It's hard to do.  I'm not sure what this mechanism is and how it relates to your theory. 
This just tells me that Clarinette can tolerate a somewhat higher level of blood glucose before triggering an insulin response.  And that's nice for her, because if she can tolerate it, the AS will last longer and give her more energy.  But there must be a limit.  If Clarinette doubles her SW dose or chugs it down quickly, at some point this will trigger an insulin response and the blood sugar will crash, bringing the AS to a quick demise. 

I've often wondered about the length of the flavorless window....So you are suggesting that a 4 hour window (2 hours before and after) would be best in terms of the insulin theory?  Do you think that that would be optimal?  Would even longer be better?  Or other specific suggestions that concern how long it takes for insulin levels to decline.   For example, if one has eaten a high carb meal should one wait even longer?   Some folks here have posted that a longer window gives better results with the oil taking. 
The length of the flavorless window I'm sure depends upon your biochemical individuality, your basal insulin levels, your degree of insulin resistance and, as you mention, the size and composition of your last meal.  Mostly, this is influenced by carbohydrates, but protein has 50% of the insulin inducing ability of carbohydrates.  To me, the best indicator would be hunger.  I would go as long as you can and take the oil when you are just starting to feel slight pangs of hunger (but before you are ravenously hungry).  This is a sign that your blood sugar is starting to get low and probably your insulin is low or on the way down.  I actually think the best time to take the oil is the very first thing in the morning, since it is well known that your body goes into fat burning mode all night (if you haven't eating a big meal right before bed), and your insulin is low.  Upon waking, the body natural secretes insulin, which causes the appetite to increase first thing in the morning.  If you take the oil before the morning hunger kicks in, I think you will keep it at bay and you can skip breakfast because the oil will "feed" you all morning with nice fat buring AS.

Do you think that just shifting around percentages to higher fat and less protein and carb can make a difference?  Or will taking too many carbs with increased fat block its appetite suppressing effects?
Definitely carbs will inhibit the release and burning of fats and cause them to get stored in your fat cells. So keep carbs low.  Not necessarily at zero or ultra low, but low enough to prevent insulin spiking.  And between fat and protein, definitely the more fat, the more AS.  Protein is kind of neutral, since it turns on both insulin and glucagon, the fat storing and fat releasing hormones.
Logged
Click HERE to check out the Deconditioning Diet and other self-improvement ideas on my blog "Getting Stronger"

Oslo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #59 on: April 22, 2009, 11:39:59 PM »

Golly this makes very good sense.   

Todd, would I be on track to understand that there is an insulin producing continuum, with fragrant carbs at one end and flavorless fat at the other?   
Any thoughts on the curve of the line?   If I had a flavorful fat as my SLD dose, say unrefined walnut or sesame or pumpkin seed oil, would the insulin raising smell trump the insulin lowering fat?  I know, probably only one way to find out...
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 01:26:43 AM by Oslo »
Logged
Looking for a point of natural easy-to-maintain stability with a BMI 20-21.  Down from 23+.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 27   Go Up
 

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