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
Just another thought

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]   Go Down

Author Topic: Just another thought  (Read 7544 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

raina

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 82
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2006, 12:39:59 PM »

Ann - are you suggesting that there is an acceleration of metabolic function when the set/satiation point is lowered that will burn of stored fat in an accelerated manner? 

That seems to describe what I have experienced (I have lost 4 lbs in 6 days since starting the diet last Sunday).

On the other hand, I am no physiologist or dietitian, but an increased metabolic rate in periods of scarce food resources seems inconsistent with my previous discourse, as I would have expected a slowing down of metabolic rate, and conservation of stored fat calories, concurrent with a decreased satiation point caused by "lean" years.

I would be interested to know whether the reduced calorie intake resulting from the decreased satiation point, and burned calories, are sufficient to account for the weight reduction by itself.   It seems that this is measurable, and would provide evidence of whether redcued caloric intake is solely responsible for weight reduction, or whether there is some other process at play.

Regards

Studies where they overfeed people (way over their set point) and then observe what happens usually show that not only do they voluntarily eat less, but they raise metabolism until they get to their previous weight.  So it would seem that if you stayed at your same weight and lowered your set point, you'd see the same effect - either way your actual weight is above your set point.

This did seem a bit incongruous with evolutionary theory to me at first - until I thought about it a little more.  At the beginning of a period of calorie scarcity I think it would be advantageous to have a higher metabolism because it gives you more energy to go out and hunt for food that is a bit harder to find than your usual fare.  As you get into it and have matched your weight with your new set point (or gone even lower), then your body would lower metabolism to conserve energy and that would be OK because you'd presumably have already taken advantage of the additional food sources in the area.

Some of your large primary weight loss was probably water loss, as always happens when you start eating less calories at the beginning of a diet, so I don't think all of it could be due to a higher metabolism, but perhaps a small percentage.  But when you consider that usually your metabolism LOWERS on a diet, that slight effect would at least be doubled.  Consider two people who both need 2500 calories to maintain their weight.  One goes on a typical calorie restriction diet, one goes on SLD.  A month later both are eating 1250 calories a day.  Simple math says they should be losing 2.5 lbs a week, but the SLD dieter may lose 3 lbs a week wheras the restriction dieter may lose 2 lbs a week because one's metabolism goes up slightly and the other's goes down.

Additionally, at some point the restriction dieter's metabolism will drop even more (and they will get hungrier for that matter) and it will be practically impossible to lose more.  (I'm sure many have experienced this with other diets in the past.)  The SLD dieter, on the other hand, will be happily chugging away like they were in the beginning, perhaps losing slightly slower because their maintainance calories for a lower weight are lower, creating less of a deficit, but still steadily losing with no problems.  Stephen M. certainly seems to be an example of someone who has been on the diet for a while, lost a lot of weight, and is not having trouble losing any more.  For me, who has lost significant amounts of weight in the past (>30 lbs) but never managed to get more than about halfway to goal, this is my hope.

Also, I'm definitely a supertaster.  If you do that test Ann pointed out, at the end is directions for determining if you're one more scientifically - basically you put a notebook ring strengthener (you know those little stickers you can buy to put around the rings in your notebook so the pages are less likely to tear out) on the tip of your tounge and count the tastebuds within the region.  If you have 30 or more, then you are a supertaster.
Logged

vmorais

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2006, 12:29:39 PM »

I took the test Anne suggested at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/body/interactives/supertaster/

and rated as a "Supertaster" as well.   

I like Scotty's suggestion of waiting 7 days before eating the same food again.  I tend to get into a rut and eat the same thing repeatedly for long periods, mainly because it is easier/more convenient.
Logged

94S10 (a.k.a. Truckman)

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2006, 07:25:59 PM »

I rate between a normal and non-taster....what does this mean?
Logged

Ann H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2006, 11:28:13 PM »

Did you do the "count-the-little-bumps-on-your-tongue" test? (You should bhave few but pretty large bumps if you're between a normal and non taster.)

If my nascent hypothesis is right, and if you're really at that end of the spectrum, it means you should have better luck than the supertasters in doing Shangri-la and in losing weight, because you won't notice the taste in the oil, sugar water, etc, and because you don't taste foods as strongly in the first place.

OR, conversely, that you can get fat more easily, as more foods taste similar to you (don't think so, though).

Let us know how well this thing ends up working for you, eh? Most folks are turning up supertasters, so it'll be very interesting to see if there's any difference.
Logged

Pinkmug

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4323
  • Lisboa Portugal
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #19 on: July 14, 2006, 03:49:00 AM »

hey, that test is a sham ;) I rated as a non-taster!
They are particularly insensitive to bitter tastes - yeah sure, I HATE bitter tastes!!
Logged
A calorie is just a bug that lives in the closet and shrinks your clothes overnight

Ann H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #20 on: July 14, 2006, 03:55:26 AM »

Ooh, good to know it's a sham! Did you try the count-the-dots-on-your-tongue bit and it rated you wrong as well?
Logged

Pinkmug

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4323
  • Lisboa Portugal
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2006, 04:15:30 AM »

No, it calls for food coloring and I don't have any.
I tried to look in a mirror but can't really tell...
Logged
A calorie is just a bug that lives in the closet and shrinks your clothes overnight

Stephen M (Ethesis)

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1272
  • http://ethesis.blogspot.com/
    • http://ethesis.blogspot.com/
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #22 on: July 15, 2006, 09:06:52 PM »

Quote
Studies where they overfeed people (way over their set point) and then observe what happens usually show that not only do they voluntarily eat less, but they raise metabolism until they get to their previous weight.  So it would seem that if you stayed at your same weight and lowered your set point, you'd see the same effect - either way your actual weight is above your set point.

When I was compulsively trying to eat myself to death when I couldn't take the grief, that was my experience.  I could feel my body fighting the calories every night.  When I finally couldn't keep it up, I lost about twenty pounds.  But I had driven my set point up.  When I started the SLD, my body really shed the weight at first as it started to seek normalacy.  Now my set point seems to be dropping about as fast as my weight, so I don't experience that any more.

But a lot of emotionally driven eaters do experience that.

Which is why I wondered about SLD and emotional eating.  I think if your eating is truly emotional, that is, you experience the side effects of set point being below your weight, SLD has different impacts on you than if your eating uses your emotions to drive you to eat enough to reach your set point.

My guess, based on current observations.

Most emotional eaters are not eating above their set point because of their emotions, their body is using their emotions to drive them to eat enough to keep at their set point.


Butterfingers

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #23 on: July 16, 2006, 08:48:30 PM »

I rated as a supertaster, just to add to the stats.
Logged

Seth Roberts

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2570
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #24 on: July 16, 2006, 09:02:08 PM »

Ann H, maybe you should do a poll.
Logged

Ann H

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 660
Re: Just another thought
« Reply #25 on: July 17, 2006, 01:30:26 AM »

Aiyah!
...
OK, Seth! :)
...
Grumble, grumble had to open my mouth on this grumble....
:)
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
 

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