jimrandomh comments on The Unfinished Mystery of the Shangri-La Diet - Less Wrong

22 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 10 April 2009 08:30PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (225)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: jimrandomh 10 April 2009 10:52:46PM 13 points [-]

From Eliezer's other article:

You can never be sure in the realm of the mind... but out in material foodland, I know that I was, in fact, drinking extra-light olive oil in the fashion prescribed. There is no reason within Roberts's theory why it shouldn't have worked.

Which just means Roberts's theory is incomplete. In the complicated mess that is the human metabolism there is something else that needs to be considered. (My guess would be "something to do with insulin".)

As a diabetic (the kind caused by immunology, not the kind caused by diet), I am able to measure and experiment with insulin and blood sugar directly. I also think that Roberts is entirely wrong about why his diet works, and unless I see a study that says otherwise, I will believe that it would work equally well if you filled the olive oil with (metabolically inert) spices.

The real answer is that having fat in your system and being digested creates a buffer against blood sugar lows, which would make you feel hungry. If you eat some olive oil in the morning, the period in which it's being digested covers all three meals; on the other hand, fat eaten with dinner is mostly digested while you sleep. Normal appetite approximately matches energy expenditure, but blood sugar crash-driven eating is extra on top of that.

Comment author: patrissimo 11 April 2009 01:22:42AM 3 points [-]

This really does not match my experience. If the effect is from having fat in your system, why does the method stop working if you have flavored fat, and work less the more times you have a given flavored fat?

I have eaten fatty meals, and I have taken flavorless fat SLA-style, and (at the beginning) the difference is massive. The latter killed my appetite. It was amazing.

Comment author: jimrandomh 11 April 2009 02:30:10AM 5 points [-]

I didn't see any evidence showing that it stops working if you have flavored fat. You say you've eaten fatty meals, but have you eaten fat-only meals, first thing in the morning? Most of the fatty things that people would normally eat are also high in protein, which has a very different effect on blood sugar.

Comment author: patrissimo 04 May 2009 02:17:42AM 7 points [-]

Oops, there is a much better objection to your hypothesis which I should have made the first time.

Seth Roberts started out suggesting that people use either sugar water or flavorless oil to get their tasteless calories. Eventually he stopped recommending sugar water because of the negative effects on blood sugar levels. But not because it didn't work!

If your hypothesis was right, then sugar water would make people gain weight, and there would be a dramatic difference between the sugar water and oil methods. Whereas my impression (although I didn't read the forums thoroughly) is that people only found a small to moderate difference between sugar water and oil methods.

(And no, I have not tried a fat-only meal first thing in the morning, I always have protein with my fat, so you're right that I don't have a fair comparison)