14

The Shangri-La diet method was arrived at by Seth Roberts, according to him, by self-experimentation.

A quote from an article showering it with praise sums it up.

Dr. Roberts’s Shangri-La Diet maintains that the body’s “set point,” the weight a body “wants” to be, can be lowered by consuming small amounts of tasteless oil or sugar between meals.

I'm skeptical of anything that goes beyond calories in - calories out and Roberts has been demonstrated to be wrong on-the-record numerous times before.

I didn't have access to the one paper citing it, but research on the set-point theory should tell us something about the theory's plausibility too.

A good answer might also talk about the old (classic or out-dated?) articles he cites in support.

Community
  • 1
Ruben
  • 2,813
  • 25
  • 29
  • glancing over the wikipage it seems focused on reducing appetite so you eat less during normal meals – ratchet freak Jul 12 '12 at 10:16
  • I consider [this a good starting point](http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22set+point+theory%22&hl=en&as_subj=bio+med+soc&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5), but I'm not from this field, so maybe someone else feels more up to the task. – Ruben Jul 12 '12 at 14:35
  • And yes, I did see my typo, but you can't edit bounty requests.. – Ruben May 03 '13 at 16:55
  • 3
    Calories in - calories out as usually stated is a totally debunked theory. So apparently defying it would not be a good enough reason to doubt the diet. On the other hand, nothing about this diet makes sense to me, so I do doubt it works. I'll search around later today to see if anything substantial can back that feeling. – Matt May 03 '13 at 17:39
  • @Matt Surely, it being a fad diet with only unblinded self-experimentation to back it is reason enough to be skeptical. I don't think CICO necessarily helps many people lose weight as a motivational scheme, but [I don't think it makes sense to call it "debunked"](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/15516/is-cico-calories-in-calories-out-a-useful-concept-in-diets) as it is not advertised as such a scheme. I happen to think it's a useful baseline to generate skepticism about a diet whose main (only?) doctrine is to ingest an additional food item. – Ruben May 03 '13 at 18:31
  • @Ruben I'm not saying this is the case in Shangri La, but you've hit upon the exact reason that CICO gives no information here. Suppose that extra food item contains a hormone that literally tells your body to release stored fat and burn it. Sure, the "burn it" part means you have more CO than CI and CICO is still "true," but it appears on the outside that all you've done is put more CI and lost weight. This is what I mean by debunked. The type of CI can affect hormones and metabolism so much that you appear to violate CICO while still having a legitimate diet. – Matt May 03 '13 at 19:33
  • @Matt Let's continue this discussion in chat, if you want. There is no reason to say that CICO gives "no information here". Surely, your prior for food increasing your energy supply to some extent must be higher than the inverse - everything else would simply be maladaptive. – Ruben May 03 '13 at 20:50

1 Answers1

3

The Shangri-La diet depends on two theories:

  • The Set-Point Theory, that claims the brain - in particular the hypothalamus - has a target weight, and it adjusts the body's resting metabolic rate (RMR) to ensure that the target weight is achieved.

  • The brain's target weight is set by one parameter that can be adjusted lower through the use of bland foods.

Set-Point Theory is controversial, in that it is popular, but lacks scientific evidence.

Bruce Jancin of International Medical News writes:

It's high time to toss out the long-popular set point theory of obesity, according to speakers at an international conference of the Academy for Eating Disorders.

The set point theory holds that obesity entails a metabolic defect that functions as a homeostatic mechanism. This defect is supposed to result in a slowdown of resting metabolic rate in an overweight or obese individual who has lost weight. The resultant reduction in energy expenditure is said to be responsible for the often-observed scenario in which the individual regains the weight that was lost and thereby returns to his or her set point.

The set point theory enjoys widespread popularity among the overweight public, in whom it fosters a fatalism regarding the condition of obesity. The theory also holds sway among many physicians who work with obese patients and/or those with eating disorders.

But scientific support for the set point theory is limited to old data derived from outdated methods of physiologic measurement.

A 1990 study published in FASEB, Role of set-point theory in regulation of body weight, is an example of research contradicting set-point theory:

Current working hypotheses include roles for nutrients, dietary composition and organoleptic properties, hormones, neural pathways, various brain nuclei, and many neurotransmitters in the regulation of food intake. It is concluded that regulation of body weight in relation to one specific parameter related to energy balance is unrealistic. It seems appropriate to assume that the level at which body weight and body fat content are maintained represents the equilibria achieved by regulation of many parameters.

So, it isn't one point in your brain deciding on your target weight, but lots of different factors throughout the body.

What about the research that supports it?

Well, the article quoted in the question is this one:

While this looks like a journal article, in fact, it is just a few paragraphs (less than a page) explaining what the diet is and nothing else. There is no evidence here to support it.

There do seem to be legitimate researchers out there who take the complicated version of set-point theory seriously.

In a 2007 article published in Diabetes Spectrum, The Physiology of Body Weight Regulation: Are We Too Efficient for Our Own Good?:

This so-called set-point theory of body weight regulation has been slowly developed over a number of years and backed by a plethora of experimental approaches.

They go on to cite at least five studies they claim support the set-point theory hypothesis. One of which was the first one I listed above. Some of which are rodent studies, which may not apply to humans.

They make the case that the best evidence for the set-point theory is that it is ubiquitous among weight-loss studies that the participants regain the weight, going back to their original point. They claim the main mechanism here is a change in the resting metabolic rate (RMR):

With the body being more metabolically efficient than before, a return to the original feeding level after a period of weight loss through decreased caloric intake would regain the lost weight. For individuals who are particularly efficient, it may even lead to net weight gain.

However, one of their cited papers, Do adaptive changes in metabolic rate favor weight regain in weight-reduced individuals? An examination of the set-point theory (2000, AJCN) refutes this:

The results also suggest that adaptive down-regulation of RMR is not a characteristic of weight-reduced individuals and does not explain their weight-regain tendency. The weight-gain tendency of obesity-prone persons appears to be caused by factors other than variations in metabolic rate.

Other factors, not RMR, explains why dieters tend to return to their original weight.

In conclusion: There are some complex versions of set-point theory that researchers are still working on, involving many (rather than a single) biological feedback loops.

Roberts vastly oversimplifies the theory by reducing it to a single parameter. His version of set-point theory is not supported by the scientific research.

Community
  • 1
Matt
  • 384
  • 1
  • 7
  • 1
    This doesn't appear to actually answer the question - just say that you personally haven't read anything that has convinced you either way. We are looking for definitive answers. – Oddthinking May 04 '13 at 17:35
  • 2
    @Oddthinking No offense, but that is a definitive answer. There are studies out there, but nothing conclusive. If the real answer is that we don't know yet, would you prefer a definitive yes or no even though it would be wrong? I could delete the part where I give my personal opinion and just let the other part stand if you prefer. – Matt May 04 '13 at 17:51
  • 1
    If the answer is "It isn't known", I'd prefer a definitive answer saying that, rather than "I 'glanced through' the literative, and am 'fairly unconvinced'." It is a tough call, but I've often used the technique of quoting a systemic review or other authority who has said the evidence isn't available, so the readers know it isn't just my poor searching skills that results in the lack of evidence. – Oddthinking May 04 '13 at 17:59
  • @Oddthinking There, I made my answer more definitive, and I don't think I did so in a dishonest way. I just avoid the issue altogether since it was somewhat tangential to the original question anyway. – Matt May 04 '13 at 18:04
  • The truly curious can look at the edit, but for the record I'll explain here the difference. I explained why I thought that at this time it is difficult to tell if set-point theory is real based on the literature (hence the reference to "it isn't known"), but I don't think it is controversial to say that the researchers consistently emphasize the biological complexity involved and would reject Robert's theory as overly simplistic. – Matt May 04 '13 at 18:15
  • So, one study that might be out there that could shed light on Robert's theory would show that memories/experiences of flavour/taste affect or don't affect said set point. Agreed? I doubt this link has been found, and a null result would probably not have been published due to publication bias, so this study may not actually be out there. But it would be a further thing to look for. – Ruben May 04 '13 at 21:43
  • Okay, let's see if we can tighten this up, now. "Almost indistinguishable from a tautological statement"? What does that really mean? Do you think it is tautological or not? If you think it is tautological, then you are saying it is NECESSARILY TRUE. If you think it isn't, then remove this. – Oddthinking May 05 '13 at 01:11
  • You argue that your weight is determined by a number of factors. You argue that no one single factor can affect it. These are contradictory. If it is a combination of factors then there are many different single factors that can affect it. – Oddthinking May 05 '13 at 01:13
  • @Oddthinking Don't take this the wrong way, but I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. You seem to be picking on things for the sake of it and not for content. "What does this really mean?" Well, in the next paragraph I explain in full what I meant by that statement. Namely, "This seems indistinguishable from the tautological statement: Your weight is determined by some combination of biological information." – Matt May 05 '13 at 01:37
  • Second, the peer-reviewed scientific article that you sometimes take to be so important is where I got that "contradictory" information. Read the first blocked quote and note well "It is concluded that regulation of body weight in relation to one specific parameter related to energy balance is unrealistic." This isn't "my" argument. It might be "contradictory" in your mind, but it is what that study found. – Matt May 05 '13 at 01:39
  • Matt, I assure you I am making these comments with the hope of improving this answer. You seem to have done the research to put together an answer on a popular question, but I haven't voted you up or down because your argument is unclear to me (and I assume others) in several places. My optimistic assumption is that you have a valid argument, but it hasn't been expressed well. If you want to walk away from what you have written so far, I can respect that - there is only so much effort you may want to put into this, but I think this answer could be much better than it currently reads. – Oddthinking May 05 '13 at 02:43
  • A statement is either a tautology, or it isn't a tautology; there is no middle ground. "seems indistinguishable from a tautological statement" is a wishy-washy position, and leaves me unclear on your point. If you think it is tautological, why not just say so directly, for clarity? – Oddthinking May 05 '13 at 02:46
  • Re: the conclusion: Hmmm, yes, I see your point. I think you are reading that quoted sentence slightly differently to me. I will have to go back and read the paper for more context. – Oddthinking May 05 '13 at 02:48
  • Yes, I see the problem now. When Harris says "one specific parameter", it is referring to (if I may use an analogy) a hypothesized thermostat setting in the hypothalamus. When you say "a single thing", I now suspect you are referring to the same concept. I read it "a single thing" as referring to any single one of the several factors - i.e. including changing your energy intake or expenditure, the climate you live in, etc, which would clearly disrupt your body's stable weight. – Oddthinking May 05 '13 at 03:14
  • Alright. I can certainly change the first mention of "almost indistinguishable" to just give the idea of the set-point as presented in that article. I'm having trouble still seeing the problem with the other statement. I present something that *is* tautological and say that I think what they are saying seems (to me, but I'm open to the idea that it may have some differences) equivalent to this statement, i.e. "seems indistinguishable from the tautology." Should I really just change it from "seems" to "is" so that it feels more certain? – Matt May 05 '13 at 03:23
  • To be fair to Roberts, maybe this "changed by a single factor" should be changed. He asserts a single intervention has an effect, namely one that supposedly affects satiation, but not "taste perception of amount of food eaten" (or something, that man is so confused, it's infectious), unlike most food. So, on some level he recognises that this is an intervention in a system, though he still oversimplifies, or, plain doesn't grasp the more complicated truth to begin with. – Ruben May 06 '13 at 09:43
  • @Oddthinking And I feel it's easy to see how Matt felt antagonised in combination with your first somewhat dismissive first comment, because the tautology remark is a bit of an accurate word use "pet peeve", it seems (to me, at least, the point got across). Maybe it would seem friendlier, be more constructive and time-efficient to propose such edits using the edit-feature? I think this is how it's intended to be used and I *know* that we're all supposed to be a friendly bunch. – Ruben May 06 '13 at 09:51
  • This discussion is getting too long. Let's take it to [chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/info/8664/discussion-about-set-point-theory). – Oddthinking May 07 '13 at 16:56
  • Your post attacks a straw man. Seth Roberts doesn't argue for a model in which the metabolic rate is the only factor through which the bodies set point influences the weight of a person. He argues for example that the set point influences the amount of hunger of a person. – Christian May 09 '13 at 16:47
  • @Christian I also think his theory is a bit different, though I'm not sure Matt is attacking a straw man (on purpose), mainly because there is no authoritative peer-reviewed publication of Roberts' theory, so one has to string together various blog posts etc. That makes it easier to defend and harder to attack the theory. I'm not sure his actual position is much more credible. Do you feel like writing an answer yourself? As a someone interested in self-experimentation you surely know much of Roberts' work. Bounty is still open 23h. – Ruben May 09 '13 at 17:15
  • @Ruben: (1) Robert wrote down his Shangri-La theory in a book. It's not peer-reviewed but I thinks that book is an authoritative description of what the Shangri-La diet is. The mechanism that the book talks about is hunger not metabolic rate. But even if it's hunger + metabolic rate + another factor, that wouldn't mean that the diet doesn't work. (2) Nobody studied that diet outside of people self-experimentating. There no good scientific evidence that tells us whether or not it works. Without such evidence I see no ground for writting an answer. – Christian May 09 '13 at 18:01
  • @Christian I think you've both misunderstood this answer and what Robert's theory is. The part about the answer that deals with RMR is an explanation of what seems to be the most important part in the scientific literature about set-point theory and is not specifically addressing Robert's theory at all. That first "explanation" of Shangri-La was added recently, but try reading the answer and ignoring it. It doesn't change anything. Second, "set point influences the amount of hunger of a person." If this is Robert's argument then it would easily be refuted. – Matt May 09 '13 at 19:22
  • I give Robert's more credit than that though and think that he is arguing that eating the bland foods triggers something in the hypothalamus which lowers the set-point. According to set-point theory then the body will naturally lose weight as you settle to the new set point. Hunger should have almost nothing to do with this (because again, CICO is extremely misleading as usually stated). – Matt May 09 '13 at 19:24
  • @Christian Yes, I know there is only self-experimentation (ie possibly nothing more than well-documented placebo effects) on the diet itself. But that idea that bland foodstuff can somehow do something special in that complex system, that could have been researched. I think publishing a theory in a book makes it less accessible for the critique of academics and sends more of a money-making vibe. And I bet 5€ that book contains contradictory information about what the diet is and is not, so as not to make it easily falsifiable, which maybe would have been caught in peer review. – Ruben May 09 '13 at 20:29
  • @Ruben : (1) Where your evidence for the claim that it's well documented that you can get long term weight loss with placebo effects? (2) I think you underrate the difficulty of someone without any credentials in nutrition to publish in a well regarded peer-reviewed journal a theory about effective weight loss. Nobody gave Roberts or for that matter anyone else a grand to study whether the theory is true. (3) The idea that everyone who works outside of the academic system does it becauses he wants to make money is stupid. Most people don't care that much about academia. – Christian May 10 '13 at 11:02
  • @Matt : Nutrition reseachers seldomly study hunger as it's a psychological variable. People who do the Shangri-La diet report changes in hunger. If you think that the influence of the set point on hunger is easily refuted, please do so. – Christian May 10 '13 at 11:16
  • @Christian Let's [take it to chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/8664/discussion-about-set-point-theory). (1) is a misunderstanding by the way. – Ruben May 10 '13 at 11:29