Few people have used the theory behind the Shangri-La Diet more successfully than Tim Beneke, an Oakland journalist. I put before and after photos of him — before and after he lost about 100 pounds — on the front page of the proposal for The Shangri-La Diet. He writes:
It’s very clear to me this summer that it’s much easier for me to go tasteless and only consume the mush if I don’t go to Berkeley, and just stay home in my apartment (except going for my neighborhood walk). And it’s not merely a matter of behavior. When I go to Berkeley and walk near places where I am accustomed to eating (and tasting) — mostly restaurants, sandwich shops and coffee houses — I actually experience more hunger and must consume more mush to satisfy hunger than if I stay home.
I’m not surprised that auditory and visual signals for food cause hunger. There are lots of conditioned cravings like that. Tim goes on to wonder if these learned signals for food raise the body-fat setpoint, as the theory behind the Shangri-La Diet says that food-associated flavors do. If you walk by your favorite bakery every day, will you weigh more than if you don’t?
I always lose weight when I travel in foreign countries. I’ve attributed this to unfamiliar food. But could unfamiliar places also play a role?
In 1973, Edward Zamble, a professor of psychology at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, published an experiment very relevant to this question. He divided rats into two groups. Both group got their daily meal at random times. For one group, the meal was preceded by 30 minutes of light; the light went off before the food was available. The other group was exposed to the same amount of light but the light bore no relation to when they were fed. The rats with signaled food ate more and weighed more than the rats with unsignaled food.
I knew of this experiment — and often mentioned it — before I came up with the theory behind the Shangri-La Diet, but I never connected them. Thanks, Tim.
Actually this brings up a point on SLD that has me a bit concerned. As a woman, I love to lather myself with lotions and ungents and balms, and I know it doesn’t seem like that has anything to do with SLD or set point levels. But have you looked at the high-end lotions and lip balms these days? “Vanilla-Fig” and “Rasberry-Peach” and “Mint Julep” and “Mango Melon” and on and on. I’ve started using blah unscented lotions and lip balms because I’m concerned about the smell/flavor/calorie connection, although I felt silly about it. Reading this, I think I’m not so off the mark. I often use lotions first thing after a shower, and just a few minutes before I down my flavorless calorie dose. I suppose I should be wary of VCO as well, as it has a strong coconut smell to it. I could also move my dosage to later in the morning. Hmmm. Time to experiment.
::::KBS
Actually there is a fair amount of research showing fragrances can lead to weight loss in people, probably be interfering with the process by which the brain learns taste/calorie associations. One study found that people wearing a vanilla scented band, I think, on their wrist lost weight compared to a control group who did not. That was a few years ago; I know a lot more has been done.
That actually makes sense if they are wearing the scents at times when they are *not* eating. I’ll have to look around for the studies you refer to, should be interesting reading to find out.
In my case, I am referring to the combination of “flavorless” calories (a la SLD) combined with a food-associated scent, which when combined essentially makes a meal. lol!
:::KBS
You might try to put on lotions during times when you are not eating; that would weaken any association for the times when you are…
Wouldn’t this theory predict that city residents would be fatter, or at least hungrier, than suburbanites? For instance, New Yorkers walk past a great number of restaurants daily, whereas suburbanites are exposed less often, because there are fewer restaurants in the suburbs, and residents are more likely to quickly drive past them rather than walk past, thus experiencing them for less time. Maybe all of the city dwellers’ walking makes up for their increased exposure to food signals.
Maybe the visual stimulus of product packaging has a similar effect. Seeing the packages of favorite foods in your fridge or on the shelf may trigger hunger. I wonder what would happen if you repackaged your food in generic containers, or in the containers of non-edible products such as shampoo and soap?