Dinner in an Amsterdam Banlieue

A friend in Amsterdam writes:Â

I went to my [Moroccan] friend’s family’s apartment in Slotervaart and we watched Turkish soap operas dubbed in Arabic. At one point, the characters showed a map of Europe and the Middle East, with various arrows pointing back and forth. I asked her what they were, and she said they were maps of drug trafficking routes from Holland to Istanbul. Then my friend and her sister laid out a plate of sheeps’ stomach while I was in the bathroom and waited to see whether I would eat it. I explained that although it had smelled good before I knew what it was, the thought of eating it made me feel sick, but I felt obligated to eat a tiny bite of it anyway.

Slotervaart is not technically a banlieue (outskirt) of Amsterdam but it is functionally the same as the Paris banlieues. It is where Muslim immigrants live.

Crazy Spicing Works (At Least Once)

The theory behind the Shangri-La Diet says that the more variable the flavors of your food, the less fattening it will be. The problem with junk food is not just the quickly-digested calories (from bread and sugar), it is also the remarkably constant flavor. Coke tastes exactly the same each time.

A new study has just come out that supports these ideas. Sprinkling essentially random flavors on food (which an SLD forum member called crazy spicing) caused a lot of weight loss:

Alan Hirsch, MD, founder and neurologic director of the Smell & Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago, studied “tastants,” substances that can stimulate the sense of taste. He asked 2,436 overweight or obese individuals to sprinkle a variety of savory or sweet crystals on their food before eating their meals during the 6-month study period. Subjects put liberal applications of the salt-free savory flavors on salty foods and applied the sugar-free sweet crystals on sweet or neutral-tasting foods. They did not know what the flavors were other than salty or sweet. The hidden flavors of the savory tastants were cheddar cheese, onion, horseradish, ranch dressing, taco, or parmesan. Sweet flavors were cocoa, spearmint, banana, strawberry, raspberry, and malt.

A control group of 100 volunteers did not use tastants. Both groups were allowed to diet and exercise if they were already doing so. For both subjects and controls, Hirsch measured weight and body mass index (BMI)—a measure of height and weight—before and after the study.

At the start of the study, the treatment group had an average weight of 208 pounds and average BMI of 34, which is considered obese. After 6 months of using the crystals, the 1,436 subjects who completed the study lost an average of 30.5 pounds, compared with just 2 pounds for the untreated controls. Their BMI dropped by an average of 5, moving them from obesity to the overweight range. Controls had an average BMI decrease of 0.3.

Hirsch theorized that subjects lost more weight than controls did because the tastants made them feel full faster and therefore eat less. However, he did not track the amount of food the subjects ate. Another possibility, he said, is that the crystals improved the taste of bland but healthy foods, such as tofu and some vegetables, causing a change toward healthier eating habits. He said he believes this approach works because, unlike most diets, it is not based on food restriction.

Subjects lost an average of nearly 15 percent of their body weight, results showed. It is not clear whether the apparent weight loss benefits of the tastants would extend past 6 months or to people who weigh less than the obese subjects in this study.

“It could be that the percent of weight reduction would be lower in people who are less obese,” Hirsch said. “In theory, tastants won’t work for people who eat even when they’re full and for people who have lost their sense of smell.”

Hirsch said the tastants worked so well that they contributed to the dropout rate. Some of the subjects stopped the study before 6 months because they already had reached their ideal body weight—an unexpected result, he said.

Hirsch has done similar experiments, with similar results, in the past.

Thanks to Sheila Buff.

Why Do We Touch Our Mouths So Much?

This photo documents something anyone can notice: While we’re sitting, we touch our mouths a lot.

The photo shows the full faces of 22 men; 7 of them are touching their mouths. I have noticed something similar at many faculty meetings. I started to notice this after I read about its observation in a study designed to measure something else.

I’ve known about this for many years but have never read an explanation. Do we enjoy touching our mouths — or is the absence of touch for a long time unpleasant? If so, why?

The Ketogenic Diet and Evidence Snobs

If we can believe a movie based on a true story, the doctors consulted by the family with an epileptic son in …First Do No Harm knew about the ketogenic diet but (a) didn’t tell the parents about it, (b) didn’t take it seriously, and (c) thought that irreversible brain surgery should be done before trying the diet, which was of course much safer. Moreover, these doctors had an authoritative book to back up these remarkably harmful and unfortunate attitudes. The doctors in …First, as far as I can tell, reflected (and still reflect) mainstream medical practice.

Certainly the doctors were evidence snobs — treating evidence not from a double-blind study as worthless. Why were they evidence snobs? I suppose the universal tendency toward snobbery (we love feeling superior) is one reason but that may be only part of the explanation. In the 1990s, Phillip Price, a researcher at Lawrence Berkeley Labs, and one of his colleagues were awarded a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to study home radon levels nationwide. They planned to look at the distribution of radon levels and make recommendations for better guidelines. After their proposal was approved, some higher-ups at EPA took a look at it and realized that the proposed research would almost surely imply that the current EPA radon guidelines could be improved. To prevent such criticism, the grant was canceled. Price was told by an EPA administrator that this was the reason for the cancellation.

This has nothing to do with evidence snobbery. But I’m afraid it may have a lot to do with how the doctors in … First Do No Harm viewed the ketogenic diet. If the ketogenic diet worked, it called into question their past, present, and future practices — namely, (a) prescribing powerful drugs with terrible side effects and (b) performing damaging and irreversible brain surgery of uncertain benefit. If something as benign as the ketogenic diet worked some of the time, you’d want to try it before doing anything else. This hadn’t happened: The diet hadn’t been tried first, it had been ignored. Rather than allow evidence of the diet’s value to be gathered, which would open them up to considerable criticism, the doctors did their best to keep the parents from trying it. Much like canceling the radon grant.

The ketogenic diet.

“I Can Has Skinny Pants”

I like this set of posts about the Shangri-La Diet, especially this:

I had to borrow a black vest for the prom I worked last night. Twenty pounds ago, that vest would have NEVER fit this monkey.

I give credit to my kettleball, and the Shangri-La Diet. When I mentioned the vest situation to the crew during set-up the new guy chimed in, Oh yeah, I lost 40 pounds on Shangri-La. Got a few more to go. I don’t even bring it up to people any more. I’m tired of being told I’m crazy and that it sounds like it wouldn’t work.

Why do I laugh?