Training & Nutrition - Looking to lose weight? This is what you have been waiting for: The Shangri-la Diet

Hi all, I am a relatively new member to the forums, started riding in the last few weeks on a bike my wife got me for Christmas. I had been commuting by bike for the last 2 1/2 years (10 min. ride--pretty short), but I finally dedicated myself to cycling when several running injuries pretty much ended my efforts in that area. Long story short; I had gained weight in the last 2 years as a result of starting grad school, being injured, an pretty much letting my health go by the wayside. I was looking to lose some weight to be able to start training in earnest without putting too much stress on my body, so I tried losing weight before I was able to train while still injured. Anyway, I stumbled upon a weight loss technique that has been great for me and I wanted to share my success with you all, and hopefully inspire some of you to try the method as well.

Economist Steven Levitt and NY Times writer Steve Dubner, following the success of their recent book Freakonomics, began writing a regular column in the Times. In one of those columns last fall, they featured the work of UC Berkeley psychologist Seth Roberts, known for publishing the results of his self-experimentation. The results of one of those experiments permanently resolved his weight problem. It would take a long time to explain the method, so I will refer you to articles, but it works by exploiting the body's set point, used to regulate body weight and food intake, evolved during a time in human history when food was not always plentiful. Basically, when the body senses that food is plentiful, it increases the set point and cravings so that you will eat more and put on weight in order to get you through the next time of scarcity (famine, winter, etc.). When food is scarce, it decreases cravings so that you can use up your fat reserves without being hungry all the time. Roberts discovered that this system is triggered by the body's correlation of flavor and calories. And the best part is, it can be tricked into thinking that food is scarce by consuming calories without flavor in the form of extra light olive oil or sugar water (I am skipping over a lot of the interesting "why" part, forgive me, but feel free to ask if you are interested). I have followed a regimen of having a glass of sugar water or spoonful of oil two to three times a day in between meals, and the results are pretty amazing. My cravings for food between meals almost completely went away and I found it quite easy to eat as little as I wanted to without my body fighting back to get me to eat. I have easily (meaning, NO effort, no exercise until I started cycling again in the last couple of weeks) lost 16 pounds over the last 3 months, and I expect that loss to accelerate as I increase my mileage over the next few weeks. I am down to 206 from 222, and I still need to lose about 20 more, but I am really encouraged that this will be easy to take off, and even easier to keep off as I continue to use the sugar water between meals to keep my monster appetite at bay. I know this sounds silly, but this is published science, and soon to be a book called "The Shangri-La Diet" coming out in April. Either this will be the best diet you never heard of (because there is not a lot on money to be made off of merchandizing), or it will be the next diet craze (because it works). Either way, it is amazingly effective. Before the book arrives there is not a lot of systematic info available on this, but it is pretty simple once you get the hang of it. For now, I recommend you read the blog posts here:

http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/index.php?s=seth+roberts&submit=Search

That link will provide all of the references to Seth, and if you have a NYT subscription, you can see Dubner and Levitt's original article there as well. This is perfectly safe--just using natural foods without flavor (sweet is a weak flavor as far as this system is concerned) to control your food cravings naturally. There was some controversy as to whether it was safe to use fructose, but table sugar works fine, so no need to go there. Please let me know if this has worked for anyone else, and good luck!

I did exactly the same thing (220-205 lbs in 3-4 months) simply by riding my bike more.

Oh yeah, and eating more.

I'm 182 now and I eat like a horse.

Fad diets are like the lure of the siren... just get out on your bike and nature will take it's course. I' can't imagine riding very far on a couple spoonfuls of olive oil and some sugar water.

Az

Uh, well... I'm sure the criticism was well-intentioned, but I am just sharing something that worked for me, and something I think is the furthest thing from a fad diet (published in a top academic journal by a reputable psychologist; no commercialization). Also, perhaps I didn't make this clear, but I don't try to ride on sugar water--this is not starvation, it simply made it much easier for me to cut back on my caloric intake without fighting cravings. If that doesn't sound natural enough for you, feel free to use your willpower--I am glad that works for you. I liked the extra help it gave me though, and I am happy to tell others about my success. I eat three healthy meals and a snack a day, get plenty of food, but I am finding it much easier to control the urge to over eat. I am very encouraged about that, because I have unsuccessfully fought those cravings my entire life, and if this method helps others, I am glad to have shared it with you.

snip
...discovered that this system is triggered by the body's correlation of flavor and calories. And the best part is, it can be tricked into thinking that food is scarce by consuming calories without flavor in the form of extra light olive oil or sugar water (I am skipping over a lot of the interesting "why" part, forgive me, but feel free to ask if you are interested)...snip
This is interesting. I would characterize the food at the college I attended as "calories without flavor" and that would explain why I didn't gain any weight there. Since that time I usually try to eat tasty meals and I have gained weight. So if I start again eating at bad restaurants, I should lose the desire to eat more and therefore lose weight. :)

A serious question: when you change your set point by consuming the oil and sugar, does your body increase the amount of energy you burn or are you just less hungry?

It seems like it certainly should not increase the energy you burn. If anything it should decrease it, if in fact your body thinks that food is more scarce and is trying to conserve energy. However, this is a point that is debated by people like me who are trying the diet without much official word from Prof. Roberts. I hope to have more clarity when the book comes out. If your metabolism slows down, however, it is more than compensated for by the set point reduction and corresponding decrease in appetite.

According to Amazon.com, the book is due out April 25. Should be an interesting book.

You mentioned you had success with this, exactly what did you do? How long did it take for your set point to be re-set? Was it an immediate loss of cravings/hunger or did it take a few days?

did your total daily caloric intake increase, decrease, or stay the same?

You mentioned you had success with this, exactly what did you do? How long did it take for your set point to be re-set? Was it an immediate loss of cravings/hunger or did it take a few days?

The set point is something I cannot observe, I only observe my cravings. I notice that I crave less food immediately. So, for instance, I drink a glass of 3 Tbsp sugar dissolved into a glass of water an hour before lunch, and an hour after I have eaten breakfast. At lunchtime I notice that I become full on much less food than before, and I do not crave heavy, starchy, comfort food type food, but rather flavorful, crunchy, fresh food and lean meats. It is a subtle difference, but if you pay attention to what your body is wanting, you will find that you simply cannot eat as much as you could before. So generally I will eat 2-3T sugar dissolved in water 2-3 times a day. I used more sugar at the beginning than I do now, and sometimes I don't eat any, say on a weekend when I know I want to be able to eat more because I am going on a long ride or to a nice restaurant, or feel like taking a day off. I do not use the oil very often because it is disgusting, but some people don't mind it. I typically try to take about 250 calories in the form of sugar water or oil over the course of the day, and the net caloric intake is reduced (to answer your question, Wulfheir), meaning that the extra sugar calories reduce your appetite so that you consume more than 250 calories less in meals. Make sense? If anyone is interested in trying it, you should be able to tell how it is going to affect you within 2 days. Just make sure that you take the sugar water at least an hour since you last ate, and an hour before you will eat again, so that the calories are not associated by your body with the other food. You can fudge this a little as you become accustomed to how this affects you, but follow the rules rigidly at first. So maybe try 3T sugar an hour before lunch, again before dinner, and then maybe again before breakfast or after dinner, depending on when you think you need it, or experiment with both.

Congrats!

Since our body chemistry is essentially the same as our hunter-gatherer fore-fathers. this diet makes sense. I would'nt be suprised if it works.

Self-experimentation is not the best avenue to predict success. If the book sells well, maybe Seth will pony up the $$ for a controlled clinical study.

Since our body chemistry is essentially the same as our hunter-gatherer fore-fathers. .

With all the recent postings of people supporting the diets based on early mans hunter/gathere diet It got me wondering.
Current thinking on what early man ate is changing, will these diets change with it? Or will the diet remain the same and the 'evidence' used to support it change ?

Previously it was thought that early man was a great hunter and ate a lot of meat. Recent research is changing to the belief that early man ate very little meat since hunting was not actually that successfull. Fruits, roots, nuts etc that the females gathered making up the bulk of the diet. Insects and grubs making up to 20%. And most meat was carrion scavanged from others animals kills.

What is the current early man thinking on % of carb/fat/protein?

Current thinking on what early man ate is changing, will these diets change with it?
No. People use blanket statements all the time to defend themselves without putting any effort forward.

Or will the diet remain the same and the 'evidence' used to support it change ?
Bingo!

What is the current early man thinking on % of carb/fat/protein?
I would like to hear the answer to this.

I don't think my OP has anything to do with the content of the diet, and frankly, I think that is less important than a lot make it out to be (see the recent study on low-fat diets that made headlines last week). The essence if this is to trick the mechanism your body uses to regulate craving and food intake. I think the content of the diet is still for you to decide, and this method does not depend at all of what you eat. Sorry I can't answer the paleolithic diet question though, I have no idea.

Is there a particular brand of virgin olive oil that you use?

I would use Extra Light Olive oil, not extra virgin, because the former is flavorless, and the latter is not. But I think Canola or another type of flavorless oil will do the trick. Brand is unimportant because you are not concerned with taste or cooking properties. I suppose if you had some money it would work to use fish or flaxseed oil tablets because you would get the health benefits of Omega 3 as well.

As posted before. How about a bike fat farm. I would like to loose 20 pounds. Having a a bad time of it for now; since far away from my bikes for another two weeks or so. We all need vacations. Only 20 lbs. But, why not a bike vacation.Put a lock on the refrigerator and lets hire Oprah's dietician.

With all the recent postings of people supporting the diets based on early mans hunter/gathere diet It got me wondering.
Current thinking on what early man ate is changing, will these diets change with it? Or will the diet remain the same and the 'evidence' used to support it change ?.



But this diet seems do have nothing to do with what our ancestors ate. The thinking on what early man ate is changing but we can safely say that our physiology is similar and has the same buit in feast/famine safeguards. The reasoning behind the diet intirigues me.

But being a science geek, I would not buy the book until I see the results of a relevant clinical study in a peer reviewed jounal supporting this hypothesis - or at least 10 or more Testimonials from BF members :D

lets hire Oprah's dietician.I'd rather we hire someone who's a success in their field.

My questions regarding the paleo hunter gatherer diets should have been put in a different thread. They wernt really meant for the OP based on his post, but on some of the replies mentioning early man.

As to the OP and the sugar water brain fooling, interesting concept, and if it works, go for it :)

Im all for anything that helps people succeed in meeting weight loss goals. Once there, people can re-evaluate a healthy eating lifestyle to maintain a healthy weight.

You mention that the reason the diet works is because cravings are diminished and when you do eat you have less desire to eat a lot... I was wondering if I drink a glass of sugar water around 11:00 am will that diminish my hunger for lunch? Since I usually bring lunch, I dont have the problem of overeating (limited supply), but I find usually around 11am I get very hungry and can hardly work because I am thinking about lunch... same around 4pm... there is no temptation, I just can concentrate when im hungry...

Absolutely. I have the same problem. If you are up at least 45 min. before breakfast, try a (perhaps warm) glass of sugar water before breakfast. You will find that the breakfast stays with you longer. I usually also have a glass around 11. The days I do that I could easily skip lunch if I wanted to (I don't). I then usually have a snack around 3:30 and more sugar water around 5 before dinner at 6 or 7.

You mention that the reason the diet works is because cravings are diminished and when you do eat you have less desire to eat a lot... I was wondering if I drink a glass of sugar water around 11:00 am will that diminish my hunger for lunch? Since I usually bring lunch, I dont have the problem of overeating (limited supply), but I find usually around 11am I get very hungry and can hardly work because I am thinking about lunch... same around 4pm... there is no temptation, I just can concentrate when im hungry...

Eat 5 smaller meals a day. Problem solved. No sugar water/fad diets necessary.

Eat 5 smaller meals a day. Problem solved. No sugar water/fad diets necessary.

Glad that worked for you. Would have been nice if it had worked for me as well. I don't understand the antagonism though. People who have done it the "hard way" seem to disparage those of us who think they have found something better/easier. But what's the harm in seeing whether this works better? Different people respond to different methods differently, and I have enough experience with myself and others I know to have confidence that it does work quite well for at least some.

It is not difficult, dangerous, does not have the potential to backfire and cause weight gain (simply stop if it does not work for you) and I am not trying to sell anybody anything, all of which are reasons to avoid fad diets. You may be skeptical as to whether it works, but you can find out whether it works for you with a simple experiment that is nearly costless. Perhaps a clinical trial is needed to figure out its effectiveness on the general population, but a self-experiment is a mere glass of water and spoonful of sugar away. In fact, I reckon it is easier than a reply to this post!

Yeah, it's funny how some people are against trying something different (that is perfectly harmless). I'm not looking to lose much weight (if I lost more than 5-10 lbs or I would be too skinny). I just want a way to curb hunger desires. I don't mind trying an experiment to see if it works. Although after 1 day I did not notice any difference in my cravings... I will give it a week though and let you know what I think.

It's not that I'm against trying something different.....it's that eating 5 (and sometimes even 6) smaller meals a day is actually better for you, and water makes for an effective "filler" as well as keeps you well-hydrated. No need to add sugar. The biggest problem people have is lack of willpower, and being too accustomed to stuffing themselves silly during meals to get that "full feeling". But....if ya wanna stuff yourself, it becomes simple....ride 100+ miles a week, and you won't have to worry too much about overeating :).

If you think I was harsh in this thread, you should've seen the thread I posted up on another site about those idiotic low carb/no carb diets.....

Is that 3 tablespoons of sugar? Also in what size glass?
Sounds like a great deal of refined sugar everyday.

I'd rather we hire someone who's a success in their field.

HEEYOOOOOO!!!!!! :roflmao:

I will try this out on myself and my daughter. Both of us suffer from huge cravings. We aren't overweight, though if I stopped commuting to work I'd probably explode.

Is that 3 tablespoons of sugar? Also in what size glass?
Sounds like a great deal of refined sugar everyday.

Yes, 3 tablespoons twice a day or 2 tablespoons 3 times a day, which will give you about 275 calories of sugar added to the diet (unless you use oil, of course, about 125-150 calories worth in a dose). I find, however, that my sugar craving is markedly decreased and sweet desserts are much less tempting. I also have not found it to have had an effect on my blood sugar, as I just got this tested. For weight maintenance, you can reduce the number of sugar calories to 150 or so. Also, I usually dissolve it into a pint glass, but whatever you are comfortable with is fine.

Yes, 3 tablespoons twice a day or 2 tablespoons 3 times a day.....I also have not found it to have had an effect on my blood sugar, as I just got this tested....

How long do you plan on doing that for?

I guess until I reach my target weight.

When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be a joke about eating something bad at the Shangri-la, losing 5 pounds later that night, and going on the best ride of your life the next morning.

Hmph.

do you alternate days from sugar-water to extra light oil, or do you exclusively use just one of these.. I think that these 2 items also effect your serotonin levels which is the brains way of telling you if you are hungry or not..

Glad that worked for you. Would have been nice if it had worked for me as well. I don't understand the antagonism though.

If it didn't work for you you didn't do it right. Fad diets are the domain of the weak willed. There is never a reason to go on some ******** fad diet when all you need to do is make a controlled lifestyle change and start practicing healthy nutrition/ exercise (the vast majority of fad dieters say that healthy nutritional choices like five small meals a day and balanced food pyramid-esque macronutrient profiles didn't work for them because they were simply too lazy/ not motivated enough to actually follow said regimens for long enough. In response...the fad diet, the magic pill).

You want to know something else that scares me about these neo paleolithical diets? The average life expectancy for a neadrathol was probably like 20 years.

Scoops of sugar and canola oil? Sounds like the recipe for diabetes/ heart disease when SUPRISE! you live to be four times as old as ancient man, and your ******** diet finally exerts its toll.

The average life expectancy for a neadrathol (sic) was probably like 20 years.Neanderthalian spelling skills. Or are you referring to a new drug? ;)

zing... :rolleyes:
Sorry I didn't spell check. My message remains the same.

Don't worry I wasn't picking, it was just an opening and dumb me had to drive an 18 wheeler through it... :p

Does it have to be sugar or would Splenda or stevia work? I noticed all my cravings went away when I cut out sugar completely. I think the olive oil might not be a bad thing, but very skeptical about adding sugar.

Sandy

It has to be "flavorless calories" so splenda will not work. Things like Diet Coke have the opposite effect because it is flavor without calories. You need the opposite. It works the same as the olive oil.

$1 for a 5 lb bag of sugar. Much cheaper than other diets!

Flavorless????

I can taste sugar, or splendia, and can tell the difference.

So I am going to loose weight by increasing my caloric intake by over 10% <275 calories> and spiking my bloodsugar three times a day?

I call BS! :D


I am going to stick to 5 small healthy meals a day and riding the heck out of the bike.

Good luck with this one

You might refer to the documentation I provided (top peer-reviewed journals, no less) for an answer to these questions. Sweet is a "weak" flavor according to the body's homeostatic regulatory system. And the whole point is that the additional flavorless calories signal to your body the scarcity of food, thereby causing it to crave less, so your NET caloric intake DECREASES. Also, your blood sugar will not spike, especially if you use oil. Here is an ABC News piece describing the system:

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/BeautySecrets/story?id=1310260

ABC News
Nov. 14, 2005 — A spoonful of sugar helps your weight go down, according to one University of California, Berkeley professor.

Seth Roberts says he lost 35 pounds in three months by drinking tablespoons of oil and glasses of sugar water in-between meals to quell the urge to continue to eat.

"I take one tablespoon a day of extra virgin olive oil," said Roberts, a psychology professor. "That's for me. For other people it could be different. And when I'm in a café, I have a cup of hot sugar water."

Roberts calls it the Shangri-La Diet, and suggests it works by suppressing a basic "caveman" instinct from days when access to food was intermittent. The diet tricks the body from thinking it needs to eat every last bit of food before an impending famine.

"It isn't really a fad diet," said Stephen Dubner, co-author of the "Freakonomics" column in The New York Times. "It's more about understanding the theory behind eating. It's not about denying things. It ultimately leads to lessening the amount you eat. In effect, by taking this canola oil and this sugar water, you're tricking your metabolism."

Dubner and his co-author, Steven Levitt, tried the diet themselves. Dubner said he lost 5 to 6 pounds over the course of a couple weeks, and had a "shockingly" easy time skipping lunch. Dubner said he wasn't really trying to diet, but Roberts, who began the diet at 200 pounds, eventually lost 40 pounds. His friend lost 80 pounds in six months on the Shangri-La Diet.

"This is an incredibly simple and elegant way of understanding what appetite is about," Dubner said. "The novelty of this is trying to persuade you to be more disciplined and tricking the system."

The diet tricks the body from thinking it needs to eat every last bit of food before an impending famine.




Why trick the body.... my 5 meals a day of lean meat, fruit and veggies keep my body full and satisfied.

Save me a lot of time looking and point me to the sugar water will not spike my blood sugar section of the research and the part specifically to the part where you get your information backing up this statement. "Especially if you use oil".

Sorry, I am not buying it and I do not think many diabetics would either.

Why trick the body.... my 5 meals a day of lean meat, fruit and veggies keep my body full and satisfied.

Great, then like I said before, do that instead.



Save me a lot of time looking and point me to the sugar water will not spike my blood sugar section of the research and the part specifically to the part where you get your information backing up this statement. "Especially if you use oil".

Sorry, I am not buying it and I do not think many diabetics would either.

Sorry, I haven't the time either do dig back through the papers I read months ago. I figured those who are interested in trying it would be interested in reading the papers. I do know that after having my blood sugar tested that I do not experience "spikes and crashes" from using sugar water because the amounts are quite small (I am not saying that it has NO effect on blood sugar). However, it should be pretty self-explanatory that a spoonful of oil in lieu of the sugar will not cause a blood sugar change because oil does not contain any sugar. Does that really need corroboration? And I am CERTAINLY not advising diabetics to try this; so please don't assume I am saying something that I am not. If you have found something else that works and you no longer struggle with successful weight loss, then this plan is probably not for you. Most of the criticism I have been getting is along the lines of "Plan X worked for me, therefore your plan does not work." Or, "Plan X worked for me, therefore it is superior to the plan that worked for you." Again, I don't understand why that creates so much antagonism because I have never said that this is the only thing that works, or that I think anyone "should" try it, I am only relaying what worked for me and that seems to be working for a great many people who are quite happy to have learned this system (a quick google search will turn up much discussion of the whole thing by successful dieters). Somehow this turned into "who has the best diet plan," which I never intended. I just wanted to add this to the list of possible options for those who have had trouble with other weight loss programs. Since it is so easy to figure out whether it works for you, it's success or failure in any given individual who wishes to try it should speak for itself.

Ok, I'll do the research........

Here is what I found at http://www.sugarshockblog.com/2005/09/drinking_fructo.html and http://jonnybowden.com/blogger.html. He says if all you are after is weight loss and not health, Cocaine and 2 aspargus spears will get you better results than Fructose-n-oil. That being said, how's your triglyceride levels since starting the diet? Fructose is hard on the liver. but I digress..... back to spikes and insulin. Here is the conclusion from what I found.........


"And now a footnote. Regarding Dr. Roberts personal choices for his weight loss program: Fructose may indeed have a low glycemic index which seems to be why he — a non-nutritionist — chose it as his sugar water of choice. But it is arguably the most damaging sugar in the world. It creates insulin resistance by another pathway, and it raises triglycerides more than any other sugar. (Put fructose and insulin resistance or fructose and triglycerides into PubMED if you want to check for yourself). And canola oil, a very highly processed and crummy oil whose success is a triumph of marketing over science, is hardly the oil I'd choose to take the edge of my appetite. But the ill effects of neither of these badly chosen substances will show up on Dr. Roberts' bathroom scale.".... quoted from http://jonnybowden.com/blogger.html sunday September 11, 2005.

There you have it, both sides...... folks can make up their own minds.

There you have it, both sides...... folks can make up their own minds.

Interesting, thanks for posting that. However, it should be noted that Roberts does not advocate using fructose because of its adverse effects (though he used it at the beginning), and I have been discussing using table sugar (sucrose) in my posts. I also discussed that I use extra light olive oil, not canola. However, let the chips fall where they may; I certainly do not want to be advocating anything unhealthy. However, the principle, ingesting calories without flavor, is not going to be unhealthy in all forms, while, of course, some of those individual substances may in fact be harmful. So I would certainly advise that one avoid fructose, the diet does not hinge on the use of fructose, or any other sugar for that matter.

By the way, the sugar shock lady actually apologized for the post you cited:

http://www.sugarshockblog.com/2005/09/2nd_apology_cla.html

and the other guy is a stakeholder in the low-carb diet industry, but in both cases they are criticizing the means (which are not a necessary component), not the principle, of the diet. This discussion thread is most enlightening, and it reflects the discussion here:

http://www.freakonomics.com/blog/2005/09/09/freakonomics-in-the-ny-times-the-shangri-la-diet/

Part of the apology......

"I do, however, want to make the point that I am still wary of consuming even several tablespoonsfuls of fructose a day.

There are other more healthy ways to lose weight and maintain that loss. You simply don't need to ingest sugar water to do it."

So now we are back to table sugar and insulin spikes?

What was your last tri reading compared to the one before you went on the diet?

Have a great weekend.

Yes, but my point is, there is no reason to freak out over consuming fructose when we are not talking about consuming fructose at all, rather a small amount of sugar (sucrose) and oil, equivalent to about 150 calories' worth--that is not an excessive amount of sugar or oil by any standard, unless you have a low-carb blog.

My triglycerides and LDL are in the completely normal range, and remain unchanged by the diet. But like I said, I believe that my NET sugar intake has DECREASED.

But yes, we are back to sugar water and insulin spikes. Hopefully when the book comes out next month I can repost the answer to this question, but if 150 calories of sugar is a concern in that area, oil works. Like I said, the principle is to ingest flavorless calories, not necessarily sugar. If the criticism is "you do not need to ingest sugar water to lose weight," I agree 100 percent. This is not the only way; it may not be the best way, but it is the only thing that has worked for me over years of trying to lose weight. I'm excited about that; that's all I can say.

This topic still makes me laugh....

Update: the book is out, I have read it. It is pretty short and to the point, so if any of you are interested, check it out next time you are in a bookstore.

So, to answer the questions about insulin spiking, here is what I have learned from the book. My effort to lose 20 pounds would have me ingesting 2T sugar and 2T oil per day. 2 tablespoons of sugar is about the same amount of sugar in a banana. The trick to keeping my insulin from spiking is to drink the sugar water slowly, so that it will be digested at about the same speed as if it were in the banana. So this is not exactly a large amount of sugar, especially if I have it stretched out over 2 doses.

I am at 22 pounds and counting, and I have successfully reduced my food intake with very little effort. Willpower would work the same way, but I am able to achieve better results than my previous willpower expenditures, all without having to make the effort to expend the willpower. I have a lot to think about in my life, and the time that I save not thinking about food or making an effort not to overeat is time I can devote to other valuable things. So I am quite happy that I have been able to take control of what I want to eat without fighting my hunger.

As posted before. How about a bike fat farm. I would like to loose 20 pounds. Having a a bad time of it for now; since far away from my bikes for another two weeks or so. We all need vacations. Only 20 lbs. But, why not a bike vacation.Put a lock on the refrigerator and lets hire Oprah's dietician.

Have you seen Oprah's azz lately?