11

votes

Have you seen that Stephan posted a formal rebuttal to Taubes' questions?

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created August 11, 2011 at 1:52 AM

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/ancestral-health-symposium-drama.html

Do you think his rebuttal is solid?

6714718e2245e5190017d643a7614157

on February 04, 2012
at 01:27 AM

+1, Bronze badge #69, I know that is an important number for your AB.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 31, 2011
at 02:49 PM

What I like best is that SG's empiricism - food reward - is offered out of an experience in research in nutrition. You can't prove or disprove it IMO, but it's a more reasonable explanation than GT's pompous empirical theories. I've lately been thinking about the role of seasonings in making foods hyperpalatable. For instance, the mixture of cloves/ginger/cinnamon/nutmeg doesn't have to be applied to sugary calorie bombs like eggnog or pumpkin pie to work the sensory magic. Try it on cut-up raw fruit, or buttered cooked squash and see.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:32 PM

shouldnt AMPK sit above leptin in the quilt...??? just a question that popped in my head

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 13, 2011
at 01:25 PM

Satiety is a factor in food reward. Because I am in the woods on a cell phone, I'll just suggest you search for it in google scholar or read The End of Overeating.

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on August 13, 2011
at 05:40 AM

Well, I specifically stated that *SG's articulation* of a food reward hypothesis is problematic, in particular his unfalsifiable, circular definition. It is conceptually problematic before it even has a chance to be methodologically problematic. I've looked over all the papers he cites. Which article(s) specifically do you think puts forward a definition of food reward that overcomes these conceptual and methodological problems? I'm not sure you clearly understand the ways hedonic "reward" is being put forward by SG or anyone else given you're conflating it with "satiety" in this answer...

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:20 AM

The thing is, your big picture is not really based upon science. Not many scientists believe your big picture, and not many scientific paleo bloggers believe your big picture. Here is a quote from KGH addressing this big picture: http://freetheanimal.com/2010/12/weekend-links-quick-hits-gary-taubes-art-de-vany-denise-minger-the-china-study-chris-masterjohn-and-real-results.html#comment-53991. That is the concern many have with Taubes - he is leading people away from science the same way that T. Colin Campbell does.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:56 PM

+1!!!!!!!!!!!!!

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:53 PM

love it. You make it sound like doc twister. Is this a new movnat thing?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:31 PM

Some of us been on leptin a bit longer than SG.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:31 PM

Yes I have......and he still has no unified solid theory because he is allowing the conflicting research to trip him up. His reward theory is completely problematic when one considers leptin taste receptors. Never even mentioned them. But they are there and they directly affect taste and reward. When your LR it favors carbohydrate reward because of central LR. At he BRAIN!!!! I get this stuff ice cold. Im just waiting for the rest of them to realize the problem is completely in the brain....and has many pathways that cause it. Until then I'll just wait and watch them brawl.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:27 PM

here is the real fallacy of SG hypothesis.....food reward is based upon taste perception.....taste perception is altered by guess what? leptin receptors on all out taste buds. Yes LR hit again.

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on August 11, 2011
at 06:00 PM

Yes, I'm not sure where people got the idea that Taubes thinks it's as simple as 'carb heavy diet -> high insulin -> obesity'. GCBC is a pretty long book for a theory that simple. It's true that eating more carbs will cause more insulin to be secreted, and that insulin triggers fat storage, but I don't think Taubes has ever ruled out the possibility of other factors in getting the whole process rolling.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:40 PM

have you read all of stephan's work. he was blogging about leptin and the hypothalamus before almost everyone who's name isn't rosedale.

35ba1f50dad25c85ac1aa2599fe5c5cb

(2485)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:58 PM

Dinis, extending the drug analogy, if you were having an allergy attack speeding prednisone into your system would not introduce a reward, it would just relieve your hives and breathing problems and you'd feel better. The key is the rate of delivery of a stimulating factor. Although, I gotta say Guyenet hangs a lot of his theory on a fairly old study of bland liquid diets... I wonder what we'd see if it was repeated with modern people raised around tons of hyperstimulating food all their lives.

35ba1f50dad25c85ac1aa2599fe5c5cb

(2485)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:57 PM

Dinis, extending the drug, if you were having an allergy attack speeding prednisone into your system would not introduce a reward, it would just relieve your hives and breathing problems and you'd feel better. The key is the rate of delivery of a stimulating factor. Although, I gotta say Guyenet hangs a lot of his theory on a fairly old study of bland liquid diets... I wonder what we'd see if it was repeated with modern people raised around tons of hyperstimulating food all their lives.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:06 PM

Got it. Would be interesting to know the reward value of specific foods (like your reference to brie), but I guess we're still a long way from that.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:47 PM

Dinis, all the factors act in synergy. If you have something very easy to eat, but it tastes like cardboard, there is no food reward.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:37 PM

@jj, shouldn't the bland liquid diet in Stephan's examples have the same effect (fast absorption, that is). By the way, not trying to be the devil's advocate here, I'm really intrigued about these questions.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:33 PM

that's my same measure August! i weigh less than i did when i was 12!!!

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:31 PM

@Paleo2.0, but why does Stephan recommends eating whole foods with no flavor on level 4 of his weight loss strategy? I totally get the junk food and snacks = high reward part. But does it matter if we are talking about whole, natural foods?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:30 PM

ah yeah, jj, forgot about that one too.

35ba1f50dad25c85ac1aa2599fe5c5cb

(2485)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:28 PM

Melissa, also from the End of Overeating, those "buffalo wings" have an "boneless" practically pre-chewed texture, engineered for people to eat them very rapidly. Thus speeding the rate at which the rewarding fat sugar and salt enter the system. In drug abuse, we see the rate at which the drug enters the bloodstream as important, hence why injection heroin use is associated with greater addiction than smoked opium or crack vs. chewed coca leaves. Not that smoked opium is not an addiction problem. But the very rapid onset of stimuli contributes to the hypertimulating nature of the beast.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:25 PM

In the end, I think all the issue with low carb/high carb is a perfect example of Hegelian dialectic: thesis ("fat makes you fat!"), antithesis ("carbs make you fat!" - Taubes) and finally a synthesis in between ("it's not fat, it's not carbs, might be sugar and specific carbs"). Even Taubes seems not to treat all carbs the same lately (he speaks about this on his appearance of Robb Wolf's podcast, that sugar might be the problem). Somewhere in between, food reward does play a role, we are just not sure exactly how/what.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:23 PM

BTW the carbs cause obesity doesn't explain "the fat one" in families any better than food reward. Hence my emphasis on human variation.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:22 PM

You can think of it this way - we have engineered ultra-cheap, ultra convenient foods today that we will eat (and drink) when we are not even hungry. How many people are hungry when they drink a soft drink? No matter how tasty your favorite French meal is, how often do you reach into the pantry and just start eating it when you are really not that hungry? At the extreme we will eat certain foods when we are not hungry (chips, popcorn, candy, etc...), and for certain other foods that we may wait until we are hungry, we will continue to eat them even after our hunger is satisfied.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:16 PM

Shari, there is the same issue in my family. My sister and I ate the exact same high-reward crap. I got fat when I was around 19 and lost weight somewhat easily. My sister got fat when she was 5 and has struggled with her weight ever since. Being half-breeds we are quite genetically heterogenous. I also think that issues in the womb and epigenetics play a role in situations like this.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:10 PM

Also, Stephan did mentioned on a post on the food reward series that most low carbs diets do cut with a large reward factor: refined carbs.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:05 PM

Thank you for this. I as starting to think I had lost my mind. I am boggled by all of this. I am relieved that it's not just me.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:03 PM

What I get is that I got fat eating the same high-food reward food my siblings did yet I got fat and they did not. I am not an isolated instance. You can see this everywhere. This theory doesn't seem to address the individual differences and reactions to food. GT's theory most certainly does.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:03 PM

@Melissa, will check it out. So, Sthepan's more extreme recommendations for unseasoned food would only make sense for someone with severe metabolic syndrome, right? I don't need to dump my herbs and spices :) One more thing: most people do enjoy eating. I think that a paleo/primal/whatever-why-are-calling-it-now approach is attractive because it addresses some problems while still allowing tasty foods Diets and weight loss plans are usually unattractive because they are bland and repetitive and people think that will take the enjoyment out of food.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:01 PM

People aren't getting it? SG speaks directly to eating bland, undesirable tastes at levels 4 and 5. No high reward is not necessarily the same as high palatability but decreased palatability in and of itself is surely part of his remedy so how is it not part of his explanation of getting fat to begin with? He does seem to be unclear on this himself confusing palatable high reward crap with palatable low reward food.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 02:54 PM

Dinis, I would highly suggest reading The End of Overeating. It's a good laymen's introduction. I guess I would summarize the best example of hyperpalatable food (the real danger) as something like Chilis boneless buffalo wings, which have a carefully engineered ratio of fat, sugar, and salt, as well as MSG and other flavorings that destroy your ability to notice that you have eaten enough.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:53 PM

It is NOT just you. The higher-carb "macro counting is so ignorant!" contingent seems to miss this part about eating low carb. You FEEL completely different. Many of us do anyway. That's a large part of the attraction. Feeling normal and happy and in control of food is the main reason I eat low carb. No one seems to talk about this and I have no idea why that is.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 02:50 PM

I, for one, admit that I haven't quite understood the palatability part of the food reward theory. Is it just the tastiness of the food? Is it relative (a population, an individual, etc)? Or is it some kind of universal variable (e.g.: fat = palatable)? Stephan does recommend, at some levels of his weight loss strategy, skipping flavorings all together - even though it's whole foods you are cooking. Should I be worried because my diet has plenty variety (reward factor) and flavor?

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:21 PM

If I could give you another +1 for giving me MORE reasons to eat brie, I would. :)

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:21 PM

I appreciate that you can put into words what I've been thinking and unable to explain. "They seem to think that tasty always equals high food reward for example, when there is evidence that there are properties to the tasty foods they are talking about that slow down food reward." Food reward doesn't mean just things that taste good are out.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:55 PM

I agree. Flavor alone doesn't make us fat. I think that the forces of an agricultural economy are working to erase the stigma of overeating. The product is tempting, and there is less and less concern with the "sins" of gluttony and sloth.

Medium avatar

(207)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:50 PM

Thank you for giving Taubes credit for the enormous influence he had on helping us break away from the overeating paradigm of obesity science. It would be a shame if a clash of personalities prevented us from recognizing the ambiguities of the issue and the contributions that can come from a variety of different perspectives.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:49 PM

I agree. Flavor alone doesn't make us fat. It is a temptation though. There's a lot of caffeine at work right now. In a country where agriculture is so important, I sense that the concept of "sinfulness" has been broken down in order to sell more product. No one is encouraged to resist gluttony and sloth. The product is tempting, and there is less and less ability to say "enough is enough".

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on August 11, 2011
at 05:56 AM

Like... if it were the case that *historically* "prosperity" caused obesity, it wouldn't be especially *useful* information given it wouldn't follow that most people with this information would or should avoid prosperity.

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on August 11, 2011
at 05:53 AM

Yep, and even if SG's articulation of food reward was conceptually substantive, and scientific (meaning empirically falsifiable etc), and indeed if food reward was "an important factor contributing to obesity," that wouldn't necessarily mean it would be a variable of significant interest at a clinical/personal diet level. Food groups, macronutrients, etc. can be voluntarily and sustainably avoided at the individual level. It's not clear that this vague "multifactorial reward" can be similarly avoided, particularly when its definitionally reduced to "palatability."

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:31 AM

Well said. I'm genuinely surprised by the acrimony this issue has generated, especially since the food reward concept is so vague at present -- it seems to get redefined constantly, and always in negative, "no, it's not this or that" terms. I'm not completely closed to other factors besides carbs --> insulin --> fat storage being at work in obesity, but so far SG's hypothesis seems unfleshed-out, to say the least. For such a vague thesis to have attracted so many ardent defenders is truly puzzling to me.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:01 AM

Don't listen to him Aravind, you are being a good paleohacker and that's all that matters.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:51 AM

@smcdow - if there wasn't another wholesale shift, we would have nothing to PaleoHack about and I would have to focus on being a good husband, father, son, employee, etc and partake in the real world. What a buzz kill dude!!!

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:48 AM

the demolition yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:44 AM

Good point. What about Legion of Doom though? Whaaaaaaaat a Rush!

8ea84667a7f11ac3967f2ecfcad28ad8

(641)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:43 AM

@Aravind There will be a (yet another) wholesale paradigm shift before he finishes connecting the dots. There always is.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:43 AM

Maybe it's part of the whole ironic fashion thing, but I've noticed people wearing these anchorman clothes - the chains, the unbuttoned shirts. It's making a come back. Now, LET'S DO THIS!

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:42 AM

@kamal i was gonna go with road warriors but hart foundation was the coolest tag team ever. i mean, they wore pink and still whipped ass.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:41 AM

No, it's clearly going to be a walk-off. Taubes as Owen Wilson, Stephan as Ben Stiller, and KGH as Tyson Beckford...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InIxKCa3H9g

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:38 AM

I think the fight's gonna go down like this - Low Carbers vs Low Fatters vs Who Gives A Shit About Macronutrients. Don't forget your trident - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Eigj4tN7k&feature=related

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:36 AM

LB- I get alerted by email every time you make a pro wrestling reference. In this case, an apt one. However, the magnitude of this is more like Hulk Hogan and The Ultimate Warrior vs Ric Flair. Ric is sometimes cool and sometimes a douche. Hulk and The Ultimate Warrior are unstoppable together.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:35 AM

@aravind that's why i've also taken to it also. it seems like the last major missing piece of the puzzle. i'm helping my brother's fiance' drop some serious weight for their wedding in a few months. however she can't get past a week on a lc paleo protocol to right her leptin/insulin. she basically is addicted to processed foods. its frustrating but i def understand that type of behavior more after digesting stephan's series...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:31 AM

Have you seen Chappelle Mad Real World episode with Chad? Gary Taubes is going to get Chad-ed

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:29 AM

it ain't even fair. stephan and kgh bout to go all Hart Foundation on Taubes.

65430e39d7e9e9322718d016fe668051

(2944)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:23 AM

I love that the title is AHS Drama... Like a gulit-free episode of the Real World.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:23 AM

KGH all up in this shit!!!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:21 AM

I can't disagree!

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:20 AM

Aravind I'm hoping......Lustig is gonna get hurt here too......his theory is missing big parts too.

65430e39d7e9e9322718d016fe668051

(2944)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:20 AM

Plus one hubz.....

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:19 AM

don't look now but kgh is over in comments going HAM.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:17 AM

@LB - He a gluten eater and corn oil guzzler. Can't trust him any farther than I can throw that 10 gallon Canola Oil jug in his hand

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:15 AM

@LB - Ok, so here is one reason I really have taken to the Food Reward theory - it's brain centric. Confirmation bias in play - it all starts and ends in the brain IMO. He just needs to connect the biochemical dots now.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:14 AM

thx for the edit, sir... ur a scholar and a gentleman.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:14 AM

awwww c'mon kamal. it's a real question. my totally unbiased ass needs to know if the rebuttal is solid!!!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:11 AM

Not so fast luckybastard...

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:11 AM

yeah. he did that whole series on leptin less than a year ago. so leptin has definitely been on his mind in the recent past.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:11 AM

The only blogger employing as cogent arguments as Stephan might be Kurt Harris, who commented with his agreement to this rebuttal. This is going to be good!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:07 AM

@Quilt - This is perhaps where I think Stephan will start connecting the dots. He NEVER said Leptin wasn't important. I think once people get past the word "dominant" and he further elaborates, this is gonna get good. Clean-up in aisle geek!!!

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

definitely. i also want to connect how food reward links up with avoidance of the other NAD's.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

Time to talk leptin has arrived I see......this could get interesting!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

KGH has just commented that he is on board. Yoda and Obiwan on the same team. Awesome!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

KGH has just commented that he is on board. Yoda and Obiwan on the same team. Damn!!!

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:04 AM

hey, you hang around ph enough and you know how to slide past the mods on a technicality :)

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:02 AM

It's solid......and funny

A89f9751a97c3082802dc0bcbe4e9208

(13978)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:01 AM

Way to make this a question... ;)

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

10 Answers

14
0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on August 11, 2011
at 04:56 AM

No, not at all. He still mischaracterizes the final question Taubes posed when he "answers" it... Taubes is specifically asking about the introduction of "sugar and refined carbs," not monolithic "carbs" as such, as an alternative theory of obesity. SG is either not paying careful attention or being dishonest in his reply on this point.

If he's now going to attack a soundbyte "any-carbs" hypothesis and an oversimplified "postprandial-insulin-only" mechanism, he is attacking a strawman and being disingenuous.

In order for food reward to be a useful scientific concept, "food reward" needs to be technically defined without being circular, needs to be empirically measurable and comparable across individuals/populations by a single metric, and amenable to controls of some sort. Furthermore, to posit food reward as "a dominant factor in obesity," dominant needs to be similarly defined and made amenable to empirical analysis.

As far as I can tell, SG's articulation so far does none of these things and Taubes was too polite in his criticism.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:05 PM

Thank you for this. I as starting to think I had lost my mind. I am boggled by all of this. I am relieved that it's not just me.

3aea514b680d01bfd7573d74517946a7

(11996)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:31 AM

Well said. I'm genuinely surprised by the acrimony this issue has generated, especially since the food reward concept is so vague at present -- it seems to get redefined constantly, and always in negative, "no, it's not this or that" terms. I'm not completely closed to other factors besides carbs --> insulin --> fat storage being at work in obesity, but so far SG's hypothesis seems unfleshed-out, to say the least. For such a vague thesis to have attracted so many ardent defenders is truly puzzling to me.

03fa485bfd54734522755f47a5e6597e

(3944)

on August 11, 2011
at 06:00 PM

Yes, I'm not sure where people got the idea that Taubes thinks it's as simple as 'carb heavy diet -> high insulin -> obesity'. GCBC is a pretty long book for a theory that simple. It's true that eating more carbs will cause more insulin to be secreted, and that insulin triggers fat storage, but I don't think Taubes has ever ruled out the possibility of other factors in getting the whole process rolling.

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on August 11, 2011
at 05:53 AM

Yep, and even if SG's articulation of food reward was conceptually substantive, and scientific (meaning empirically falsifiable etc), and indeed if food reward was "an important factor contributing to obesity," that wouldn't necessarily mean it would be a variable of significant interest at a clinical/personal diet level. Food groups, macronutrients, etc. can be voluntarily and sustainably avoided at the individual level. It's not clear that this vague "multifactorial reward" can be similarly avoided, particularly when its definitionally reduced to "palatability."

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on August 11, 2011
at 05:56 AM

Like... if it were the case that *historically* "prosperity" caused obesity, it wouldn't be especially *useful* information given it wouldn't follow that most people with this information would or should avoid prosperity.

12
9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 01:30 PM

People still aren't getting it. Maybe they will when Stephan posts more. They seem to think that tasty always equals high food reward for example, when there is evidence that there are properties to the tasty foods they are talking about that slow down food reward. Brie, for example, has several fatty acids that influence satiety. There is some evidence that the micronutrients in a food like Brie also have an influence.

People are like "well my diet is tasty and I'm super lean." I would say this is true for me too. But we are eating whole foods with satiating properties rather than garbage engineered to make us eat more. People are also mistaking a technique for getting out of obesity (low-carb, which doesn't even seem to work for many people who are promoting it) and thinking that doing the opposite was how they got obese in the first place.

As for empiricism, it's clear folks aren't even reading the papers Stephan is citing, particularly the recent ones that have done as excellent job refining the theory and quantifying it. But in the end, everyone in academia is seeing things through the glasses of their subfield.

I'm personally quite interested in human variation. The Pima are a great example because you gave them food that Europeans had been eating for quite some time. The Europeans and several other cultures (such as those in Nutrition and Physical Degeneration) reacted to this food by losing their teeth and becoming susceptible to disease. The Pima reacted by ballooning up...but here is something very strange about them...diabetes is what is destroying them, but they aren't getting much heart disease like the Indians in India for example, who are struggling with both. Why? I suspect as scientists elucidate the autoimmune aspect of type 2 diabetes, we will relate their reaction to HLA genes (involved in the immune system). Another example of Europeans reacting differently, in smallpox, also has to do with HLA (Guns Germs and Steel spent a lot of time on this). Europeans and Asians have much more diversity in HLA because of very recent selection events such as plagues. Either way, I believe we should focus on the degenerative processes put into action by various foods, something I learned from Masterjohn. These processes vary quite dramatically with genes. Citing the Pima might not be so smart given that they have unique genetic immunities and susceptibilities.

That said, I admire Taubes for focusing on the hormonal aspects of obesity and I believe these are very important. I hope he will continue to focus on these.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 02:50 PM

I, for one, admit that I haven't quite understood the palatability part of the food reward theory. Is it just the tastiness of the food? Is it relative (a population, an individual, etc)? Or is it some kind of universal variable (e.g.: fat = palatable)? Stephan does recommend, at some levels of his weight loss strategy, skipping flavorings all together - even though it's whole foods you are cooking. Should I be worried because my diet has plenty variety (reward factor) and flavor?

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:16 PM

Shari, there is the same issue in my family. My sister and I ate the exact same high-reward crap. I got fat when I was around 19 and lost weight somewhat easily. My sister got fat when she was 5 and has struggled with her weight ever since. Being half-breeds we are quite genetically heterogenous. I also think that issues in the womb and epigenetics play a role in situations like this.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:22 PM

You can think of it this way - we have engineered ultra-cheap, ultra convenient foods today that we will eat (and drink) when we are not even hungry. How many people are hungry when they drink a soft drink? No matter how tasty your favorite French meal is, how often do you reach into the pantry and just start eating it when you are really not that hungry? At the extreme we will eat certain foods when we are not hungry (chips, popcorn, candy, etc...), and for certain other foods that we may wait until we are hungry, we will continue to eat them even after our hunger is satisfied.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:31 PM

@Paleo2.0, but why does Stephan recommends eating whole foods with no flavor on level 4 of his weight loss strategy? I totally get the junk food and snacks = high reward part. But does it matter if we are talking about whole, natural foods?

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:03 PM

What I get is that I got fat eating the same high-food reward food my siblings did yet I got fat and they did not. I am not an isolated instance. You can see this everywhere. This theory doesn't seem to address the individual differences and reactions to food. GT's theory most certainly does.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:30 PM

ah yeah, jj, forgot about that one too.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:21 PM

I appreciate that you can put into words what I've been thinking and unable to explain. "They seem to think that tasty always equals high food reward for example, when there is evidence that there are properties to the tasty foods they are talking about that slow down food reward." Food reward doesn't mean just things that taste good are out.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:25 PM

In the end, I think all the issue with low carb/high carb is a perfect example of Hegelian dialectic: thesis ("fat makes you fat!"), antithesis ("carbs make you fat!" - Taubes) and finally a synthesis in between ("it's not fat, it's not carbs, might be sugar and specific carbs"). Even Taubes seems not to treat all carbs the same lately (he speaks about this on his appearance of Robb Wolf's podcast, that sugar might be the problem). Somewhere in between, food reward does play a role, we are just not sure exactly how/what.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:47 PM

Dinis, all the factors act in synergy. If you have something very easy to eat, but it tastes like cardboard, there is no food reward.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 02:54 PM

Dinis, I would highly suggest reading The End of Overeating. It's a good laymen's introduction. I guess I would summarize the best example of hyperpalatable food (the real danger) as something like Chilis boneless buffalo wings, which have a carefully engineered ratio of fat, sugar, and salt, as well as MSG and other flavorings that destroy your ability to notice that you have eaten enough.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 11, 2011
at 03:23 PM

BTW the carbs cause obesity doesn't explain "the fat one" in families any better than food reward. Hence my emphasis on human variation.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:03 PM

@Melissa, will check it out. So, Sthepan's more extreme recommendations for unseasoned food would only make sense for someone with severe metabolic syndrome, right? I don't need to dump my herbs and spices :) One more thing: most people do enjoy eating. I think that a paleo/primal/whatever-why-are-calling-it-now approach is attractive because it addresses some problems while still allowing tasty foods Diets and weight loss plans are usually unattractive because they are bland and repetitive and people think that will take the enjoyment out of food.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:10 PM

Also, Stephan did mentioned on a post on the food reward series that most low carbs diets do cut with a large reward factor: refined carbs.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:01 PM

People aren't getting it? SG speaks directly to eating bland, undesirable tastes at levels 4 and 5. No high reward is not necessarily the same as high palatability but decreased palatability in and of itself is surely part of his remedy so how is it not part of his explanation of getting fat to begin with? He does seem to be unclear on this himself confusing palatable high reward crap with palatable low reward food.

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 04:06 PM

Got it. Would be interesting to know the reward value of specific foods (like your reference to brie), but I guess we're still a long way from that.

7e746be2f0e550a8cd7df881322ae705

(18701)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:21 PM

If I could give you another +1 for giving me MORE reasons to eat brie, I would. :)

F571bcba0e6196c3e53f599924eecab6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:37 PM

@jj, shouldn't the bland liquid diet in Stephan's examples have the same effect (fast absorption, that is). By the way, not trying to be the devil's advocate here, I'm really intrigued about these questions.

35ba1f50dad25c85ac1aa2599fe5c5cb

(2485)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:57 PM

Dinis, extending the drug, if you were having an allergy attack speeding prednisone into your system would not introduce a reward, it would just relieve your hives and breathing problems and you'd feel better. The key is the rate of delivery of a stimulating factor. Although, I gotta say Guyenet hangs a lot of his theory on a fairly old study of bland liquid diets... I wonder what we'd see if it was repeated with modern people raised around tons of hyperstimulating food all their lives.

Medium avatar

(207)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:50 PM

Thank you for giving Taubes credit for the enormous influence he had on helping us break away from the overeating paradigm of obesity science. It would be a shame if a clash of personalities prevented us from recognizing the ambiguities of the issue and the contributions that can come from a variety of different perspectives.

35ba1f50dad25c85ac1aa2599fe5c5cb

(2485)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:28 PM

Melissa, also from the End of Overeating, those "buffalo wings" have an "boneless" practically pre-chewed texture, engineered for people to eat them very rapidly. Thus speeding the rate at which the rewarding fat sugar and salt enter the system. In drug abuse, we see the rate at which the drug enters the bloodstream as important, hence why injection heroin use is associated with greater addiction than smoked opium or crack vs. chewed coca leaves. Not that smoked opium is not an addiction problem. But the very rapid onset of stimuli contributes to the hypertimulating nature of the beast.

35ba1f50dad25c85ac1aa2599fe5c5cb

(2485)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:58 PM

Dinis, extending the drug analogy, if you were having an allergy attack speeding prednisone into your system would not introduce a reward, it would just relieve your hives and breathing problems and you'd feel better. The key is the rate of delivery of a stimulating factor. Although, I gotta say Guyenet hangs a lot of his theory on a fairly old study of bland liquid diets... I wonder what we'd see if it was repeated with modern people raised around tons of hyperstimulating food all their lives.

9d43f6873107e17ca4d1a5055aa7a2ad

on August 13, 2011
at 01:25 PM

Satiety is a factor in food reward. Because I am in the woods on a cell phone, I'll just suggest you search for it in google scholar or read The End of Overeating.

0c939bdddc3d8f8ef923ba8a72aeda71

on August 13, 2011
at 05:40 AM

Well, I specifically stated that *SG's articulation* of a food reward hypothesis is problematic, in particular his unfalsifiable, circular definition. It is conceptually problematic before it even has a chance to be methodologically problematic. I've looked over all the papers he cites. Which article(s) specifically do you think puts forward a definition of food reward that overcomes these conceptual and methodological problems? I'm not sure you clearly understand the ways hedonic "reward" is being put forward by SG or anyone else given you're conflating it with "satiety" in this answer...

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:27 PM

here is the real fallacy of SG hypothesis.....food reward is based upon taste perception.....taste perception is altered by guess what? leptin receptors on all out taste buds. Yes LR hit again.

10
B14dc4aa1ddefbec3bc09550428ee493

on August 11, 2011
at 04:29 AM

I think Steve is missing the bigger picture with this theory. We don't get fat because foods taste good making us eat too many calories. If that were the case then 100% of people in the U.S. would be fat and they would be fat from an early age. Instead, many of us are thin as kids and gradually become obese, a sign that our metabolism is gradually becoming deranged. So, what does happen is we flood our bodies with more glucose than they can handle - because sugar and starch taste good (that's the part that Steve got right) - and, over time, we lose our ability to compensate for too much sugar coming in, we become insulin resistant, our insulin goes up and mayhem ensues. Steve's theory is only getting at a part of that picture, while Gary gets into the complete picture.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:49 PM

I agree. Flavor alone doesn't make us fat. It is a temptation though. There's a lot of caffeine at work right now. In a country where agriculture is so important, I sense that the concept of "sinfulness" has been broken down in order to sell more product. No one is encouraged to resist gluttony and sloth. The product is tempting, and there is less and less ability to say "enough is enough".

Medium avatar

(10611)

on August 11, 2011
at 01:55 PM

I agree. Flavor alone doesn't make us fat. I think that the forces of an agricultural economy are working to erase the stigma of overeating. The product is tempting, and there is less and less concern with the "sins" of gluttony and sloth.

7d64d3988de1b0e493aacf37843c5596

(2861)

on August 12, 2011
at 01:20 AM

The thing is, your big picture is not really based upon science. Not many scientists believe your big picture, and not many scientific paleo bloggers believe your big picture. Here is a quote from KGH addressing this big picture: http://freetheanimal.com/2010/12/weekend-links-quick-hits-gary-taubes-art-de-vany-denise-minger-the-china-study-chris-masterjohn-and-real-results.html#comment-53991. That is the concern many have with Taubes - he is leading people away from science the same way that T. Colin Campbell does.

10
D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 01:59 AM

This is just the first post starting with the questions from AHS. He is going to post more to refute the fundamental obesity paradigm of Taubes as I understand it.

I eagerly await....the kid gloves are off!!!


EDIT - from SG's post. Awesome!

GT: "I would just recommend in the future you should pay attention to populations that might refute your hypothesis rather than just presenting populations that support. That's always key in science."

SG: People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:44 AM

Good point. What about Legion of Doom though? Whaaaaaaaat a Rush!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:15 AM

@LB - Ok, so here is one reason I really have taken to the Food Reward theory - it's brain centric. Confirmation bias in play - it all starts and ends in the brain IMO. He just needs to connect the biochemical dots now.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:51 AM

@smcdow - if there wasn't another wholesale shift, we would have nothing to PaleoHack about and I would have to focus on being a good husband, father, son, employee, etc and partake in the real world. What a buzz kill dude!!!

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:35 AM

@aravind that's why i've also taken to it also. it seems like the last major missing piece of the puzzle. i'm helping my brother's fiance' drop some serious weight for their wedding in a few months. however she can't get past a week on a lc paleo protocol to right her leptin/insulin. she basically is addicted to processed foods. its frustrating but i def understand that type of behavior more after digesting stephan's series...

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:11 AM

yeah. he did that whole series on leptin less than a year ago. so leptin has definitely been on his mind in the recent past.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

Time to talk leptin has arrived I see......this could get interesting!

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:48 AM

the demolition yeahhhhhhhhhhhh

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:19 AM

don't look now but kgh is over in comments going HAM.

8ea84667a7f11ac3967f2ecfcad28ad8

(641)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:43 AM

@Aravind There will be a (yet another) wholesale paradigm shift before he finishes connecting the dots. There always is.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:23 AM

KGH all up in this shit!!!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

KGH has just commented that he is on board. Yoda and Obiwan on the same team. Damn!!!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:41 AM

No, it's clearly going to be a walk-off. Taubes as Owen Wilson, Stephan as Ben Stiller, and KGH as Tyson Beckford...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InIxKCa3H9g

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:20 AM

Aravind I'm hoping......Lustig is gonna get hurt here too......his theory is missing big parts too.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:42 AM

@kamal i was gonna go with road warriors but hart foundation was the coolest tag team ever. i mean, they wore pink and still whipped ass.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:38 AM

I think the fight's gonna go down like this - Low Carbers vs Low Fatters vs Who Gives A Shit About Macronutrients. Don't forget your trident - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0Eigj4tN7k&feature=related

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:43 AM

Maybe it's part of the whole ironic fashion thing, but I've noticed people wearing these anchorman clothes - the chains, the unbuttoned shirts. It's making a come back. Now, LET'S DO THIS!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:07 AM

@Quilt - This is perhaps where I think Stephan will start connecting the dots. He NEVER said Leptin wasn't important. I think once people get past the word "dominant" and he further elaborates, this is gonna get good. Clean-up in aisle geek!!!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

KGH has just commented that he is on board. Yoda and Obiwan on the same team. Awesome!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:36 AM

LB- I get alerted by email every time you make a pro wrestling reference. In this case, an apt one. However, the magnitude of this is more like Hulk Hogan and The Ultimate Warrior vs Ric Flair. Ric is sometimes cool and sometimes a douche. Hulk and The Ultimate Warrior are unstoppable together.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:01 AM

Don't listen to him Aravind, you are being a good paleohacker and that's all that matters.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:05 AM

definitely. i also want to connect how food reward links up with avoidance of the other NAD's.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:29 AM

it ain't even fair. stephan and kgh bout to go all Hart Foundation on Taubes.

6714718e2245e5190017d643a7614157

on February 04, 2012
at 01:27 AM

+1, Bronze badge #69, I know that is an important number for your AB.

8
7bf306ada57db47547e9da39a415edf6

(11214)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:48 PM

It was the application of the Shangri-La Diet + Paleo + Low carbohydrate led to my breakthrough. I'm pretty sure I weight less than I did when I was twelve. I had lost weight on a low carbohydrate diet before, but had enough cheats to where I was still attracted to grain based foods. Stephan points to SLD as an example of his theory. SLD made it possible for me actually make choices about food, to notice for instance, that eating brisket one morning in the place the banana I usually had at that time kept my appetite away for the whole work day, whereas after the banana I'd be hungry again in two hours.

Blood sugar spikes cause damage; when you are young you don't feel the effects and it doesn't seem to matter much. Hell, put enough days between the blood sugar spikes and your body may be able to repair itself. But spike that blood sugar with paleo approved starches/sugars 3-5 a day for the next ten years. Bad stuff will happen- you may look better than the standard American, but you won't be as well as you could have been.

Low carbohydrate has always been a relative term; some people can handle more. I used to have to stay away completely; now it seems I can handle 100g or so a day without ill effects. I've tried a tuber dominate diet; the result was depression, fugue. I am perfectly willing to assume that this is just me, but I am suspicious that it is not.

Anyway, there is a way that these things fit together, but there is no way one can override or ignore the other.

98bf2ca7f8778c79cd3f6c962011cfdc

(24286)

on August 11, 2011
at 02:53 PM

It is NOT just you. The higher-carb "macro counting is so ignorant!" contingent seems to miss this part about eating low carb. You FEEL completely different. Many of us do anyway. That's a large part of the attraction. Feeling normal and happy and in control of food is the main reason I eat low carb. No one seems to talk about this and I have no idea why that is.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:33 PM

that's my same measure August! i weigh less than i did when i was 12!!!

4
1756b5b3b82c698e9cf719742b9a4d49

on August 11, 2011
at 04:19 PM

I'm disappointed with the whole thing. Both Steven and Gary are getting angry with each other and their arguments are sprouting personal barbs. The heat of the debate shouldn't be leptin vs. insulin. The heat should be fat-cutting-calorie-counting vs. what's really going on. That could easily get lost if stuff like this escalates.

Here's hoping the two smart capable people get this worked out.

Here's a quote from Linus Torvalds, perhaps the greatest living manager of engineers. Engineers and researchers are cut from similar cloth and their organizational behaviors correlate pretty well:

Btw, another way to avoid a decision is to plaintively just whine "can't we just do both?" and look pitiful. Trust me, it works. If it's not clear which approach is better, they'll eventually figure it out. The answer may end up being that both teams get so frustrated by the situation that they just give up. That may sound like a failure, but it's usually a sign that there was something wrong with both projects, and the reason the people involved couldn't decide was that they were both wrong.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:56 PM

+1!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3
Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 04:57 PM

Gary is on the peripheral side of obesity......muscles and liver......SG reward series is on the outflow tracts of obesity.........Lustig has one foot in the hypothalamus........I have all my body in the hypothalamus. Its all about leptin. Reward matter when the hypothalamus is completely CENTRALly resistant..........but that is a late affect and is not the cause. The cause is inflammation at the hypocretin neurons of the hypothalamus......you fix that .......you solve the problem. And magically thing get better.

One other point......there is a point of no return with hypothalamic LR. This is where inthewoo from SG blog series was correct......but she was rude to SG.......if you destroy some of the HC neurons due to sustained inflammatory damage you do become leptin needed for the rest of your life to control calorie partioning. The Amgen trials showed this in th emorbidly obese. But not everyone gets that level of damage......most obese can become LS once again if the follw the reset protocol.

There is a 280 page post testing my theory on MDA and I would tell ya go read it and see what people who are doing it.....that I have never met......have accomplished. I do this daily in my clinic and I know it works.

This is why Leptin sits at levee two in the Quilt. Its importance can not be overstated. What we are arguing about is minute compared to the real implications. Forget the details and focus in on the issue. We can help patients right now with this information. Researchers like Taubes and SG always focus on details first. Clinicians work from a top down method. Since I understand the brain physiology well I did not start at the periphery I started in the hypothalamus and worked from there. Its not about insulin and its not about reward........its about what happens to the 50K neurons at the hypocretin level. This is where metabolism and sleep are yoked centrally in the brain and it explains why we see the clinically confusing things we do when we are myopically looking at micro or macro issues.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on August 11, 2011
at 05:40 PM

have you read all of stephan's work. he was blogging about leptin and the hypothalamus before almost everyone who's name isn't rosedale.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:31 PM

Yes I have......and he still has no unified solid theory because he is allowing the conflicting research to trip him up. His reward theory is completely problematic when one considers leptin taste receptors. Never even mentioned them. But they are there and they directly affect taste and reward. When your LR it favors carbohydrate reward because of central LR. At he BRAIN!!!! I get this stuff ice cold. Im just waiting for the rest of them to realize the problem is completely in the brain....and has many pathways that cause it. Until then I'll just wait and watch them brawl.

8949bf87b0e0aefcad10f29975e4fa2b

(8989)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:53 PM

love it. You make it sound like doc twister. Is this a new movnat thing?

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25472)

on August 11, 2011
at 09:31 PM

Some of us been on leptin a bit longer than SG.

1f8384be58052b6b96f476e475abdc74

(2231)

on August 18, 2011
at 05:32 PM

shouldnt AMPK sit above leptin in the quilt...??? just a question that popped in my head

2
4075ac7a503523b0b5d0924f936df81c

on December 30, 2011
at 08:28 PM

SG is spot on because obesity begins IN THE BRAIN - a neuro-circuitry hardwired for obesity - I call our caveman brain. During times of feast, we had to store energy reserves to survive periods of famine. It was a a brilliant system them. @ turkey tyme, you said: "If that were the case then 100% of people in the U.S. would be fat and they would be fat from an early age. Instead, many of us are thin as kids and gradually become obese, a sign that our metabolism is gradually becoming deranged" - with all due respect, you're about 2 decades behind on this one. Kids today are becoming obese at a far earlier age than just 20 years ago, and in addition to the spike in rates of obesity, the degree of obesity has changed drastically as well. 20 years ago, "extreme obesity" was reserved for rare metabolic anomalies in children. Now, it's a condition growing at a faster rate than regular obesity. What has changed so dramatically are 3 things: the palatability of our foods - which are now engineered and chemically concocted to get our kids "hooked" as young as toddlers (food marketers call it "brand loyalty"), the second thing that has changed is the availability of these foods. They are everywhere -- and cheap. The final straw that completely untethered this old caveman brain of ours is the opportunity to eat them. 30 years ago, it was actually a faux pas to make a pig of yourself in public. Now, it's not only accepted - but expected. All-you-can eat buffets, foods are super-sized, packages king-sized and drinks jumbo sized. Put these 3 factors together, and it's a perfect storm for obesity. The only thing stopping it is us. Understanding our biology is crucial to cultivating a healthy food environment.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on December 31, 2011
at 02:49 PM

What I like best is that SG's empiricism - food reward - is offered out of an experience in research in nutrition. You can't prove or disprove it IMO, but it's a more reasonable explanation than GT's pompous empirical theories. I've lately been thinking about the role of seasonings in making foods hyperpalatable. For instance, the mixture of cloves/ginger/cinnamon/nutmeg doesn't have to be applied to sugary calorie bombs like eggnog or pumpkin pie to work the sensory magic. Try it on cut-up raw fruit, or buttered cooked squash and see.

0
66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

on August 11, 2011
at 03:12 PM

wow, seems like a paleo civil war has broken out with scattered fighting in the comment sections on different blogs.

i'm sympathetic to the lc and vlc adherants- i used to be one of them. as i stated in another thread, i do believe going lc or vlc is a VERY useful tool in healing many metabolic functions. it was a useful tool in the first phase of healing my lifelong obesity. i just no longer see it as necessary for people to stay there. i think there are some questions that need to answered and i have n=1 and some other anecdotal evidence but i haven't seen a full-blown clinical study.

*in talking about obesity, i'm not referring to people with leptin deficiency, prader-willi or any other rare deficiencies which cause them to put on weight. i'm speaking about run of the mill metabolic syndrome induced obsesity.

  1. can someone be so metabolically damaged that even after regaining leptin sensitivity, they can't intake clean starchy carbs at least moderately(`100g/day)?

  2. is it possible that after the optimal healing of metabolic pathways using lc and vlc(i know that i'm making broad assumptions but they're from my experiences and a good amount of observation) is it possible that lc and vlc becomes detrimental to the metabolic pathways by making it intolerable to even benign starchy carbs?

0
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on August 11, 2011
at 03:38 AM

Yes. I would say that he made Taubes his bitch, but I think Taubes kinda made himself a bitch too. But now we will probably be regaled by Tom Naughton explaining how Stephan is doing ???bad science??? and Taubes is doing ???good science???. And Eades will chime in that even if Stephan did metabolic ward studies, then it would still be suspect because ???good science??? is not possible (unless it supports a low-carb point of view.)

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!