10

votes

WHY would food with higher reward result in a higher setpoint?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created July 19, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Forgive me if this has already been addressed in one of our Stephan threads. I'm not sure that it has, because it's kind of like a background question for the main issue.

I have an intuitive understanding for why various changes to our way of living can lead to a lower body-fat setpoint. (Note -- I am assuming the setpoint theory, at least for the time being, and so rejecting that calories in and out can give a full explanation of what's going on. Relevant Paleohacks threads here and here.) So, for example, if you do a lot of sprinting, then you're telling your body "Hey, I need to sprint" and your body responds with "OK, I'll give you the kind of body that can sprint -- a leaner one." Sprints can lower the setpoint. I have an intuitive understanding for "metabolic repair" as well. If you screw up your body with fructose and PUFAs then some kind of mechanism goes out of whack (please have mercy on my simplification!) and if we repair that mechanism then we lose body fat, and for good. We bring our body back to the shape that nature intended. Fixing your metabolism can lower the setpoint.

But what kind of intuitive explanation can we come up with for the food reward theory? I just don't see why eating more delicious food would incline my body to carry more fat. Or, put inversely, I don't see why eating less delicious food would incline my body to carry less fat. (Again, warning, we're assuming that it's not just so simple as: delicious food causes me to eat more of it. Because if the theory is right you could be cruising along at a stable body weight, eating delicious food, and then start eating plainer food and then find a new, stable, body weight.)

Does this make sense, what I'm trying to get at? Does anyone have a plausible backstory for plainer food leading to a lower setpoint? Perhaps Stephan himself addresses this somewhere on the blog? Thanks, P.

Medium avatar

(19469)

on November 25, 2011
at 11:51 PM

I'm just thinking aloud here, but this line of reasoning sounds very similar to the "eat 5 times a day" so your body "thinks" food is abundant and is therefore less likely to "hold on" to weight as insurance against starvation thought process that dominates most of the fitness/diet industry.

Medium avatar

(19469)

on November 25, 2011
at 11:49 PM

You need fat to fuel living for a week or more without food. Which is exactly why it is there.

Cc69a51b427eaad36251cce9dcca4d3a

(1074)

on November 25, 2011
at 10:09 PM

so for those already eating Paleo, I'm saying if you "count calories" and can fine tune it so you never go past true satiety, you can still lose the weight. but most Paleo-ers get kinda spoiled lol and starting chomping on yummy fats and meats like kings/queens

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 21, 2011
at 04:22 PM

Hi Eva !

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 10:30 AM

@paul i know it's tedious but the comments section of his site is must-read.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 05:39 AM

@Meredith, so we just shouldn't *anticipate* food with high reward and then we'll be ok? I'm trying to think about how I could accidentally eat something really delicious ...

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 05:35 AM

@Aravind, cool, thank you. I've read through this stuff now and think I am starting to get it.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 02:10 AM

@WCC - More from Stephan's latest comment - http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1629175743855013102&postID=9061590532870072677 - "The point is that the state of being adapted to high-reward food is not exactly equivalent to the non-adapted state. The difference between the two states is probably what drives the changes in body fat homeostasis, and D2 receptors may play a part in that". The thing that sucks big time is that the Comments in this series are almost more informative than the primary posts. Like I need more to read! Side note - ItsTheWooo2 needs a good beat down, really!

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 02:05 AM

Aravind- sure, that sounds good! I want to finish Deep Nutrition to be better informed, and then we shall discuss.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:53 AM

@Kamal - non sequitur...I posted this on another thread but since you are here now. I saw an old post of yours (from Sept 2010) regarding "Paleo for Indians". Since we share common ancestry (though I'm from the south), I wonder if you would be interested in a chat to compare notes. Maybe offline discussion?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:50 AM

I suppose not much at all. But conversely how much fat do you really need to fuel anything?

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:49 AM

WCC Paul- I suspect there's a lot of brain stuff that Stephan is not explicitly laying out. Hopefully he's putting it into a book on paleo and the brain.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:49 AM

Well the honey badger don't care about anything, he don't give a shit. So I guess we're all good then.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:47 AM

Aravind- it's only a bad thing if the honey badger thinks it's a bad thing.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:46 AM

And @Meredith, thanks, more stuff to look at. Not sure why your link didn't come out right, here it is again for others to click on more easily: http://gettingstronger.org/2010/10/c

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:44 AM

Oh, gotcha Aravind, thanks.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:36 AM

@Kamal - is that a bad thing?

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:35 AM

thats what i'm thinkin, paul...

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:35 AM

@WCC Paul - I was referring to Quantum Theory. I was just trying to address the part of your question regarding an "intuitive explanation". Some theories are not so intuitive and that does not invalidate them. I don't consider Food Reward to be of the order of significance as Quantum Physics, that's all, but was just using it as an example

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:28 AM

Oh Golly be Jimmney - Against my better judgement I am going to comment - (don't swing with the smartypants society! You will drown!) Dopamine - Sapolsky wrote in Monkeyluv (he would make a great pillow!) that dopamine surges during anticipation of reward, and plummets during the actual reward getting. This may be why animals (and some dudes I know) will pursue relentlessly even though there is no consummation - can the same be saidhttp://gettingstronger.org/2010/10/c about food? Anticipation without reward? Is this hormesis? (I am drowning now, seriously). GOD that Honey Badger guy is funny.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:26 AM

Thanks, LB. One day -- 80 years from now -- this will all be figured out. Of course we'll still be alive to see it because we're so darn healthy.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:24 AM

Wait, Aravind, what are the two theories you're referring to? I think I'm missing you. (Although I love the honey badger comment of course.)

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:13 AM

that sounds feasible, paul. what that counteracting influence is, i don't know though...

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:08 AM

Stephan probably typed that originally, but then reconsidered based on his persona as the guy who knows stuff instead of the guy who jokes around. The guys who joke around are centralized here at paleohacks.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:06 AM

He is too much of a gentleman to call us fucking idiots. Honey badger would though! Also you wanted an intuitive understanding. Quantum physics isn't intuitive but that does not stop it from having explanatory power. I'm not equating the two theories AT ALL, just trying to make a point

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:05 AM

Hmmm, how much fat do you really need to fuel sprints?

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:04 AM

No, that's definitely valid, Ben, one answer could just be that there *isn't* an intuitive explanation for it. If that's the case, then yeah, that's life I guess. But I really *want* that intuitive explanation, and I can't hide my deepest desires from Paleohacks.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:01 AM

Oh yeah, I saw that list of references that Stephan put up. It's funny how at the end of that post he says: "If you can read all these papers and still not believe in the food reward hypothesis ... you deserve some kind of award." Didn't he miss an obvious opportunity for a joke there? Like: "You deserve some kind of reward -- a *food* reward."

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:59 AM

OK, well it looks like there's some potential here for an explanation that *is* a setpoint explanation, even if it isn't the kind of intuitive thing I'm craving. I'll check it out later tonight when I'm not supposed to be working, thanks.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:57 AM

OK, so the idea is something like: there is weight gain, but only up until some point where some other counter-acting influence in the body checks the gain -- and that's the new setpoint. Does that sound right?

667f6c030b0245d71d8ef50c72b097dc

(15976)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:56 AM

I don't think your entire premise of the idea that there should be an intuitive reasoning behind any of this is valid. An aside: your line that sprinting sends signals to be lean I don't get either. Couldn't one argue, basing on the same "intuitive" idea you're going for, that sprinting would send a signal to your body to hold on to fat stores cuz it keeps getting into dangerous situations where it has to sprint away? Bit of devil's advocate.

Ed71ab1c75c6a9bd217a599db0a3e117

(25477)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:54 AM

It matters little. It effects behavior. It is an outflow tract.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:46 AM

during the series, he and commenters alluded to the shangri-la diet.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:21 AM

it needs more food until you physically feel like you're gonna burst and sometimes even then, you're still hungry(at least that's how i was when i was effed up metabolically). i think this applies to food reward in being that foods that mess with dopamine (or whatever other hormone that i don't totally understand) and has a drug-like effect, it causes that sense of wanting to eat even more of it and it pushes for more of it for satiation that is beyond nutritional. if your body is constantly stimulated to the point of overeating on a regular basis the setpoint moves up to a new satiation point

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:16 AM

paul, i'm not a scientist so i try to take what i understand stephan, cm and others are saying in the abstract and try to bring it to a place where i can understand. this is how i understand the setpoint moving up for any reason. if you constantly overfeed, whether it be conscious or unconscious, at some point the body doesn't see it as overfeeding anymore but more as the new normal, if you will. when it happens because of leptin receptor issues, it's because the "thermostat" is out of whack and the body simpy doesn't know that it's satiated anymore so it continues to send out signals that

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:11 AM

Check out the first paragraph of this comment from David Moss, for example (there are just so many comments on those posts, so I basically cruise through looking for people I recognize, you included (although you've got a ton on there!)): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/07/simple-food-thoughts-on-practicality.html?showComment=1310636572828#c6261101951910579229 Btw, the second paragraph of the comment is pretty interesting also.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:07 AM

Right, but I'm trying to get at the setpoint aspect of it, which I think Stephan always insists on (and I do too). If it's just that you increase your calories, then why is it not the case that people gain weight consistently and continuously for years at a time? Sure, that does happen, but in the majority of cases the body fat stays pretty constant.

  • 47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

    asked by

    (9647)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1281D AGO
Frontpage book

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

6 Answers

4
D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 12:52 AM

From this part of the series - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/06/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity_18.html

Reward Centers can Modify the Body Fat Setpoint

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter (chemical that signals between neurons) that is a central mediator of reward and motivation in the brain. It has been known for decades that dopamine injections into the brain suppress food intake, and that this is due primarily to its action in the hypothalamus, which is the main region that regulates body fatness (1). Dopamine-producing neurons from reward centers contact neurons in the hypothalamus that regulate body fatness (2). I recently came across a paper by a researcher named Dr. Hanno Pijl, from Leiden University in the Netherlands (3). The paper is a nice overview of the evidence linking dopamine signaling with body fatness via its effects on the hypothalamus, and I recommend it to any scientists out there who want to read more about the concept.

Increased dopamine signaling, particularly through the dopamine D2 receptor, can attenuate and in some cases reverse obesity in diet-induced obese animals, seasonally obese animals (squirrels, Syrian hamsters, etc.), and overweight/obese humans (4). Not only that, it can increase resting metabolic rate and attenuate the metabolic abnormalities associated with obesity even before the fat is lost, which emphasizes that these circuits control metabolism directly, as well as indirectly by influencing fat mass (5)*. Conversely, people who have genetic or drug-induced reductions in D2 receptor signaling gain fat at an accelerated rate (6, 7).

Together, this supports a hypothesis that I've scarcely seen in the scientific literature: that reward centers, and probably food reward itself, can directly influence body fatness and metabolism. Other people have made parts of this argument, however, I've never seen anyone put together the evidence from psychology, pharmacology and neurobiology into a single coherent hypothesis.


It goes on from there and I won't copy the whole series for you :-)

I would also recommend you read the articles he provided for reference here - http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/07/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity.html

BTW - I'm not necessarily endorsing this, just providing an answer to your question.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:59 AM

OK, well it looks like there's some potential here for an explanation that *is* a setpoint explanation, even if it isn't the kind of intuitive thing I'm craving. I'll check it out later tonight when I'm not supposed to be working, thanks.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 05:39 AM

@Meredith, so we just shouldn't *anticipate* food with high reward and then we'll be ok? I'm trying to think about how I could accidentally eat something really delicious ...

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:49 AM

WCC Paul- I suspect there's a lot of brain stuff that Stephan is not explicitly laying out. Hopefully he's putting it into a book on paleo and the brain.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 02:10 AM

@WCC - More from Stephan's latest comment - http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1629175743855013102&postID=9061590532870072677 - "The point is that the state of being adapted to high-reward food is not exactly equivalent to the non-adapted state. The difference between the two states is probably what drives the changes in body fat homeostasis, and D2 receptors may play a part in that". The thing that sucks big time is that the Comments in this series are almost more informative than the primary posts. Like I need more to read! Side note - ItsTheWooo2 needs a good beat down, really!

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:53 AM

@Kamal - non sequitur...I posted this on another thread but since you are here now. I saw an old post of yours (from Sept 2010) regarding "Paleo for Indians". Since we share common ancestry (though I'm from the south), I wonder if you would be interested in a chat to compare notes. Maybe offline discussion?

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:47 AM

Aravind- it's only a bad thing if the honey badger thinks it's a bad thing.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:06 AM

He is too much of a gentleman to call us fucking idiots. Honey badger would though! Also you wanted an intuitive understanding. Quantum physics isn't intuitive but that does not stop it from having explanatory power. I'm not equating the two theories AT ALL, just trying to make a point

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:36 AM

@Kamal - is that a bad thing?

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:44 AM

Oh, gotcha Aravind, thanks.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:24 AM

Wait, Aravind, what are the two theories you're referring to? I think I'm missing you. (Although I love the honey badger comment of course.)

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:01 AM

Oh yeah, I saw that list of references that Stephan put up. It's funny how at the end of that post he says: "If you can read all these papers and still not believe in the food reward hypothesis ... you deserve some kind of award." Didn't he miss an obvious opportunity for a joke there? Like: "You deserve some kind of reward -- a *food* reward."

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 02:05 AM

Aravind- sure, that sounds good! I want to finish Deep Nutrition to be better informed, and then we shall discuss.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:46 AM

And @Meredith, thanks, more stuff to look at. Not sure why your link didn't come out right, here it is again for others to click on more easily: http://gettingstronger.org/2010/10/c

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 10:30 AM

@paul i know it's tedious but the comments section of his site is must-read.

21fd060d0796fdb8a4a990441e08eae7

(24543)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:08 AM

Stephan probably typed that originally, but then reconsidered based on his persona as the guy who knows stuff instead of the guy who jokes around. The guys who joke around are centralized here at paleohacks.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:49 AM

Well the honey badger don't care about anything, he don't give a shit. So I guess we're all good then.

D1c02d4fc5125a670cf419dbb3e18ba7

on July 20, 2011
at 01:35 AM

@WCC Paul - I was referring to Quantum Theory. I was just trying to address the part of your question regarding an "intuitive explanation". Some theories are not so intuitive and that does not invalidate them. I don't consider Food Reward to be of the order of significance as Quantum Physics, that's all, but was just using it as an example

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 05:35 AM

@Aravind, cool, thank you. I've read through this stuff now and think I am starting to get it.

0dbd7154d909b97fe774d1655754f195

(16131)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:28 AM

Oh Golly be Jimmney - Against my better judgement I am going to comment - (don't swing with the smartypants society! You will drown!) Dopamine - Sapolsky wrote in Monkeyluv (he would make a great pillow!) that dopamine surges during anticipation of reward, and plummets during the actual reward getting. This may be why animals (and some dudes I know) will pursue relentlessly even though there is no consummation - can the same be saidhttp://gettingstronger.org/2010/10/c about food? Anticipation without reward? Is this hormesis? (I am drowning now, seriously). GOD that Honey Badger guy is funny.

3
66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

on July 20, 2011
at 12:00 AM

i think stephan's theory is as simple as saying that more food reward causes you to eat more food, thereby increasing your calories. i think he is positing that a constant hyper-stimulated diet of extremely great-tasting food will move your setpoint because it will mess with reward centers in the brain as it relates to satiety- at least that's what i get from it. i don't know if i'm all the way on board with it but it definitely seems like it could be a factor in obesity- particularly for those on the SAD.

as i believe and others in comments on his posts have mentioned, the distinction has to be made between palatability and reward. i love good food. i cook good, well-seasoned food that is highly palatable. however, it is not rewarding in a way that i felt a half a cheesecake would have been in my past life. the paleo food i cook is tasty but i don't get that drug-like fix.

there's alot of back in forth in his comments section about dopamine and its receptors and other things that are above my head but seem very relevant and interesting.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:35 AM

thats what i'm thinkin, paul...

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:07 AM

Right, but I'm trying to get at the setpoint aspect of it, which I think Stephan always insists on (and I do too). If it's just that you increase your calories, then why is it not the case that people gain weight consistently and continuously for years at a time? Sure, that does happen, but in the majority of cases the body fat stays pretty constant.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:13 AM

that sounds feasible, paul. what that counteracting influence is, i don't know though...

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:11 AM

Check out the first paragraph of this comment from David Moss, for example (there are just so many comments on those posts, so I basically cruise through looking for people I recognize, you included (although you've got a ton on there!)): http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/07/simple-food-thoughts-on-practicality.html?showComment=1310636572828#c6261101951910579229 Btw, the second paragraph of the comment is pretty interesting also.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 01:26 AM

Thanks, LB. One day -- 80 years from now -- this will all be figured out. Of course we'll still be alive to see it because we're so darn healthy.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:57 AM

OK, so the idea is something like: there is weight gain, but only up until some point where some other counter-acting influence in the body checks the gain -- and that's the new setpoint. Does that sound right?

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:16 AM

paul, i'm not a scientist so i try to take what i understand stephan, cm and others are saying in the abstract and try to bring it to a place where i can understand. this is how i understand the setpoint moving up for any reason. if you constantly overfeed, whether it be conscious or unconscious, at some point the body doesn't see it as overfeeding anymore but more as the new normal, if you will. when it happens because of leptin receptor issues, it's because the "thermostat" is out of whack and the body simpy doesn't know that it's satiated anymore so it continues to send out signals that

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:21 AM

it needs more food until you physically feel like you're gonna burst and sometimes even then, you're still hungry(at least that's how i was when i was effed up metabolically). i think this applies to food reward in being that foods that mess with dopamine (or whatever other hormone that i don't totally understand) and has a drug-like effect, it causes that sense of wanting to eat even more of it and it pushes for more of it for satiation that is beyond nutritional. if your body is constantly stimulated to the point of overeating on a regular basis the setpoint moves up to a new satiation point

1
673f7ad6052448d51496f177395416b7

on November 25, 2011
at 11:37 PM

Ever notice how things taste so much better when you're starving? Maybe there's some signaling in the brain that correlates signals of reward with signals of deficit.

1
62ed65f3596aa2f62fa1d58a0c09f8c3

(20807)

on July 21, 2011
at 06:35 AM

I think food reward does influence overall weight. If you have tasty foods around, you eat more, a little bit more. Steak is delicious so you might eat a bit more. But delicious by itself does not throw your whole body set point of drastically over the long haul. It doesn't trash your metabolism and cause you to be undernourished even when fat. That's why eating top quality meat and top quality delicious paleo may make you a few pounds heavier than if you at grisly tough low quality half burned meat all the time, but it's not going to make a huge health difference overall. No matter how delicious the food, taste alone does not move the setpoint greatly. You can only eat so much of even the best tasting steak in the whole world.

What screws up the set point are some foods that are unnatural and that the body does not know how to safely and properly process on a regular basis. What also may screw up the set point is chronic lack of nutrition. You can eat tons of calories and be overweight, but if what you are eating has no nutrition, you can still be in a sense very starved. Many of the low nutrition unnatural foods do trigger addictive responses and some of them even taste good.

But I think you will find, on careful examination, that many of these unnatural foods do not actually taste all that great. Instead, what you respond to is satiation of an addiction, which has a high value in itself, but is not actually related much to taste. Many cakes, breads, noodles, crackers, etc have very little taste. From a taste perspective, they have very little value. Yet they still give a satiated feeling from relief of an addiction craving. And they do often lead to movement of the body weight set point.

47a42b6be94caf700fce9509e38bb6a4

(9647)

on July 21, 2011
at 04:22 PM

Hi Eva !

0
Cc69a51b427eaad36251cce9dcca4d3a

(1074)

on November 25, 2011
at 10:03 PM

IMO physically eating processed crap and sugars can induce a high setpoint as the body's biochemistry is messed up. However, the reward theory (which i believe is effective) seems to simply lower your own intake rather than DIRECTLY influencing setpoint (which is leptin). As a former obese guy, when I eat "tasty" foods I get this little high in my head and I start chomping WAY more than satiety. I start confusing satiety with whether my stomach is full. This short-term overfeeding leads to inflammation (excess calories) and reinforcing leptin resistance, leading to my inability to lose the last 15lbs. However, I think if you're fit and lean, a little overfeeding can be compensated without gaining weight. But for those who are still fat and wish to decrease weight, overeating is very hindering as the body's adipose tissue is already causing excess baseline inflammation.

Cc69a51b427eaad36251cce9dcca4d3a

(1074)

on November 25, 2011
at 10:09 PM

so for those already eating Paleo, I'm saying if you "count calories" and can fine tune it so you never go past true satiety, you can still lose the weight. but most Paleo-ers get kinda spoiled lol and starting chomping on yummy fats and meats like kings/queens

0
62f89aa727cf3ce77c36651347cabc14

(884)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:40 AM

I also have no idea how set point alteration works, but Stephen's food reward theory reminds me a lot of the Shangri-La diet, where one introduces flavorless calories into the diet, which have zero food reward.

I'm not sure that the method works by lowering set point, or whether the weight loss results from keeping the body in a semi-fasted state for longer by suppressing appetite without stimulating taste cravings.

66e6b190e62fb3bcf42d4c60801c7bf6

(12407)

on July 20, 2011
at 12:46 AM

during the series, he and commenters alluded to the shangri-la diet.

Answer Question


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