Blog

10

1

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.

flag
It matters little. It effects behavior. It is an outflow tract. – The Quilt Jul 20 2011 at 0:54
1 
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. – ben61820 Jul 20 2011 at 0:56
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. – Paul Jul 20 2011 at 1:04
1 
Hmmm, how much fat do you really need to fuel sprints? – Paul Jul 20 2011 at 1:05
I suppose not much at all. But conversely how much fat do you really need to fuel anything? – ben61820 Jul 20 2011 at 1:50
show 2 more comments

6 Answers

4

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.

link|flag
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. – Paul Jul 20 2011 at 0:59
1 
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." – Paul Jul 20 2011 at 1:01
2 
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 – Aravind Jul 20 2011 at 1:06
3 
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. – Kamal Jul 20 2011 at 1:08
2 
Well the honey badger don't care about anything, he don't give a shit. So I guess we're all good then. – Aravind Jul 20 2011 at 1:49
show 14 more comments
3

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.

link|flag
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. – Paul Jul 20 2011 at 0:07
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!)): wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/07/… Btw, the second paragraph of the comment is pretty interesting also. – Paul Jul 20 2011 at 0:11
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 – luckybastard Jul 20 2011 at 0:16
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 – luckybastard Jul 20 2011 at 0:21
1 
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. – Paul Jul 20 2011 at 1:26
show 3 more comments
1

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.

link|flag
Hi Eva ! – Paul Jul 21 2011 at 16:22
1

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.

link|flag
0

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.

link|flag
during the series, he and commenters alluded to the shangri-la diet. – luckybastard Jul 20 2011 at 0:46
0

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.

link|flag
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 – DH Nov 25 2011 at 22:09

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.