Hyperpalatable Food Hypothesis: A LessWrong Study?

I can actually speak to a variation of this theory, since I used Huel (a nutritionally complete powder) as my primary food source for, like, two years. 

I can also speak to the "losing weight and keeping it off for 5+ years" thing, because in 2014 I hit my all-time weight high of 138 lbs (at 5'3", this is the point at which the scale tips to overweight). I started calorie counting with a food scale and lost 15 lbs in a little over a year, which tracks with what the research claims will happen if you try to lose weight at a consistent small caloric deficit.  

The end of this weight loss adventure coincided with the beginning of my Huel journey, and I continued weighing my food, weighing the ingredients that went into foods and dividing by the number of portions that I cut foods into, doing the guesswork that comes with eating meals that you cannot weigh, tracking all of the related numbers, and so on.

It worked, in the sense that I had the willpower to do it, and it wasn't particularly time-consuming. But it didn't work half so well as what happened next.

In the second half of 2020, I moved in with the great love of my life and he was all "what are you doing eating Huel when the world is full of delicious food?" He is a very capable home cook, and I quickly learned how to be a capable home cook, and between the two of us we ate meat and cheese and homemade bread and potatoes and vegetables cooked in butter and all of the things that people who are weighing their food and trying to get the maximum food volume for the fewest number of calories try to avoid.

It's worth noting that we ate very little processed food. Obviously steel-cut oats are processed; Brie is processed; wine, if you want to think about it that way, is processed. But when we wanted cookies, we made our own. When we wanted naan, we made our own. When we wanted hamburgers, we made our own. 

This could mean that we ate very little "highly palatable food," although the food we eat seems to be extremely palatable.

The point of this story is that I assumed I would gain weight on this diet.

I lost ten pounds in a year, without tracking calories or increasing my exercise or anything like that. 

This took me from "healthy weight for my height" to "slim end of healthy weight for my height," and for what it's worth being slimmer has demonstrated benefits. Aggressive, sustained piano practice is easier, for example, when you're lighter. So is biking.

But that'll take me off-topic, so let's get to the actual thing of the thing:

WHAT DO I THINK HAPPENED HERE?

1. French Paradox. We were eating high-quality, home-cooked foods in small portions -- and including a variety of foods at every meal. Three bites of a casserole next to three bites of baguette next to three bites of a salad next to three bites of dessert and so on. We spend roughly 30 minutes every night on food cooking and prep, so this kind of food is not overwhelmingly time-consuming. It does take planning ahead, in terms of grocery shopping and what not. 
2. I was optimizing for equilibrium, not calories. After I got interested in the French Paradox thing I read French Women Don't Get Fat, which still remains the most sensible thing I've ever read about "how to eat" (and I have read all of the Michael Pollan books). Basically, Mireille Guiliano says "eat so that you feel the same way all of the time." Excessive hunger is just as distracting as bloated fullness. A meal that causes your body to change shape in a visual or palpable sense isn't great; neither is trying to force your body into a particular shape by withholding food. Intoxication and abstemiousness are two incorrect solutions to the same problem.
3. Eating good food is the side dish to the main course of my life. I am very sure that I put on extra weight in 2014 because I was lonely, understimulated, and didn't have anything else to do. If food is your primary source of dopamine, etc. etc. etc.

Anyway, what I am saying is 

DON'T EAT BLAND MEALS FOR SCIENCE

IT WILL MAKE YOU SAD

WHICH WILL MAKE ME SAD

IT WILL ALSO CAUSE YOU TO AGONIZE OVER CALORIES, BINGE-RESTRICT, AND SUBJECT YOURSELF TO EXTRA MISERABILITY EVEN IF YOU MAKE IT WORK BY GETTING THE MATH RIGHT (oooh I ate 3600 cals yesterday so today I'll only eat 1400, never mind how either of these eating experiences make me feel physically/mentally/emotionally).

~also read French Women Don't Get Fat even if you are neither French nor a woman~

I came across the slime mould article some time ago via the Marginal Revolution blog. I do not find it in the least convincing. It seems to me they have their theory, then cherry pick and misinterpret all evidence to fit.

My personal thoughts on their theory here: https://www.livenowthrivelater.co.uk/2021/09/is-the-obesity-epidemic-a-mystery-part-1/

https://www.livenowthrivelater.co.uk/2021/09/is-the-obesity-epidemic-a-mystery-part-2/

I may be out of the loop here, but would somebody mind catching me up on the abandonment of the "fructose explanation"?

Fructose has been the be-all and end-all of my hypothesis for the last little while. I find that when I avoid fructose in its many forms, including "invert sugar syrup", sugar feels like it has a more natural effect. It "does what it should", i.e. provide me with a quick burst of dopamine, rather than leaving me suddenly hungry again when I just ate. 

For those without the context for this, fructose suppresses leptin, a hormone that regulates appetite in our brains, causing a "bottomless" feeling. This makes sense: for a wild animal, fruit gluts are a great time to store calories for winter.

As far as I can see, knowledge of this is relatively widespread, so I have to assume people noted it and moved on. 

Is there an argument against this I haven't heard? 

I'm not sure why you pick "meat, fruit, vegetables and spices" as the rule. I'd pick something like "only eat unsatisfying food" as the rule.