Posts
Comments
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It's ugly but honest. We emotionally associate to countries as if they're people. But they're not. They're made of people.
Not an explanation, but type 2 diabetes is an example of a system failing(/adapting) in one direction and then not being reversible.
Some additional information on this:
- PUFA as a proportion of body fat rose from ~10% in 1950 to ~20% in 2010. At least one hunter gatherer population has PUFA levels of 4%. We introduced high PUFA oils into our diets in the early 1900's.
- Human body temperature has dropped 0.6C/1.0F over the last 150-200 years. It is not believed to be measurement error. Measurement of a hunter-gatherer tribe showed decreasing body temperatures over time as they became more connected with civilization. It has been theorized the increased intake/body proportion of PUFAs may be causing this.
- Reasonably good video on the topic:
There is a good case for completely avoiding seed/vegetable oils as they are a new and structurally unique food source we are unadapted to.
If anyone knows any way to get body fat PUFA proportions tested could you please let me know? I've cut seed oils from my diet for a few months now, but I'm interested in knowing how much effect it's having.
I should have just stated explicitly I don't think you can achieve hyperpalatability with those as inputs, which is what I'm assuming.
I agree exaggerated blandness would be a better test, but then doesn't generalise to something you could actually follow for the rest of your life.
Very interesting anecdote. This is exactly the sort of change I would expect to have some immediate and noticable effect. Oil might be the culprit but probably not. One reason to do it for 100% of food is just to get rid of the confounders.
I worry that overtly bland is too hard to follow and French is so generous you can still make extremely palatable food.
If you hate the diet it's not for the long term, just 3 months. And quitting's fine. It's also not meant to be necessarily bland, just not hyperpalatable 'cafeteria' food. It's meant to be as close to an approximation of what a hunter gatherer tribe would be eating, except in this case you have much more variety with respect to what's available to you in each category. Have you tried fried cinammon pineapple?
Yours is the dream situation and I agree best for happiness. But I think a tighter approach for research is justifiable to get a clearer understanding of if it works.
The French paradox is interesting, because it's basically the above plus grains and dairy (and sugar). Higher saturated fat and lower PUFAs (which is another interesting theory). Do you add much/any sugar to your cooking?
Well the point isn't meant to be that the food is inherently unsatisfying. The point is meant to be that the food is stuff that is within the normal range of palatability we are adapted for.
There's reasonable justification for adding rice and traditional bread too given their long history of consumption before obesity was common.
If you can make nice tasting food from that, that's a good thing. If you can achieve genuine 'cafeteria food' hyperpalatability I'll be seriously impressed. It seems like it would be very hard to do without a fat like butter/oil or a sweetener like table sugar/honey.
In defense of bread, butter and milk:
A traditional bread like sourdough has a glycemic index of 54 and 12g protein per 100g. While I love the taste, I wouldn't classify it as hyperpalatable. It only has 4 ingredients: flour, salt, water and bacteria. I would classify it in the middle between hyperpalatable and bland.
I don't think plain butter or milk are hyperpalatble either. Only when used in certain ways in recipes do they result in hyperpalatable foods. Personally, I don't like plain milk and couldn't eat butter on its own.
Nutritionally, I would also dispute that these are unhealthy if this is being implied. To my knowlege, saturated fats are no longer thought to be bad for health.
This might just be nitpicking. I disagree with or perhaps don't understand the "set point" usage that is common here. I see it more as a balance of inputs to the brain from the mouth and stomach/other satiety sensors.
Plain boiled potatoes have a taste pleasure score of 3, and thus a satiation score of 3 from the stomach is required to stop you eating more of them.
Chocolate cake has a taste pleasure score of 8, and so a satiation score of 8 from the stomach is required to stop you eating more.
As you require a stronger satiation score to overcome the pleasure of the chocolate cake, you naturally eat more of it before the satiation score overpowers the pleasure score.
This explains the common experience of feeling full on a healthy dinner, then immediately being able to eat 500kcal of dessert.
Relative to the "set point" idea (or at least my understanding of it), this means if you switch to the only plain boring foods diet (or natural and healthy if you want a positive frame) then you can successfully lose at least some of the added weight. I do find the idea of some permanent regulatory damage plausible.
This dynamic will essentially create different set points on different diets. The whole range of set points for different diets being moved up over time by a hyperpalatable diet, due to it being an unnatural stimuli, does seem plausible.
Thanks for your comments.
- Good points.
- I disagree, but I think your view is more supported by others than mine. I think experts learn, but very few voters do.
- I think this is also perverse and causal. Universities have very one-sided incentives with regard to who it makes sense for them to support politically.
- Rent control prevents the market from working and building more stock, which harms everyone else.
- I agree. Our right wing politics is mostly a grift.
- Agree. Incentives are very different for rich and poor, and poor might be motivated by dependency whereas rich are not.
The right can definitely exploit jingoism for support to some degree. But I don't think the economic case is symmetrical. What is an actual lever, as powerful as welfare, which the Right could pull (even in other eras) to increase its support?
Re Trump, what matters is the overall incentive. If it's a 55/45 trend, lots of people are going to buck the trend but it still exists. Trump couldn't run on a platform of welfare and government spending cutbacks, to the policies are also winning independent of the politicians.
Do you mean progress in the good sense or the progressive political sense? I am arguing this is so in the political sense, but not neccessarily the good sense. So of course trade liberalisation would continue, because it is politically progressive, but not actual progress for many people in Western countries.
If rent control schemes are still taken seriously anywhere, is that not still a massive defeat? This theory would predict that a massive amount of energy could be poured into moving housing policy in the right direction, but only make a small amount of progress because politicians aren't incentivised to solve housing policy, which I think corresponds with reality. What I'm getting at with housing policy is that progressive politicians may literally have no or negative incentives to fix it, and therefore the energy to do it has to be entirely public, which is a bad political design.
The Fed is not a democratic institution. China is not a democracy either. India I know little about. I don't see how these examples are relevant to my point that in a democracy, left wing parties aren't electorally incentivised to solve people's problems, so we shouldn't be surprised when they don't, or make them worse.
This is very interesting. You certainly can't argue with the availability of hyperpalatable food in these countries. To the extent they are less available in stores, that would be the result of people wanting them less.
Perhaps the consumption is lower because of their culture (mimesis effects). People eat what those around them eat, and the traditional diet is culturally sticky enough in Japan and South Korea that, in spite of the availability of hyperpalatable foods, people still follow it for the majority of meals. However, this explanation requires a reason why this is not the case in other places, especially genetically and (I'm guessing somewhat) culturally similar places like China and Taiwan.
It's not like South Korea and Japan have failed to pick up on the addictive aspects of other areas of modern culture, like the internet. So I don't understand why diet would be different for them.
The study I would like to see is giving obese people unlimited access to only natural foods for 3 months. They could add salt and spices, but no oil and definitely no sugar. The diet would be lean(ish) meats, fruits, vegetables and legumes (unsure if allowing nuts is a good idea as they're extremely calorie dense, but technically they should be allowed under this definition).
I would be surprised if this didn't work. Under this model I view hyperpalatble foods as equivalent to an addictive drug for obese people. Just as if you have a poor phenotype for alcoholism, you should avoid alcohol altogether, if you have a poor phenotype for the overconsumption of hyperpalatable foods, and a poor phenotype for the conversion of those extra calories into fat, you should avoid hyperpalatble foods.
Have you ever seen or even heard of a person who is obese who doesn't eat hyperpalatable foods? (That is, they only eat naturally tasting, unprocessed, "healthy" foods).
This seems like the occam's razor expanation to me. Some of our new flavour/texture combinations are so rewarding that they easily overcome the natural stop signals, leading to excess caloric consumption in most (to a variable degree), which leads to weight gain in some.
A study which gave its participants a 1000cal/day dietary surplus found while some participants gained 14kg of fat over the course of the study (I think it was for 3 months), others gained as little as 4kg. As one would expect, there is genetic variance in one's vulnerability to the effects of a harmful caloric surplus, and there is probably also genetic variance in one's susceptability to hyperpalatable foods.
I have found that bed surface cooling devices like the ChiliPad or Eightsleep Pod Pro are excellent. I have the ChiliPad and noticed better sleep straight away. This includes it being easier to get to sleep, less waking up during the night and waking up in the morning more refreshed.
Mattresses are great insulators. If it's very cold and you're trying to get warm, they're fantastic. But if it's warm and your body needs to shed heat during the night, they're a problem.
I would recommend these products to anyone who lives in a hot climate and wants to improve their sleep. The bigger you are physically, the more of a difference you will notice from them, as you have more heat to shed and less surface area proportionally to shed it.
A lot of commonly sited drug trial prices are risk adjusted, meaning they take into account the high probability of failure, and are thus many multiples higher than the cost of an actual single trial.
"A Phase 2 study cost from US$7.0 million (cardiovascular) to US$19.6 million (hematology), whereas a Phase 3 study cost ranged from US$11.5 million (dermatology) to US$52.9 (pain and anesthesia) on average."
Thus, in reality, clinical trials are not THAT expensive, but they have a high risk of failure.
What may have made vaccine trials so expensive was the massive number of participants needed to be administered the vaccine and followed to get good data. 43,000 for Pfizer.
You need to sponsor whole trial centres, pay for the expensive time of doctors, pay for data management and auditing and more. I read a good paper with a breakdown once but was unable to find it for you. There are likely more similar papers.