Neal:

I appreciate the vote of confidence!  I spent weeks putting it together -- and that doesn't count the months of research that went into Why Are We Hungry?

August:

First, the Shangri-La Diet (and all of Dr. Roberts' research) long predates any of Stephan's work, and Stephan was clearly familiar with it -- as evidenced by the fact that he cites the very same studies Dr. Roberts does in SLD.  Second, I agree that Dr. Roberts' work is far more sophisticated than "You ate too much tasty food, it broke your hypothalamus (or whatever this month's retroactive ad hoc explanation is), and you got fat" -- a non-explanation we can trivially discard based on the observed demographics of obesity in America, which was the point I made right at the beginning of the talk.

In contrast, I see some interesting evidence in support of Dr. Roberts' work on flavor-calorie associations, and the SLD can indeed be explained in terms of the four hunger drives and two modulating factors.

tess:

Thank you!  I look forward to exploring the topics from my talk in more detail.

Lisa:

I'm not a huge fan of multivitamins, because they tend to contain a lot of "micronutrients" in artificial forms that may not have the same health benefits as natural forms, and may indeed be toxic to some extent (e.g. folate).  I tend to agree with the Jaminets' analysis and recommendations in Perfect Health Diet, with the caveat that I'm not sure multi-milligram doses of iodine are necessary or beneficial for everyone.

Meanwhile, are you unhappy with your body composition, or just surprised at your ability to dispose of calories?

Danny:

A sound theoretical framework -- including consistent terminology -- is absolutely crucial to both scientific and engineering progress.  I shake my head every time I see arguments about whether a particular food is "palatable" or "rewarding"...the sloppy conflation of distinct biological phenomena into a single concept, erroneously called "reward" and attributed to food instead of to our perception of it, has trapped thousands of people in a dead-end from which they cannot possibly understand hunger, obesity, the metabolic syndrome, or anything else.

It's even worse because the science I cite is not new, obscure, or particularly difficult...there's simply no excuse for not presenting it properly.

Cyclops:

Satiety is primarily nutritionally driven.  How much essential nutrition is there in white chocolate with coconut chips?  Let's see...mostly sugar and cocoa butter, with a little bit of milk solids...

So, like most other desserts, it's a source of fat and sugar calories, and little else.  Consequently, it won't produce satiety, and it's a very bad idea to eat it any time you're hungry, because it won't satisfy your hunger.  Yes, there's a reason that I proscribe snacking in "Eat Like A Predator"!

In contrast, no one has to tell us to stop eating steak: it's self-limiting, because our bodies have a sound idea of how much complete protein is required and desired.  In fact, it's very difficult to overeat any minimally processed foods: we generally have to start adding lots of purified oils or sugars -- which, again, generally have most of the nutrients purified out of them.

I didn't talk about willpower much in the presentation, because I didn't have time!  However, I discussed it at some length in Part III.

JS

pam:

I'm not sure it's possible to write these articles for so long, for free, without being enthusiastic about the topic!

eddie:

Let me know what you think.

E Craig:

It's very easy to fall into that particular cognitive trap, especially if you've never been obese.

Glen:

Exactly!  The more nutritionally replete and metabolically functional you are, the less hedonic impact junk food will have.  And since our brains don't have instinctive knowledge of the nutrient content of every possible food, I think it's plausible that it takes some time for them to associate whole, unprocessed, nutrient-dense foods with increased satiation and satiety.

Paul N:

I was able to converse at length with Dr. Roberts the next day at AHS.  He's sharp, and very data-driven: I think the fact that I didn't claim to know what causes obesity impressed him the most.  

Also, I absolutely agree with Dr. Jaminet that nourishing food should also be tasty food.  I harbor some hope that my work has influenced him to be more explicit in that regard, both on his website and in the new edition of the PHD.  

"The lack of satiety many obese people feel is evidence that many (most?) are malnourished."  Absolutely, and it supports my contention that obesity is primarily a failure of satiety -- whether due to a malnourishing "heart-healthy" diet, internal metabolic dysfunction, or (most likely) a combination of both.

JS

Alex:

You're correct: hunger isn't monolithic.  It's completely possible to be hungry for some foods but not others, depending on your own nutritional and metabolic state (your state of satiety), and you gave two good examples.

I think this explains the insatiable cravings that low-fat and vegetarian dieters often have for cheese -- their diets are deficient in saturated fat, often deficient in complete protein, and definitely deficient in the fat-soluble nutrients.  I know that my own cheese cravings basically disappeared after a few months eating paleo...I was getting plenty of those nutrients from fatty meats and other foods.

And I'm with you on the red meat...chicken and pork just don't satiate like beef does.

Colette:

Thank you!  Feel free to spread it via your favorite social media.

pam:

The fundamental issue is this: food does not have an intrinsic property called "reward" or "palatability".  As I emphasize in the presentation, hedonic impact (to use the correct term) is a subjective property which depends on our own nutritional and metabolic state, and our cultural context.  If we try to assign this property to the food itself, we've made a cognitive error from which we can never recover.  This is why FRH can't answer simple questions like:

* Why does food taste so much better when we're hungry than when we're full?

* Why do different cultures find such radically different foods delicious or disgusting?

* Why do I binge on foods I don't even like very much (e.g. stale Wheat Thins), but never binge on foods I find delicious (e.g. prime rib)?

As I explain in the presentation, hedonic impact (colloquially known as "palatability") is just one of the four components of hunger -- and it's primarily a product of the other three.  Yes, people eat more of foods they perceive as "palatable"...but, again, our perception of "palatability" is a subjective function of our own nutritional and metabolic state, and our cultural context.  It's a second- or third-order effect.  Seriously: did food suddenly become tasty in 1980?  No, it didn't...in fact, I contend that the low-fat whole-grain diet foods we're told to eat are much less tasty than the foods they replace!

Furthermore, if satiety is functioning correctly, eating more at one meal generally gets compensated for by eating less at subsequent meals.  (As I pointed out with the food court study example, linked in the bibliography.)  

Again: it is impossible to understand hunger, obesity, or anything else if we persist in thinking of "reward" as a property of food.

To return to your examples: Your butter squash soup is very tasty (it has high hedonic impact), but it's also very nutritious.  Thus, it quickly produces satiation, which causes you to want it less and less (its incentive salience goes down) until you stop eating.  Then, the satiety it produces leaves you feeling "full", i.e. not wanting more food, for some time.  

In contrast, the instant ramen has hedonic impact, due to the salt, fat, and MSG...but since its not nutritious, it does not produce much satiation or satiety, and you're still hungry after eating it.

Also recall from the presentation that the satiety response triggers a reward response by itself, independent of any sense of taste!  So as you continue to eat nourishing food, your body associates the reward of satiety with the nourishing food you ate, and you begin to "like" it more (the taste accumulates hedonic impact).  

A familiar example to everyone is beer: it's a bitter taste that we only begin to find pleasurable once it becomes associated with the alcohol intoxication which results from repeated ingestion.

JS