eddie:

I was surprised that Stephan chose to attack me so directly, including a few gratuitious ad hominems...but as the video wasn't available, I didn't feel it was productive to respond at the time.  I believe my presentation of the science (including the bibliography) is the strongest response to such attacks.

Yes, "Wheat Thins" are an oily, salty American snack cracker that comes loose in boxes, as if it were cereal.

I greatly appreciate your efforts to spread The Gnoll Credo!  Telling Gryka's story is the reason I created this site in the first place...note that it's called gnolls.org, not "yetanotherpaleoblog.com".

Alex:

Thank you. 

There's no secret to why my presentation makes more sense: I didn't begin my research with a pre-existing hypothesis I hoped to prove.

Instead, I decided to read as much of the recent literature I could in an effort to understand the modern theoretical and biochemical basis of hunger, whatever that might be.  I found, to my surprise, that there was extensive existing literature on the functioning of the reward system, and on how it applied specifically to our perception of hunger.

Result: I've been able to summarize the science of hunger in a clear and understandable way.  

(In contrast, trying to force the facts to fit one's own preconceived notions generally results in "explanations" that are some combination of nebulous, circular, self-contradictory, or protean.)

I'm glad you find my work useful!  Please spread it whenever it's appropriate (e.g. people arguing over whether a food is "palatable" or "rewarding").

JS

jesse:

I already have!  Seth Roberts' "Shangri-La Diet" is a much more sophisticated exploration of the reward system as applied to food consumption.  Again, it's not the entire story by a long shot -- but he's found an interesting piece of it.  And as I said above, it's explainable in terms of the four basic motivations.

Amy:

I'm not a fan of most multivitamins, which usually give you a lot of things you maybe shouldn't have too much of (e.g. folic acid, manganese) and neglect things you're most likely deficient in (e.g. copper).  However, even "Eat Like A Predator" recommends D3, a bit of fish oil, and (now) magnesium.  If you want to be more comprehensive, the Jaminets' list at Perfect Health Diet is solid.  I'm not anti-supplement, I'm pro-getting nutrition from food...but there are some micronutrients that our modern food environment makes difficult or impossible to get.

I'm glad you've found success, and I'm glad I was able to help in some way!  Do stick around: I try to keep gnolls.org free of gratuitous arguments.

Jane:

The diet was a fairly solid approximation of the Standard American Diet of the era.  Yes, it included white flour and some sugar, but it also contained meat, eggs, fruits, vegetables, and other real vitamin-containing foods -- in contrast to the research diets used in most rodent experiments these days, which are made entirely out of individual purified ingredients plus supplementation.

I agree that the rat study raises some very interesting questions, like "Which of the supplemented nutrients were making the difference?"

And while I'm pointing out that obese people tend to have many different nutritional deficiencies, I'm not attempting to explain them purely in terms of ingestion...or explain them at all!  That's why I spent more time on the controlled interventions: I don't know which of those deficiencies might be a cause and which an effect (or a side effect).

In any case, it's clear that micronutrient status affects our perception of hunger.  This is an important fact which bears further investigation!

Jen W:

I believe that's the argument being made.

jesse:

What do you mean by "energy balance?"  Our bodies have different requirements for protein, fat, and carbohydrate, and they have differing requirements and uses for nutrients within each class (e.g. linoleic acid != lauric acid).  A "calorie" of protein (and what kind of protein?) is not interchangeable with a "calorie" of glucose.  See these articles by Jamie Scott for an in-depth exploration of the subject: Part I, Part II.

The obvious consequence is that we can be hungry, even while in a theoretical calorie surplus.  For example, you can eat all the Skittles you want -- but since they have no protein or other nutrients, you'll never feel satiated, and you'll still be hungry even though you've consumed far more "calories" than your body needs each day.

So it isn't a question of micro vs. macro...it's a question of "What capacity does our body have to store this particular nutrient?"

JS

Jane:

As the Jaminets are fond of pointing out, every nutrient has an optimal range.  Below it, we have deficiency issues: above it, we have toxicity issues.  So it's not surprising that a modern diet can produce both deficiency and toxicity, depending on the foods consumed — especially when so many foods are "fortified" with a small subset of vital nutrients, based on nothing but guesses of how much an person of average mass and physical activity might decide to consume in a day.

jesse:

I think you're confusing your terms.  Macronutrients are defined as "nutrients we need macroscopic quantities of," i.e. proteins, fats, carbohydrates — and (sometimes) minerals we need a lot of, like salt, potassium, calcium, and magnesium.  So a need for "energy substrate" is by definition a need for macronutrients.

One analogy is: your can needs many different fluids to keep running.  Gasoline, engine oil, transmission oil, power steering fluid, brake fluid, windshield washer fluid, etc.  Your car consumes each of them at different rates, has a different capacity for storing each one, and they're not interconvertible…you can't say "Well, I need to change the engine oil, but all I have is power steering fluid, so I'll just put that in instead."  

Fortunately your body, unlike your car, has the ability to store calories it doesn''t need as fat or glycogen, or burn them as heat…but, with a couple exceptions which are very limited in how much they can process (protein->carb, carb->fat) it can't convert them from one form to another.  So a "calorie" is not a calorie.  For instance, if your body needs protein, you'll still be hungry no matter how many "calories" worth of starch you feed it, because you can't convert starch into protein.

Add to that facts like: eating less (less calories in) slows your metabolism, so less calories in = less calories out, and we can see that the entire concept of "energy balance" is a dramatic oversimplification.  

Returning to the car analogy, it's as if we said "Hey, I've put as many fluids into the car as have gone out of the car, why did it stop running?  After all, the car is in fluid balance."  Answer: gasoline won't substitute for transmission oil, and wiper fluid won't substitute for brake fluid!

JS

Jane:

That's an interesting development (AFAIK uroguanylin was previously thought only to regulate fluid balance), but I don't know enough about its other interactions to write an article that gives my readers a useful takeaway.  Otherwise I'm just saying "Hey, look at this new satiety hormone we found, add it to the list." (along with CCK, PYY, GLP-1, etc.)

Also, I've fixed the part where my forum software munches URLs.

Sondra Rose:

I'm glad to hear of your success!  

Nutrition seems to be at the base of the health pyramid: fixing nutrition isn't a guarantee that our other problems will be fixed, but it seems to be a necessary precondition, and it often accomplishes a great deal on its own.

jesse:

OK, I think I understand what you're saying now.  Yes, the need for more energy substrate is absolutely a cause of hunger...and it's usually the primary driver!  (Most people think it's the only driver.)

Furthermore, in metabolically functional animals (including people) this drive is generally in balance with actual energy needs.  As I said in the speech and in my articles, "Any animal whose faulty perceptions and motivations caused it to become obese, emaciated, malnourished, or poisoned by excess would have been strongly selected against."

What I'm addressing in my articles, and my speech, are the situations in which hunger is out of balance with energy needs.  "I'm gaining fat, why am I still hungry all of the time?"  

There are several reasons I don't like speaking in terms of "energy balance."  

First, as I think I hammered home above, "calories" aren't an interchangeable currency.  As you note, for someone doing frequent, heavily glycolytic workouts, fat does not interchange for carbohydrate...so it's quite possible to be hungry for something that can replenish muscle glycogen even in a theoretical "calorie surplus".  

In contrast, a sedentary person who doesn't undergo glycolytic exercise has very little storage capacity for carbohydrate, so once their liver is replete, they'll be storing it in fat cells and revving up their metabolism to try and burn it off...and they'll generally be hungry again once this process completes, even though they're in "calorie surplus" and gaining weight.  Such a person should be eating more fat, which is supplying most of their energy needs at rest and at low exercise intensities (e.g. walking), and which won't result in metabolic spikes, blood sugar spikes, and then, inappropriate hunger.

Second, our bodies work very hard to adapt themselves to existing conditions, including food intake.  Eat insufficient salt and your body will conserve it: eat an excess and your body will excrete it.  Eat less energy substrate in general, and your basal metabolic rate will probably drop, as will your desire to expend energy via exercise.  Eat adequate calories but zero carbohydrate, and your RER will drop as your body adapts to greater availability of fat.  And so on.  

So yes, I agree that a requirement for energy substrate is the primary driver of hunger.  However, that drive is modulated by micronutritional state...

...and "calories" are not a fully interchangeable currency that satisfies a fixed need for energy.  

That being said, it's absolutely legitimate to make a judgment based on the state of the system at a specific time, e.g. "If you want to gain muscle mass, you need to consume enough energy substrate to synthesize the tissues as well as the amino acids and fats required to build them -- which is more than you consume in order to maintain your current weight at your current activity level."  

I believe that's what you're saying, and I agree.

However, what that does NOT mean is that if you ingest 500 more "calories" per day, you'll magically gain X pounds of mass per week.  Your body might rev up your BMR to burn it off as heat ("I feel really warm today"); it might store it as fat; or it might synthesize new muscle tissue, IF there is sufficient protein available, IF you're generating anabolic signals through resistance exercise and a sufficiency of the hundreds of other factors required.  Etc.

And that is why it's counterproductive to think purely in terms of "calories".  There is no biological system that has, as its input, a "calorie".  

JS

Jesse:

I'm glad we were able to communicate an understanding.  Thank you for the support...and if you find my work helpful, you can support it by picking up a copy of TGC, a T-shirt, or just buying some stuff through my Amazon link.

JS