Guyenet suspects that our brain’s weight set point might never go down dramatically after living long enough in the modern world, even if we eventually stop eating palatable food altogether. If true, this would make his theory harder to test, and again, his theory would earn a penalty for being more unfalsifiable, but at the same time, we should be clear about what observations his theory strongly predicts, and rapid weight loss on unpalatable diets is just not one of them.
I don’t understand how CICO can coexist with the idea of a weight set point.
If the mechanism of gaining weight is CICO via overeating because food is so palatable, then it seems natural than on unpalatable food you would eat less, and thus I would expect rapid weight loss on unpalatable diets as a prediction of the theory.
The story I have heard is that fat cells, when they grow too large (from more energy in than out), create new fat cells, and when they grow smaller (because more energy out than in), shrink and send signals that say “please feed me” instead of disappearing.
If true, then it seems reasonable that you could have the lipostat mostly work as a ratchet, where it’s easier to grow accustomed to higher weights than lower weights.
[I think there’s some evidence against this story—you would expect liposuction to be more effective if this was the primary mechanism—but I think it’s more the case that lots of things are going on, and so nothing is only thing you have to think about.]
I don’t understand how CICO can coexist with the idea of a weight set point. If the mechanism of gaining weight is CICO via overeating because food is so palatable, then it seems natural than on unpalatable food you would eat less, and thus I would expect rapid weight loss on unpalatable diets as a prediction of the theory.
to clarify, I don’t understand why positive CICO can increase your weight set point but negative CICO can’t decrease it.
The story I have heard is that fat cells, when they grow too large (from more energy in than out), create new fat cells, and when they grow smaller (because more energy out than in), shrink and send signals that say “please feed me” instead of disappearing.
If true, then it seems reasonable that you could have the lipostat mostly work as a ratchet, where it’s easier to grow accustomed to higher weights than lower weights.
[I think there’s some evidence against this story—you would expect liposuction to be more effective if this was the primary mechanism—but I think it’s more the case that lots of things are going on, and so nothing is only thing you have to think about.]
Not an explanation, but type 2 diabetes is an example of a system failing(/adapting) in one direction and then not being reversible.