The bottom line is that the Maillard reaction is not a modern superstimulus.
The bottom line is that the products of the Maillard reaction are unhealthy for humans and taste better to humans that healthy alternatives. Whether or not the Maillard reactions were less concentrated (note, this does not mean non-existent) in our evolutionary path has bearing on a possible explanation of this bottom line, which we can directly observe in modern times.
It’s not in the same class of things as a candy bar.
A candy bar does involve more processing and is a greater superstimulus in absolute terms, though the Maillard reactions are in a way more insidious. Any adult human eating a candy bar will be aware that they are consuming an unhealthy desert, but most adults consuming browned meat will be under the false impression that they are eating something healthy.
The bottom line is that the products of the Maillard reaction are unhealthy for humans
I’m kind of stunned at your ability to jump to certainties based on extremely flimsy evidence. And the way you’re clinging to a hypothesis that has no historical support. This is strongly anti-rational behavior.
It doesn’t seem like continuing this discussion would be productive.
I think you’re missing part of JGWeissman’s argument, which is somewhat understandable as he hasn’t explicitly spelled it out.
The fact that the Maillard reaction was, most likely, present in ancient cooking does not imply that the results of that reaction are harmless. It’s evidence in that direction, but it’s not conclusive. In particular, the fact that the compounds caused by the Maillard reaction build up over time and lead to a somewhat earlier death, rather than being a faster-acting kind of poison, make it hard for evolution to select against liking those compounds. (It’s similarly hard for evolution to select against other things that happen after organisms are mostly done raising their offspring, such as Alzheimer’s.) Thus, it’s not particularly improbable that both ‘the Maillard reaction has been used by humans for many thousands of years’ and ‘the products of the Maillard reaction reduce human lifespan’ are true, and if there are studies that say the latter, they aren’t in conflict with the former.
The fact that the Maillard reaction was, most likely, present in ancient cooking does not imply that the results of that reaction are harmless.
Yeah, that’s a somewhat different topic than the question of whether the Maillard reaction can be described as a “superstimulus” in the way Eliezar defined the term here—if you read the link, you’ll see that he’s talking specifically about “a point in tastespace that wasn’t in the training dataset—an impossibly distant outlier on the old ancestral graphs. Tastiness, formerly representing the evolutionarily identified correlates of healthiness, has been reverse-engineered and perfectly matched with an artificial substance.” This description applies well to a Snickers bar, but does not apply at all to the Maillard reaction, which was in fact very present “on the old ancestral graphs.”
The question of whether cooking food makes it less healthy is one that applies to all food, not just meats and veggies that have undergone the Maillard reaction. One of the mistakes JGWeissman made was to do a quick Google search looking only to confirm his preconceptions, and to stop there, instead of trying to figure out how the research he’d found fits into the broader picture of truth (rather than how it could be twisted to score a point in a silly argument). In fact, the overarching question is one that’s being rather hotly debated, as you can figure out quickly if you Google terms like “raw food diet.” The food science on this is complicated, not at all settled, and I am not an authority on the subject so I’m not going to try to summarize it here—but suffice it to say that if we start wading into this we won’t be just talking about the Maillard reaction anymore.
One of the mistakes JGWeissman made was to do a quick Google search looking only to confirm his preconceptions
My “preconceptions” were that this process I just read about which breaks down amino acids and carbohydrates (which makes them tastier) might be destroying the nutritional value of the amino acids and increase the amount of of simple sugars that cause blood sugar spikes. I was very uncertain about the size of the effect, expecting it to be somewhere in between this completely destroys the nutritional value of the affected meat, to this is a negligible affect that leaves most of the nutritional value in tact (and I should use this technique when cooking). I was surprised to learn (not from my own Google search, but from following links from Saturn’s comment), that the results of the reaction are actively harmful.
and to stop there
I posted a comment expressing my dissatisfaction with the amount of information I got from search, including the closest thing I found to an answer and further questions that I had.
instead of trying to figure out how the research he’d found fits into the broader picture of truth
Fitting things “into the broader picture of truth” sounds like a nice ideal, but I don’t see how to cash that out into a concrete action here.
(rather than how it could be twisted to score a point in a silly argument)
The question of nutritional effects is what I have been primarily interested in here. It seemed appropriate to me to clarify that the hidden query I was really asking with “Is this a superstimulus?” was about nutritional values and what I should do about it, not the ancestral environment.
In fact, the overarching question is one that’s being rather hotly debated, as you can figure out quickly if you Google terms like “raw food diet.”
It usually works better to separate out a single question, and control other factors when conducting experiments to answer it. Trying to figure out the effects of advanced glycation end products, phytonutrients, killing bacteria, and pure veganism all at once is likely to cause confusion.
(The existing downvote isn’t from me. I’m probably not going to respond to this, but if I do it will be no sooner than tomorrow—I don’t have the time or energy to properly parse it right now.)
The bottom line is that the products of the Maillard reaction are unhealthy for humans and taste better to humans that healthy alternatives. Whether or not the Maillard reactions were less concentrated (note, this does not mean non-existent) in our evolutionary path has bearing on a possible explanation of this bottom line, which we can directly observe in modern times.
A candy bar does involve more processing and is a greater superstimulus in absolute terms, though the Maillard reactions are in a way more insidious. Any adult human eating a candy bar will be aware that they are consuming an unhealthy desert, but most adults consuming browned meat will be under the false impression that they are eating something healthy.
I’m kind of stunned at your ability to jump to certainties based on extremely flimsy evidence. And the way you’re clinging to a hypothesis that has no historical support. This is strongly anti-rational behavior.
It doesn’t seem like continuing this discussion would be productive.
I think you’re missing part of JGWeissman’s argument, which is somewhat understandable as he hasn’t explicitly spelled it out.
The fact that the Maillard reaction was, most likely, present in ancient cooking does not imply that the results of that reaction are harmless. It’s evidence in that direction, but it’s not conclusive. In particular, the fact that the compounds caused by the Maillard reaction build up over time and lead to a somewhat earlier death, rather than being a faster-acting kind of poison, make it hard for evolution to select against liking those compounds. (It’s similarly hard for evolution to select against other things that happen after organisms are mostly done raising their offspring, such as Alzheimer’s.) Thus, it’s not particularly improbable that both ‘the Maillard reaction has been used by humans for many thousands of years’ and ‘the products of the Maillard reaction reduce human lifespan’ are true, and if there are studies that say the latter, they aren’t in conflict with the former.
Yeah, that’s a somewhat different topic than the question of whether the Maillard reaction can be described as a “superstimulus” in the way Eliezar defined the term here—if you read the link, you’ll see that he’s talking specifically about “a point in tastespace that wasn’t in the training dataset—an impossibly distant outlier on the old ancestral graphs. Tastiness, formerly representing the evolutionarily identified correlates of healthiness, has been reverse-engineered and perfectly matched with an artificial substance.” This description applies well to a Snickers bar, but does not apply at all to the Maillard reaction, which was in fact very present “on the old ancestral graphs.”
The question of whether cooking food makes it less healthy is one that applies to all food, not just meats and veggies that have undergone the Maillard reaction. One of the mistakes JGWeissman made was to do a quick Google search looking only to confirm his preconceptions, and to stop there, instead of trying to figure out how the research he’d found fits into the broader picture of truth (rather than how it could be twisted to score a point in a silly argument). In fact, the overarching question is one that’s being rather hotly debated, as you can figure out quickly if you Google terms like “raw food diet.” The food science on this is complicated, not at all settled, and I am not an authority on the subject so I’m not going to try to summarize it here—but suffice it to say that if we start wading into this we won’t be just talking about the Maillard reaction anymore.
My “preconceptions” were that this process I just read about which breaks down amino acids and carbohydrates (which makes them tastier) might be destroying the nutritional value of the amino acids and increase the amount of of simple sugars that cause blood sugar spikes. I was very uncertain about the size of the effect, expecting it to be somewhere in between this completely destroys the nutritional value of the affected meat, to this is a negligible affect that leaves most of the nutritional value in tact (and I should use this technique when cooking). I was surprised to learn (not from my own Google search, but from following links from Saturn’s comment), that the results of the reaction are actively harmful.
I posted a comment expressing my dissatisfaction with the amount of information I got from search, including the closest thing I found to an answer and further questions that I had.
Fitting things “into the broader picture of truth” sounds like a nice ideal, but I don’t see how to cash that out into a concrete action here.
The question of nutritional effects is what I have been primarily interested in here. It seemed appropriate to me to clarify that the hidden query I was really asking with “Is this a superstimulus?” was about nutritional values and what I should do about it, not the ancestral environment.
It usually works better to separate out a single question, and control other factors when conducting experiments to answer it. Trying to figure out the effects of advanced glycation end products, phytonutrients, killing bacteria, and pure veganism all at once is likely to cause confusion.
(The existing downvote isn’t from me. I’m probably not going to respond to this, but if I do it will be no sooner than tomorrow—I don’t have the time or energy to properly parse it right now.)