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.
I mean it’s fair enough that the restrictions needn’t be too high. But still, the restriction should be on palatability itself, not on the inputs to the food that may sometimes contribute to palatability (unless you have a highly precise set of restrictions to the inputs that are sufficient to match the tradition).
Extra fats and sweeteners do help a lot with palatability. But to some extent, fat could be extracted from other means; to some extent, palatability could be improved by changing proportions; etc.. Even things like careful optimization through large-scale experimentation will help with palatability, and so should probably be avoided.
Let’s say people didn’t used to be obese in the 50′s. Ok, what did people eat back then? How palatable was it, on average? That seems like what one should aim for. Maybe one can contact a food historian or something to figure out more?
I should also add: assuming some sort of monotonicity, it may be helpful for the statistics to exaggerate the unpalatability compared to the past, because it increases the expected effect if palatability matters, and so makes it easier to detect. But obviously it comes with the downside that it’s not as clear whether it really matches what you’d eat on a medium-palatability diet.
You can compare both ingredient lists and serving sizes if you look at cookbooks from the 1950s-1960s and recipe sites today. My Betty Crocker cookbook from 1969 (where I get most of my dessert recipes) has a brownie recipe that calls for 2 cups sugar, 4 oz chocolate, 2⁄3 cup butter; it’s meant to bake in a 13x9 pan and yield 32 brownies.
The brownie recipe on Betty Crocker’s website (that is, “today’s brownie recipe”) calls for 1 3⁄4 cups sugar, 5 oz chocolate, 2⁄3 cup butter, but is meant to bake in a 9x9 pan and yield 16 brownies.
You can compare both ingredient lists and serving sizes if you look at cookbooks from the 1950s-1960s and recipe sites today.
In principle yes, but the question is also the distribution of recipes they ate. I’d assume some of their recipes are more palatable than others, and if you disproportionately ate the more palatable ones, presumably the diet wouldn’t work. I don’t even how popular recipe books used to be back then. It seems like one should put some serious historical effort in to ensure that it gets properly replicated.
My Betty Crocker cookbook from 1969 (where I get most of my dessert recipes) has a brownie recipe that calls for 2 cups sugar, 4 oz chocolate, 2⁄3 cup butter; it’s meant to bake in a 13x9 pan and yield 32 brownies.
The brownie recipe on Betty Crocker’s website (that is, “today’s brownie recipe”) calls for 1 3⁄4 cups sugar, 5 oz chocolate, 2⁄3 cup butter, but is meant to bake in a 9x9 pan and yield 16 brownies.
hmmmmmmmm...
In addition to the distribution question, 1969 is a bit on the late side.
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 would be wary about making too big assumptions about what cannot be achieved when optimization pressure is applied. But maybe.
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.
I wouldn’t predict past blandness to be something that one could actually follow for the rest of one’s life. Though I am not familiar enough with the quality of the foods back then, so I don’t know.
I mean it’s fair enough that the restrictions needn’t be too high. But still, the restriction should be on palatability itself, not on the inputs to the food that may sometimes contribute to palatability (unless you have a highly precise set of restrictions to the inputs that are sufficient to match the tradition).
Extra fats and sweeteners do help a lot with palatability. But to some extent, fat could be extracted from other means; to some extent, palatability could be improved by changing proportions; etc.. Even things like careful optimization through large-scale experimentation will help with palatability, and so should probably be avoided.
Let’s say people didn’t used to be obese in the 50′s. Ok, what did people eat back then? How palatable was it, on average? That seems like what one should aim for. Maybe one can contact a food historian or something to figure out more?
I should also add: assuming some sort of monotonicity, it may be helpful for the statistics to exaggerate the unpalatability compared to the past, because it increases the expected effect if palatability matters, and so makes it easier to detect. But obviously it comes with the downside that it’s not as clear whether it really matches what you’d eat on a medium-palatability diet.
You can compare both ingredient lists and serving sizes if you look at cookbooks from the 1950s-1960s and recipe sites today. My Betty Crocker cookbook from 1969 (where I get most of my dessert recipes) has a brownie recipe that calls for 2 cups sugar, 4 oz chocolate, 2⁄3 cup butter; it’s meant to bake in a 13x9 pan and yield 32 brownies.
The brownie recipe on Betty Crocker’s website (that is, “today’s brownie recipe”) calls for 1 3⁄4 cups sugar, 5 oz chocolate, 2⁄3 cup butter, but is meant to bake in a 9x9 pan and yield 16 brownies.
hmmmmmmmm...
In principle yes, but the question is also the distribution of recipes they ate. I’d assume some of their recipes are more palatable than others, and if you disproportionately ate the more palatable ones, presumably the diet wouldn’t work. I don’t even how popular recipe books used to be back then. It seems like one should put some serious historical effort in to ensure that it gets properly replicated.
In addition to the distribution question, 1969 is a bit on the late side.
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.
I would be wary about making too big assumptions about what cannot be achieved when optimization pressure is applied. But maybe.
I wouldn’t predict past blandness to be something that one could actually follow for the rest of one’s life. Though I am not familiar enough with the quality of the foods back then, so I don’t know.