Hello BBM team,
while reading “The Hungry Brain” one thing that I found fascinating are the parts that talk about the bland liquid diet experiments (e.g. chapter 3). In my understanding of these passages, apart from the food environment, the food we consume is an input that shifts the bodyweight setpoint up or down, along with other effects on satiation etc. This makes it possible to lose weight while not engaging the starvation response, i.e. with “central approval” from the brain. Of course there is inter-participator variability, but it still seems a revolutionary fact to me that would seem useful when counseling patients. It is (at least to me) a very motivating factor in choosing appropriate foods for my goals.
Is this an accurate reading? Wanted to be sure if there is any nuance that I did not catch.
Thank you!
I don’t think that the food consumed itself modulates any sort of “set point”, e.g. body weight, body fat, or otherwise. I do think the food reward plays a large role in appetite and satiety, thereby modulating energy intake. Reducing intake of processed foods- particularly those with added sugar, added fat, and added sodium, would be beneficial in this regard.
Hi Jordan, thank you for your response!
I would use “food reward” if I could rewrite my post. I agree that it is not strictly an effect of the food directly. Since the recommendation is the same anyway, I apologize for hyper-focusing on something that may not seem that consequential. However, if you’ll indulge me:
The core idea I am examining is if a low food reward diet reduces the starvation response during weight loss. It is a “practical conclusion” the author comes to in chapter 6, and seemed pretty useful as a re-frame on why these foods may be helpful beyond their low calorie density. The fact that low-reward foods may shield me from the hunger that comes as I lose weight is a pretty motivating and enabling mind-frame. I quote the relevant passage below:
“Yet we don’t know as much about the mechanisms underlying the reverse connection: how food reward might affect the brain regions that determine appetite and adiposity. We do, however, have enough information to arrive at some practical conclusions. First, calorie-dense, highly rewarding food may favor overeating and weight gain not just because we passively overeat it but also because it turns up the set point of the lipostat. […] Second, focusing the diet on less rewarding foods may make it easier to lose weight and maintain weight loss because the lipostat doesn’t fight it as vigorously.”
Would you disagree with this “practical conclusion”? Do you think sharing it is unhelpful, due to it being only tentatively supported by the evidence?
The “starvation response” is probably better understood as a commensurate increase in appetite after weight loss, though other things happen too, e.g. reduced REE, more time spent sedentary, etc. The latter things occur regardless of dietary intake until fat mass is restored or a new set point is achieved.
Diets, environments, and lifestyles that increase satiety (and sensitivity to it) and reduce appetite would be beneficial for weight loss and maintenance. From a diet and environment perspective, limiting consumption and exposure to ultraprocessed, hyperpalatable, energy dense foods would be great. I’d advocate for that as an actionable step rather than wading into the waters of food reward.
It is interesting information. I have never thought or heard about it. It will help if you read the incomprehensible passage from the book again.