Please correct me if I\’m wrong here

A scarcely regulated food industry can engineer its products – loading them with fat, salt, sugar and high-fructose corn syrup – to bypass the neurological signals that would otherwise prompt people to stop eating.

I thought fat and such things were the bits that made us stop eating?

14 thoughts on “Please correct me if I\’m wrong here”

  1. It’s the sensation of fullness that triggers the desire to stop eating, and proteins and complex carbohydrates (starches) trigger it more strongly than fats and simple carbohydrates (sugars).

  2. Satiety is complicated and varies a lot from person to person. It’s one of the reasons why obesity isn’t evenly distributed.

  3. Yep, its crap. AS with all species we’ve evolved to make the most of times of plenty in order to tide over the times of scarcity – we don’t have much scarcity any more.

    Satiety is complex but largely unrelated to out ability to metabolise sugars and lay down fat reserves.

  4. If the research is correct (forget Monbiot and his social agendas for a moment) and there’s a link between a ‘western’ diet and Altzheimers then it should be readily apparent by comparing rates in societies with different dietary habits. There should also be a noticeable rise in Altzheimers rates for, say, the 70s and 80s over those from 50 years ago.

  5. Obviously a slow news day for the AGW alarmists. For Moonbat and @RichardJMurphy’s benefit, I am reliably informed the North Korean Food industry which is hyper -regulated (and the closest thing to ‘The Courageous State’ in the real world!) has no such issues -starvation does appear to be a problem, though……

  6. as I understand it, protein is the best thing for making you feel full, but sugar and fat can disproportionately set off your dopamine production (hence comfort-eating, also hence how other dopamine producing activities act as appetite suppressants).

  7. Food manufacturers sell products we want to eat. Who’d have thought it. I only skimmed the article but the whole thing is just laughable, a study involving 54 people, wow he really is dredging the bottom of the barrel.

    This is all part of the war on allowing people to make free choices in what they put in their bodies. It’s about them and their need to control us, not about our health.

    The Beeb is already going 24/7 with the anti alcohol propaganda and lies, today’s instalment is here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19553239

    Food will be next on their radar.

  8. Speaking as a cook – we all know that you’re far more likely to ‘make space’ for an attractive bit of dessert after a good meal than to force down an extra spoonful of gruel. In that sense, I think it’s pretty obviously correct. I’m sure we’re also all familiar with things which are ‘more-ish’, and I know I have a fondness for what Terry Pratchett called BCBs – burnt crunchy bits.

    I don’t think the bit about bypassing neurological signals is necessarily right, but certainly you can make foods which will taste good enough to keep you eating long past satiation.

  9. @Ian (#10) FFS. Of course we probably wouldn’t have these problems if whoever it was in the last government (or the one before, I can’t really remember) hadn’t decided to decide that what they would call ‘binge drinking’ was what most of us call ‘lunch’ at the weekend.

    In any case, it’s all a bit post hoc ergo propter hoc, isn’t it? I’m sure you can find a huge number of children whose parents drink to harmful levels. I’m equally sure that the drinking is at best one of their problems, and in some cases a comparitively minor one.

  10. The old leftist fallacy of people as mere automatons helpless in the face of capitalism, with Marxist nut jobs as their only saviours.

  11. I think he’s talking about the food reward hypothesis. It’s a controversial but nonetheless serious matter of debate within obesity research. Not, in other words, some kind of leftist plot.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *