sethroberts.net forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Then I had breakfast and for the first time in my adult life I had a regular human breakfast. I ate a sufficient amount of food for a regular size human. And I was full. -- Morex

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27   Go Down

Author Topic: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment  (Read 80838 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

girljedi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 643
  • "Do or do not; there is no try...."
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2006, 02:23:33 pm »

As a public librarian, I am SO glad to hear of my fellow forum buddies using the library!  (Not to deny Dr. Roberts ANY of his royaties per copies sold :oops:)  I did buy my own copy after checking out one of the library's copies three times!
Logged


TalkingRat

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1624
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2006, 03:01:24 pm »


I have my copy, too -- but I started with the library.  We have a countywide system with online access. 

I think I'll keep an eye on it, and see if the magazine article kicks up the number of book requests.  If they get lots of requests, they order more.  :D
Logged


Virggie

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #17 on: September 25, 2006, 12:37:30 pm »

Hi I did start the SLD diet today and I started to feel NOT HUNGERY!!!!! I just can't believe it is working all ready. The taste did not bother me. NO Taste at all no oily feeling.

I can't wait to see the change in my weight.

Now I know that I don't know alot about computers but how do you get the neat weight things to come up I have tried and don't work for me can anyone help????

Thanks Virggie




Logged

CarolS

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 654
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #18 on: September 25, 2006, 12:52:13 pm »

So you went to tickerfactory.com?  Choose the first block to cut and paste into your post.

Good luck!

BTW I thought the oil had no taste in the beginning.  After a few months it started to have a taste that I could detect - now I gotta noseclip or hold my nose.  Just something to look out for  :)
Logged

shovelqueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3543
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2009, 04:46:17 pm »

I'm bumping this thread up to the present to encourage more of us to read the discussion here about the SLD theory.  Start at the beginning and read through, it's only a page and a half.  What I really noticed about the difference between this discussion and the current ones is the focus on hormones, neural pathways, sensory imput, etc.  Rather than "the body decides to" do whatever. 

In the end, our bodies are a stunningly complex conglomeration of biochemical and bioelectric reactions that all operate according to the laws of physics, like the laws of thermodynamics or osmosic pressures or electrical gradients across membranes.  The triggers for these reactions are just as complex.  And the mechanism by which the triggers cause a specific response are mind-bogglingly complex as well.  We (meaning humanity) are just now starting to understand the depth of the complexity.  I would recommend the film, "What the %*^&(Bleep) Do We Know?" for a look at the role of "reality",our perceptions, neurotransmitters, etc.  It's a bizarre film, and you may need to watch it more than once to "get" some of it (I know I did!), but it really makes you question what you think you "know".

And I would also strongly recomend "Good Calories, Bad Calories" for an indepth discussion of what causes obesity and what may work to promote weight loss.  It turns the common preconceptions on their heads, and in the end, make alot of sense of the actual antecdotal evidence.  I'm not saying that everything he says is gospel, but he goes back to the basic preconceptions that everything has been based on, and questions them.  In the light of present knowledge, they just don't hold up to the science. 
Logged




"Strength, balance, joy!"

Oslo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 483
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2009, 12:26:40 am »

 Todd (NTB) unfortunately disappeared after four important posts -- the ones here, the [Saint] "Todd's oil milk recipe" and xylitol intrigue!     Whoever can get him to reappear with a followup report is hereby also inducted into SLD sainthood! 
Logged
Looking for a point of natural easy-to-maintain stability with a BMI 20-21.  Down from 23+.

Polaroid Doll

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2009, 05:41:19 am »

the proof is in the pudding -- that is you've lost weight easily -- but can we really trust the recipe from which the pudding was made? yes, it would be odd indeed if I used wrong ideas to come up with a really good diet.

here is what your alternative explanation doesn't explain:

1. there is lots of evidence for a set point apart from my particular version of setpoint theory . It is a 50-year-old idea.

2. Whatever your dosage of SLD calories -- say 2 T of oil/day -- eventually your appetite will return and you will stop losing weight. My theory predicts this: you have reached a new equilibrium. Your alternative does not.

3. my theory doesn't say that any flavors stimulate appetite, only flavors associated with calories. Unfamiliar flavors should have no effect. This is a prediction that conventional ideas about weight control do not make -- that familiarity matters. In particular familiar foods are more fattening than the same foods when they are new.

I believe my theory because it has repeatedly suggested new ways of losing weight that, when tried, actually work. This has now happened about six times.

From my experience, the huge difference is that in the past, about the point I lost twenty pounds, my metabolism would shut down, hard and cold, and weight loss would stop.  With the SLD, that still hasn't happened.



There's been some discussion here, however, that it may actually slow down. Hasn't it been mentioned that Seth's maintenance intake is only 1200 calories? Maintenance levels for a grown man (assuming average height and build) is usually 2000 calories or slightly more...

It would be interesting to know how many calories other maintainers can consume without losing weight. Although decreased metabolism isn't mentioned as a specific result of this diet, many posts here would seem to indicate that it is a result.

From Seth Roberts, 6:01 a.m. today as Reply #1:

The proof is in the pudding -- that is you've lost weight easily -- but can we really trust the recipe from which the pudding was made? yes, it would be odd indeed if I used wrong ideas to come up with a really good diet.

here is what your alternative explanation doesn't explain:

1. there is lots of evidence for a set point apart from my particular version of setpoint theory . It is a 50-year-old idea.



My reply:
1.  It would not be odd that a wrong or less adequate theory generates a good invention or predictions.  This has happened often in the history of science and technology, e.g., the phlogiston theory of combustion helped provide a coherent explanation of phenomena as various as combustion, metabolism, and formation of rust, but eventually was replaced by Lavoisier's caloric theory of combustion based on his experiments with oxygen.



In short:  Sometimes a very nice theory generates a large number of very useful observations and results.   But then one must be willing to follow the observations wherever they go, and modify, revise, or even overthrow the theory in favor of one that is more adequate to the data -- when this becomes necessary or more productive.

I was going to point this out myself; something can work for reasons other than what we currently believe. Having lost weight the doesn't prove the theory, it proves that if one follows the method, they can lose weight.

Quote from: shovelqueen
link=topic=2169.msg83830#msg83830 date=1239147977


In the end, our bodies are a stunningly complex conglomeration of biochemical and bioelectric reactions that all operate according to the laws of physics, like the laws of thermodynamics or osmosic pressures or electrical gradients across membranes.  The triggers for these reactions are just as complex.  And the mechanism by which the triggers cause a specific response are mind-bogglingly complex as well.  We (meaning humanity) are just now starting to understand the depth of the complexity.  I would recommend the film, "What the %*^&(Bleep) Do We Know?" for a look at the role of "reality",our perceptions, neurotransmitters, etc.  It's a bizarre film, and you may need to watch it more than once to "get" some of it (I know I did!), but it really makes you question what you think you "know".
 

It's true, SQ, that we will never know all of the details. But as you point out, it's possible to know when the details are not consistent with either the science or the observations.

Regarding the film, I saw it a few years ago, and found it to be a gross exaggeration of quantum physics. Of course, it's only a film, so what should we expect, right? I guess my point is, although we would like to think there could be some odd, supernatural (or quantum mechanical) reason for our weight loss, quantum mechanics applies only on the quantum level, not the macro. And the supernatural...?
Logged

Heidi 555

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1675
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2009, 03:29:21 pm »

Todd (NTB) unfortunately disappeared after four important posts -- the ones here, the [Saint] "Todd's oil milk recipe" and xylitol intrigue!     Whoever can get him to reappear with a followup report is hereby also inducted into SLD sainthood! 
I'm attempting to achieve SLD sainthood.  I just e-mailed Todd.  Will let you know if he responds.  Or perhaps he will respond himself.  I hadn't realized that he was the creator of Todd's oil milk until you pointed it out.
Logged
It took 1 year of nose clipping
to lose 20 pounds (from about 140 to 120)
Dropped from size 8-10 to size 4
I'm 5' 4.5"

Read about my success nose clipping regular food instead of doing oil or sugar: http://boards.sethroberts.net/index.php?topic=5903.

Clarinette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #23 on: April 12, 2009, 08:24:34 am »

Hi Polaroid Doll,

It is known as a fact that not eating enough or eating too little calories will probably slow down the metabolism.
I would say that it is up to the SLD dieter to keep it healthy as any other dieters. I would not say that it is SLD
that does slow down the metabolism.

BJane

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 67
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #24 on: April 12, 2009, 02:08:53 pm »

What I really noticed about the difference between this discussion and the current ones is the focus on hormones, neural pathways, sensory input, etc.  Rather than "the body decides to" do whatever.

Thanks, Shovelqueen, for bumping this thread. It is very interesting to read a discussion in physiological rather than evolutionary terms. The questions about the physiological/biochemical basis for SLD don't negate the plausibility of the evolutionary explanation, or the set-point model, but like the original poster said - it is a lot easier to do research on measurable entities than on a theoretical construct.

Quote from: shovelqueen
In the end, our bodies are a stunningly complex conglomeration of biochemical and bioelectric reactions that all operate according to the laws of physics, like the laws of thermodynamics or osmosic pressures or electrical gradients across membranes.  The triggers for these reactions are just as complex.  And the mechanism by which the triggers cause a specific response are mind-bogglingly complex as well.

You don't say :mrgreen:
Logged

m.c.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 747
    • Pluckychickenheart
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #25 on: April 12, 2009, 02:20:42 pm »

2. Whatever your dosage of SLD calories -- say 2 T of oil/day -- eventually your appetite will return and you will stop losing weight. My theory predicts this: you have reached a new equilibrium. Your alternative does not.

I think my brain is on overload.

 Could someone help me with the above?

 I'm trying to make sense of it in context of what my own experience seems to be these days. As I've mentioned so boringly before, healthy diet, no junk, not too much, exercise, 2 T eloo, weight is exactly back up to where it was when I started this process a couple years ago. Distributed differently yes but not feeling right in my skin again.

Does this mean I need more than 2T oil? Will I eventually need an entire bottle of oil to maintain a weight 5 pounds lower than I am now? BTW, I still have decent AS but I am not losing a stitch as I did once, effortlessly upon a time.
Logged
Have arrived at the new Normal.

Polaroid Doll

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 298
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #26 on: April 12, 2009, 05:57:12 pm »

Hi Polaroid Doll,

It is known as a fact that not eating enough or eating too little calories will probably slow down the metabolism.
I would say that it is up to the SLD dieter to keep it healthy as any other dieters. I would not say that it is SLD
that does slow down the metabolism.



It depends on how one looks at it, I suppose. I've read posts by people who claim that they simply 'forget to eat' with the AS, apparently because the AS is too strong; in such a case, it could reasonably be argued that the SLD causes a slowed metabolism. It's a real danger that all dieters face, regardless of the particular diet the follow, and the threat is even more when people are looking for fast results (fast results are only physically possible by reducing calories drastically, since a calorie deficit of 500 calories/day is required for every pound lost per week. If someone loses two pounds per week, without exercising a lot, they're definitely in metaboilsm-lowering territory).

But you're absolutely correct in asserting that individuals need to take responsibility for their own weight loss, and should be making educated choices about how many calories to reasonably cut from their diet. Sensible actions are always the best ones.  :)

2. Whatever your dosage of SLD calories -- say 2 T of oil/day -- eventually your appetite will return and you will stop losing weight. My theory predicts this: you have reached a new equilibrium. Your alternative does not.

I think my brain is on overload.

 Could someone help me with the above?

 I'm trying to make sense of it in context of what my own experience seems to be these days. As I've mentioned so boringly before, healthy diet, no junk, not too much, exercise, 2 T eloo, weight is exactly back up to where it was when I started this process a couple years ago. Distributed differently yes but not feeling right in my skin again.

Does this mean I need more than 2T oil? Will I eventually need an entire bottle of oil to maintain a weight 5 pounds lower than I am now? BTW, I still have decent AS but I am not losing a stitch as I did once, effortlessly upon a time.

Remember, the most weight you can gain eating a pound of ELOO is 1.2 pounds...

I don't know what the original poster meant about the appetite returning, but at some point you will simply stop losing weight. This is because the number of calories required by the body (BMR) is dependent on weight; after you've lost a certain amount of weight, the natural decrease in your BMR (due to reduced weight, rather than reduced metabolism) will equal the daily calorie deficit; at that point, either the total number of calories consumed needs to decrease, or activity level/intensity needs to increase, to re-establish a calorie deficit.
Logged

NTB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
    • Getting Stronger
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #27 on: April 19, 2009, 01:22:25 pm »

Here I am returning to the SLD forums after being away for 2 1/2 years.     Returning at the requests of several forum members - Oslo, Heidi555, elenadelphiki -- as well as recent renewed interest on this thread about physiologically grounded explanations as distinct from (but not necessarily in opposition to) to evolutionary or behavioral theories.    I now think there is a lot of strong evidence to support a particularly powerful physiological explanation for why the SLD usually works, based upon the actions of the hormone insulin.

Physiological explanations are more readily tested and quantified than behavioral or evolutionary approaches, because they employ empirically measureable quantities, e.g. blood levels of sugars, fatty acids and hormones.  By contrast, a "setpoint" is a non-observable, hypothetical quantity, which is only useful to the extent that it is consistent with accurate explanations and predictions.   Where do I look inside my body to find this "setpoint" ?  Is there a little thermostat in there with the pointer set at 175 lb.?   Not trying to be too facetious here, but at least chemicals can be assayed from a blood sample, and biochemical pathways are well proven.

I do believe there is a simpler, more verifiable theory than the setpoint theory that explains why SLD works -- and does so within a broad framework that is meticulously supported by research over the last century and a half.  This theory is clearly and forcefully set forth in Gary Taubes "Good Calories, Bad Calories in Chapters 22-24, but especially in the very last (and best!) chapter of book, Chapter 24.  In Chapter 24, Taubes deals a real blow to various setpoint theories (there's more than one) including Mayer's glucostat hypothesis (the brain tries to control glucose concentration in the bloodstream) and Kennedy's lipostat hypothesis (the body tries to maintain a fixed reserve of fat in the adipose tissue).  Both the glucostat and lipostat hypotheses posit that the setpoint is located in the brain -- specifically, within the hypothalmus.  According to the lipostat theory, the difference between lean and obese individuals is the amount of fat stores the hypothalmus is set to defend.  According to Seth, the SLD can at least temporarily change this setpoint.  I say "temporarily", because presumably if one strays from the SLD diet, the setpoint will go back to its "natural" level.  But there is no explanation for what determines this "natural" level.

Taubes offers several criticisms of these setpoint theories, particularly the lipostat hypothesis.  First, the lipostat theory does not explain how the brain actually monitors our fat stores and compensates by changing food intake or energy expenditure.  No biochemical mechanisms are proposed.  Second, it overlooks the far simpler approach employed by physiological psychologists, including Claude Bernard, Walter Cannon and Ivan Pavlov (one of Seth's intellectual forebears, I believe) in the nineteenth century, and Curt Richter and Jacques Le Magnen in the twentieth.   The central focus of these researchers was to deduce how the principle of homeostasis (maintenance of a stable internal state against external changes) applied to the control of body weight and appetite on a cellular, biochemical level.

The most revolutionary outcome of Le Magnen's research, including the work of many subsequent researchers, was the proof that both weight regulation and appetite are primarily regulated by a single hormone: insulin.  While other hormones like leptin, the sex hormones, and growth hormone modulate the insulin response (e.g. by increasing it or decreasing with age or in specific body tissues such as the abdomen, buttocks, etc.), the fundamental factor that determines whether fats and sugars are moving into storage or moving out of storage is the level of insulin in the blood.  Furthermore, insulin also turns on or off enzymes in the cells, such as lipoprotein lipase, which allows cells to "grab" fatty acids on hold onto them tightly.

Now where this gets very interesting is that when insulin levels are elevated, as after a large meal, particularly containing carbohydrates), glucose and fatty acids in the bloodstream are rapidly taken up by the cells, depleting their levels in the blood and inducing hunger.  This often causes more eating and more depletion and hunger in several cycles.  Whereas when insulin levels are low, as on a low carb diet or the SLD diet (I'll explain why shortly), fat cells cells readily release fatty acids and the liver and muscles release glucose from there glycogen storage, creating the sense of satiety or appetite suppression, which further reduces eating...and leads to weight loss.

So now I'm getting to the punch line.   Why does the consumption of flavorless calories lead to weight loss?   The answer is quite interesting:  flavors induce an insulin response and elevated insulin levels increase appetite; therefore, eliminating flavors and aromas (or blocking them by nose-clipping) suppresses appetite.  In fact, research in both animals and humans shows that flavors, aromas, and even the THOUGHT of appetizing food causes a "pre-prandial" or "cephalic phase" (before the meal) secretion of insulin, which is sometimes as much as 1/3 of the total insulin secreted during a meal.  This pre-prandial secretion of insulin depletes glucose and fatty acid levels in the blood by driving them into the storage tissues, thereby creating the sensation of hunger and driving us to eat.  Once the food is in the stomach, more insulin is secreted, driving further appetite and storage, until an equilibrium is reached.   And measurements on obese individuals  show that not only are their insulin responses abnormally high, but their pre-prandial insulin secretion responses to the smell, taste or thought of food are especially high!  The more you love food, the more quickly your hunger returns and the more tightly your cells store fat and hold on to it...oh, the woes of being a gastronome!

Physiologically, the insulin response is governed by the vagus nerve, which induces pancreatic and gastric secretions in response to flavors, aromas and appetizing thoughts.   The vagus nerve extends from the hypothalmus to many of the tissues involved in nutrient metabolism, such as the stomach, intestine, pancreas, and liver.  This is all set out nicely in a 1996 article by Karen L. Teff: "Physiological effects of flavor perception" (Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 7, Issue 12, December 1996, Pages 448-452).  Many studies have shown that cutting this nerve or blocking it chemically results in significant and rapid weight loss.

The insulin response to flavors and foods is gradually adjusted over time.  This is true both with respect to meal volume and nutrient content AND with respect to induction by flavors, aromas, visual cues -- even other psychological factors such as stress and mood.  It is a learned response, and as such, does not turn on a dime but changes gradually.  Which is why your appetite suppression doesn't go away immediately when you stop SLD for a few days.   Seth has argued that this slow adjustment is evidence that the "setpoint' takes time to readjust.  I think a better explanation is that the insulin response is at least in part a conditioned response -- biochemically realized in the vagal nerve response -- takes time to adjust the amount of insulin that is secreted in response to a meal or a pre-meal trigger.   It also slowly changes due to other variables such as exercise, aging, and other factors.

In short: The net outcome of the SLD is to reduce insulin levels, inducing satiety and allowing the release and oxidation of fatty acids stored in fat cells -- thereby resulting in weight loss.  It is particularly powerful because it gets the satiety inducing nutrients -- fatty acids and glucose -- into to the bloodstream in a "stealth" manner -- with no or little insulin secretion, so instead of being whisked away to storage in the cells, these satiety inducing nutrients are allowed to remain there, shut down appetite and provide a supply of energy!  Even better, the body is now in a mode where it can pull additional fatty acid and gluose energy from storage to provide further energy.  Great deal!

The insulin hypothesis is also attractive because it explains much, much more than just the SLD diet.  For example, it explains why it is so hard for obese individuals, or people with certain genetic backgrounds, e.g. the Puma indians,  to lose weight -- it is because their genes in combination with their diets have caused them to become hyperinsulimic -- their basal level of insulin is so high that even the tiniest amount of food is scavenged by their cells.   These high insulin levels are REAL -- unlike a "setpoint" they can be measured from blood samples!  And it takes a lot to quiet this insulin response, but it can be done -- by a very low carb diet, by the SLD diet, or even by meditation and stress reduction as proven by Jon Gabriel (See his amazing diet, The Gabriel Method which, I believe, facilitates weight loss by using visualization and mediation to quiet the insulin response).   This also explains why dieting and excercise so often fail, because elevated insulin levels leave the blood depleted of glucose and fatty acids, and cause intense cravings even when calories are cut back.   On the other hand, it should be encouraging to those who have the patience and persistence to know that, as they lose weight and reduce insulin levels, their basal insulin levels will slowly decrease, and maintaining their low weight will become easier with time.   Setpoint theories, by themselves., would not predict this fact.

(Another interesting aside relevant to the SLD:  fructose, the sugar in Kool-Aid and other flavored sodas mentioned in SLD, has no ability by itself to induce an insulin response.  So that could explain the appetite suppressing effect of some of Seth's French sodas.  However, if any glucose is combined with fructose, as is the case with sucrose (table sugar) or high fructose corn syrup, the insulin response is induced and in fact fructose is more easily converted to triglycerides in the liver as long as there is insulin around).

To summarize:  The key to weight loss is ingesting calories without inducing insulin.  Flavorless calories just happen to be one cleverly stealth way of doing this, but it is certainly not the only technique available.

In any case, I'd be interested to hear what others think of the the insulin hypothesis as an alternative to the pure behavioral and evolutionary explanations.  (Notice that in all of the above discusion, there was no need to refer to evolutionary theories of feast or famine by our ancestors!)

Todd

P.S. In a recent post by Shovelqueen, I see that she and others in the forums are on to Taubes, whose book I first read when it came out.  It is really a masterpiece of synthesizing research from many fields into a coherent whole.  I also see that Seth interviewed him, but for some reason there was no real discussion of the setpoint theory vs. the insulin hypothesis.



« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 07:49:19 pm by NTB »
Logged
Click HERE to check out the Deconditioning Diet and other self-improvement ideas on my blog "Getting Stronger"

shovelqueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3543
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #28 on: April 19, 2009, 02:38:19 pm »

Bravo, Todd!!  Thank you for taking the considerable time to write such a good and thorough explanation of the synthesis of the scientific evidence and the insulin theory. 

Setpoint, to me, is another way of describing homeostasis, except this one seems to have to do with body weight.  It's the "how" of that that is so well explained with the insulin hypothesis.  And I think your explanation of how SLD practices fit into that theory are likely spot on.  That's a very plausable mechanism for what we see with SLD.

Can I ask what you do for a day job?  You have a very scientific mind and a deep knowledge of physiology. 
Logged




"Strength, balance, joy!"

NTB

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
    • Getting Stronger
Re: Appetite Suppression vs. Setpoint Adjustment
« Reply #29 on: April 19, 2009, 07:30:33 pm »

Shovelqueen (I'm sure your real name is nicer than that),

I think that there is in fact a real difference between the concepts of homeostasis and setpoint, although they do resemble one another.  As I understand it "homeostasis" refers to the maintenance of an internal state by a dynamic equilibrium that spontaneously arises within a distributed system, without centralized control; by contrast, a "setpoint" implies some type of centralized regulator like a thermostat.  Those advocating a setpoint tend to localize it within the hypothalamus.  Those who developed the concept of homeostasis, like Claude Bernard or Walter Cannon, believed that it arose spontaneously from a balance of separate mechanistic forces acting within a system -- such as an organism.

I'll quote here from Taubes, p. 428:

"Life is dependent on homeostatic systems that exhibit the same relative constancy as body weight, and none of them require a set point, like the temperature setting on a thermostat, to do so.  Moreover, it is always possible to create a system that exhibits set-point-like behavior...without actually having a set-point mechanism involved.  The classic example is the water level in a lake, which might, to the naive, appear to be regulated from day to day or year to year, but is just the end result of a balance between the flow of water into the lake and the flow out....it was just this kind of dynamic equilibrium that [Bernard and Cannon] had in mind, not a central thermostatlike regulator in the brain that would do the job rather than the body itself."

Even more to the point, the actual workings of homeostasis for maintaining body weight apply at the cellular level, not within the hypothalamus or other brain center.  It is individual fat or muscle cells that bind or release fats or glucose in response to decentralized signals from circulating insulin, glucagon, and other hormones, and from localized enzymes such as lipoprotein lipase.  Hunger or satiety really does occur at the cellular level, and the brain only reports the integrated result of this by sensing the concentration of fuel in the blood.

The fact that body weight is often very stable makes it tempting to suggest the existence of a setpoint.  But I'm not sure this really adds any explanatory value over looking at the endocrinology and biochemistry of how energy sources like fats and sugars are stored and mobilized within the body.  And in fact, talk of a setpoint masks the real changes that occur as we age, as our health changes, or as we modify diet, exercise, and lifestyle.

Todd

P.S. To answer your last question, "in real life" I am a biochemical engineer at a biotech company.  I'm actually not trained at all in physiology, but I just have a strong personal interest in the science behind nutrition (as opposed to popular or politically correct nutrition), and I suppose my training as an engineer carries over to this personal interest.  I'm also an inventor on over 20 issued patents, so I'm always interested in finding out if there is a "better way" to do things...hence my quest that ended up in the creation of "oil milk" as a more palatable way to consume oils on the SLD.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2010, 05:47:57 am by NTB »
Logged
Click HERE to check out the Deconditioning Diet and other self-improvement ideas on my blog "Getting Stronger"
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 27   Go Up
 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18