Too much food - not enough hunger as cause of AI diseases

[Zizzle]

Fascinating research demonstrating that having too much food/never feeling hunger, causes chronic inflammation and autoimmune diseases.

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/04/0 ... -diseases/

However, I've always had the impression people with AI diseases were on the thinner side, not those suffering from obesity. But I guess this has to do with availability of food and always feeling satiated, even if you're not overeating. Does this make a case for intermittent fasting??

[JeanIrene]

Interesting article. When you think of it, if we think paleo is a healthy diet, I would think people back then went for many periods without food. For sure they weren't satiated all the time, being hunter-gatherers. Seems like that's a relatively recent thing.

Jean

[gluten]

Hi, I have found other articles about " calorie restriction". In the book The Paleo Diet Cookbook by Loren Cordan, Phd., it is recommended to clean out all foods from the list in the book. If, I did that there would be a totally empty cupboard except for a couple of cans of tuna fish packed in water. When you go to the supermarket do you ever notice at checkout the amount of high calorie foods in the other baskets. I am amazed at the amount of processed food and lack of fresh produce, fruits and meats. The only thing I use from the cupboard are the spices and herbs for seasoning. I have been using the meats, vegetables and fruits recommended in the Paleo Diet. Jon

[tex]

OK, I finally had a little time to give that article a quick once-over and my first impressions are that they have failed to prove what they claim to have proven. Artificially altering hypothalamic neurons in order to simulate satiety might indeed lead to increased inflammation, but there is no way that proves that satiety leads to inflammation. In order to reach that conclusion, one must make a huge assumption — that artificially altering neurons is truly equivalent to the neurological responses that result from the act of eating). Why would that be a reasonable assumption? The answer is, "It's most definitely not a reasonable assumption".

This falls right into line with their other faulty assumptions, such as — "The increased availability of energy-rich foods nationwide has correlated with growing prevalence of autoimmune diseases". Talk about a brazen assumption. A heck of a lot of things have correlated with the growing prevalence of autoimmune diseases. What evidence exists to suggest that "energy-rich" foods have anything to do with it? I suggest that the increased availability of gluten-rich, casein-rich, and soy-rich foods (IOW, highly inflammatory foods), might turn out to be a heck of a lot more relevant. But the worst problem with that claim is the fact that the foods that they assume are "high-energy", are not necessarily high-satiety foods. In fact, they generally tend to be low-satiety foods, and that's why so many people tend to eat too much of them — the only way to reach satiety with those foods is to eat way to much of them. Real foods, that promote quick satiety (such as protein and animal fats), are not even on those guys' radar.

Tex