Not an explanation, but type 2 diabetes is an example of a system failing(/adapting) in one direction and then not being reversible.
Some additional information on this:
There is a good case for completely avoiding seed/vegetable oils as they are a new and structurally unique food source we are unadapted to.
If anyone knows any way to get body fat PUFA proportions tested could you please let me know? I've cut seed oils from my diet for a few months now, but I'm interested in knowing how much effect it's having.
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.
Very interesting anecdote. This is exactly the sort of change I would expect to have some immediate and noticable effect. Oil might be the culprit but probably not. One reason to do it for 100% of food is just to get rid of the confounders.
I worry that overtly bland is too hard to follow and French is so generous you can still make extremely palatable food.
If you hate the diet it's not for the long term, just 3 months. And quitting's fine. It's also not meant to be necessarily bland, just not hyperpalatable 'cafeteria' food. It's meant to be as close to an approximation of what a hunter gatherer tribe would be eating, except in this case you have much more variety with respect to what's available to you in each category. Have you tried fried cinammon pineapple?
Yours is the dream situation and I agree best for happiness. But I think a tighter approach for research is justifiable to get a clearer understanding of if it works.
The French paradox is interesting, because it's basically the above plus grains and dairy (and sugar). Higher saturated fat and lower PUFAs (which is another interesting theory). Do you add much/any sugar to your cooking?
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.
There's reasonable justification for adding rice and traditional bread too given their long history of consumption before obesity was common.
If you can make nice tasting food from that, that's a good thing. If you can achieve genuine 'cafeteria food' hyperpalatability I'll be seriously impressed. It seems like it would be very hard to do without a fat like butter/oil or a sweetener like table sugar/honey.
In defense of bread, butter and milk:
A traditional bread like sourdough has a glycemic index of 54 and 12g protein per 100g. While I love the taste, I wouldn't classify it as hyperpalatable. It only has 4 ingredients: flour, salt, water and bacteria. I would classify it in the middle between hyperpalatable and bland.
I don't think plain butter or milk are hyperpalatble either. Only when used in certain ways in recipes do they result in hyperpalatable foods. Personally, I don't like plain milk and couldn't eat butter on its own.
Nutritionally, I would also dispute that these are unhealthy if this is being implied. To my knowlege, saturated fats are no longer thought to be bad for health.
This might just be nitpicking. I disagree with or perhaps don't understand the "set point" usage that is common here. I see it more as a balance of inputs to the brain from the mouth and stomach/other satiety sensors.
Plain boiled potatoes have a taste pleasure score of 3, and thus a satiation score of 3 from the stomach is required to stop you eating more of them.
Chocolate cake has a taste pleasure score of 8, and so a satiation score of 8 from the stomach is required to stop you eating more.
As you require a stronger satiation score to overcome the pleasure of the chocolate cake, you naturally eat more of it before the satiation score overpowers the pleasure score.
This explains the common experience of feeling full on a healthy dinner, then immediately being able to eat 500kcal of dessert.
Relative to the "set point" idea (or at least my understanding of it), this means if you switch to the only plain boring foods diet (or natural and healthy if you want a positive frame) then you can successfully lose at least some of the added weight. I do find the idea of some permanent regulatory damage plausible.
This dynamic will essentially create different set points on different diets. The whole range of set points for different diets being moved up over time by a hyperpalatable diet, due to it being an unnatural stimuli, does seem plausible.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. It's ugly but honest. We emotionally associate to countries as if they're people. But they're not. They're made of people.