[I posted this over at PaleoHacks, but wanted to share it here too.]
I am a real fan of Stephan Guyenet and Chris Kresser, but try as I might, I am struggling with the idea that a low-reward diet “reduces the fat set point.”
Now, I have no problems with the idea that a low-reward diet results in weight loss. And it’s possible that my concern is mostly a quibble or semantics (which I’ve raised over at Stephan’s blog).
But I just finished watching Mat Lalonde’s day-long Science of Nutrition seminar from the Optimum Performance Training folks and at the very end in the Q&A there’s a very interesting exchange that was a bit of an “a ha” for me (~10:15):
Maybe it’s me, but the idea that the body starts to receive the signals about the fat mass resonates with more more than the idea that there’s a “set point.” And the “a ha” I had while listening to Lalonde today was the idea that diets that reduce inflammation are what allow the leptin signalling to start registering loud and clear.
I’ve not done Dr. Kruse’s leptin reset, but by following my version of the PHD, I *have* experienced his “Your hunger is gone and so are your cravings” and been able to drop a whole boatload of weight.
So what about it? Am I the only one who has issues with the fat setpoint? I know it’s essentially a metaphor, but there’s something about it that just doesn’t resonate with me.
And what about inflammation? Anyone else suspect that the real issue? It would explain why all sorts of diets work … they remove inflammatory foods and allow the hypothalamus to do what it’s supposed to do.