Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Oct-03-17, 09:52
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 11,219
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default Feeling sated can become a cue to eat more

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...71002084825.htm

Quote:
When hunger pangs strike, we usually interpret them as a cue to reach for a snack; when we start to feel full, we take it as a sign that we should stop eating. But new research shows that these associations can be learned the other way around, such that satiety becomes a cue to eat more, not less.

The findings, published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, suggest that internal, physical states themselves can serve as contexts that cue specific learned behaviors.

"We already know that extreme diets are susceptible to fail. One reason might be that the inhibition of eating learned while dieters are hungry doesn't transfer well to a non-hungry state," says psychological scientist Mark E. Bouton of the University of Vermont, one of the authors on the study. "If so, dieters might 'relapse' to eating, or perhaps overeating, when they feel full again."

To test this hypothesis, Bouton and co-author Scott T. Schepers conducted a behavioral conditioning study using 32 female Wistar rats as their participants.

Every day for 12 days, the rats -- who were already satiated -- participated in a 30-minute conditioning session. They were placed in a box that contained a lever and learned that they would receive tasty treats if they pressed that lever. Then, over the next 4 days, the rats were placed in the same box while they were hungry, and they discovered that lever presses no longer produced treats.

Through these two phases, the rats were conditioned to associate satiety with receiving tasty food and hunger with receiving no food. But what would the rats do if they were placed in the box again?

The results were clear: When the rats were tested again, they pressed the lever far more often if they were full than if they were hungry. In other words, they relapsed back to seeking treats.

"Rats that learned to respond for highly palatable foods while they were full and then inhibited their behavior while hungry, tended to relapse when they were full again," Bouton explains.

This relapse pattern emerged even when food was removed from the cage before both the learning and unlearning sessions, indicating that the rats' internal physical states, and not the presence or absence of food, cued their learned behavior.

Findings from three different studies supported the researchers' hypothesis that hunger and satiety could be learned as contextual cues in a classic ABA (sated-hungry-sated) renewal design. But the researchers found no evidence that an AAB design -- in which the rats learned and subsequently inhibited the lever-treat association in a hungry state and were tested in a sated state -- had any effect on the rats' lever pressing.

Together, these results show that seeking food and not seeking food are behaviors that are specific to the context in which they are learned. Although our body may drive food seeking behavior according to physiological needs, this research suggests that food-related behaviors can become associated with internal physical cues in ways that are divorced from our physiological needs.

"A wide variety of stimuli can come to guide and promote specific behaviors through learning. For example, the sights, sounds, and the smell of your favorite restaurant might signal the availability of your favorite food, causing your mouth to water and ultimately guiding you to eat," say Schepers and Bouton. "Like sights, sounds, and smells, internal sensations can also come to guide behavior, usually in adaptive and useful ways: We learn to eat when we feel hunger, and learn to drink when we feel thirst. However, internal stimuli such as hunger or satiety may also promote behavior in ways that are not so adaptive."


I'm not entirely sure this adds anything useful. "Feeling sated can become a cue to eat more"--behaviourialism is sort of funky, things get worded to sort of take any sort of agency for the animal out of the question. Feeling sated is a cue to eat more, that doesn't mean that it makes the animal want to eat more, just that if that condition is present, the animal has learned that there's an opportunity to eat treats. Opportunity might increase wanting, but generally there's nothing to keep people from indulging when they're actually hungry, so I'm not sure how useful this is for people.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Oct-03-17, 17:33
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,230
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Two monkeys in a cage. One monkey, pushes a button, every time, he gets a treat. The other monkey, pushes a button, sometimes, he gets a treat. Result: The monkey that always gets a treat, pushes the button only when he wants a treat. The other monkey, continuously pushes the button. Conclusion: Uncertainty disrupts otherwise normal behavior toward reward (i.e. self-regulation), and ultimately causes excess intake.

In the above, the button is physical. In a semi-starvation setting, the button is the "find food" thought derived from hunger. Since there is no food, or only sometimes, the "find food" button is continuously pressed, first causing an always-consume response when food is found, then ultimately resulting in excess intake.

However, the "find food" button is an effect, not a cause. The cause is the semi-starvation, which leads to hunger, and so forth. This is well illustrated with the after-effect in the famous Minnesota semi-starvation experiment, where subjects binged on all kinds of crap to the point of gaining excess body mass way beyond their initial body mass pre-experiment.

In this mice experiment, we have a variation on this theme. In both instances of "always" and "never", there is certainty of outcome. However, there is still uncertainty of outcome from the fact that the same mice experienced both certainty of "always" and certainty of "never", just like that monkey who got a treat only sometimes. Regardless of the association of internal state, the choice will be one that ensures both intake and economy. This stems from the knowledge that one can be plucked from the cage, starved, then put in a cage where there is certainty of "never".

If the above can be done, it can be undone by the same mechanism. Easy. In the certainty of never, change this to a certainty of always. So, now when we pluck a mouse and starve it, we also give it a treat every time it pushes that button. We effectively cause the mouse to push the button only when it wants a treat, regardless of whether it's already full or starving.

There is no way to eliminate the "consume everything in sight" outcome, if there is any form of "never" or uncertainty.

Slightly off-topic, but still pertinent.

There's a trick to quitting smoking. Keep a full pack of smokes at hand. It works because it creates a sense of abundance in spite of the real absence of intake. This sense of abundance is effectively the same as real abundance. It also converts the quitting to a purposeful controllable intentional choice, from an event over which we have no control. Every time the urge comes up, we make a choice because the choice is real. Do we smoke or do we not smoke? We can smoke because we have a full pack right there. We can also not smoke because the full pack makes this choice equally more obvious. Repetition of this choice every time the urge comes up also increases confidence in this choice every time this choice is made. Literally, practice. In the event we choose to smoke this time, we now gain experience from the contrast between smoking and not smoking, within the context of wanting to quit and in control, rather than from the context of being still addicted and powerless.

We are monkeys in a cage.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Oct-03-17, 20:49
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,008
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

This monkey thinks it makes sense. I have trouble losing weight. I keep my carbs low - usually around 10g - but I still eat too much food to lose weight. When I eat less food, I can lose a pound or 2, but the hunger gets so bad it actually wakes me up at night. Then at some point I can't take it any more & eat - not just until I'm full, but stuffed. I'm thinking at the time how crazy it is that I no longer feel hungry, but have the very strong urge to continue eating. Then I start over. Which sometimes feels insane, not to mention depressing.

I guess I'll just keep trying. It was way easier to quit smoking.

Even tho I'm not losing weight, at least the low carbs are keeping my bg good.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Oct-05-17, 07:00
TammyD's Avatar
TammyD TammyD is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 403
 
Plan: Gluten-free/Low Carb/IF
Stats: 250/230/175 Female 5'8"
BF:?
Progress: 27%
Location: Dartmouth Nova Scotia
Default

I certainly relate to the idea that Ďthe more I eat; the more I want to eatí. That has been my paradox my whole life. Iím sure there is a behavior element to the issue but this study ignores the possibility that more eating generates a stronger insulin response that in turn makes you eat more. There are satiety hormones that are weaker in some.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Oct-07-17, 07:07
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,910
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
There's a trick to quitting smoking. Keep a full pack of smokes at hand. It works because it creates a sense of abundance in spite of the real absence of intake. This sense of abundance is effectively the same as real abundance.


Genius! Because it's true.

I have recently been discovering and implementing my own Sense of Abundance. To the point that I added a line to my reminder program:

Quote:
It is not about having things. It is about using things.


My childhood was cycles of relative abundance and even more levels of deprivation. I was the monkey who sometimes got the treat.

This led me to a form of hoarding behavior. Right now I have a metric ton of clothes I need to sort through, and this weekend, I will. They might not fit me, or are comfortable or flattering, or even a color I like. But I hang onto them, because I have invested in them in some way.

But I didn't realize it was depriving me in another way. I don't look as good as I could if I actually bought good clothes that I genuinely like. I am using up valuable storage space. I am stymied getting dressed in the morning if I have to mow through stuff I will never wear.

This is how indelible deprivation can be.

Likewise, the incredible unceasing hunger I felt as a Prisoner of Carbohydrates lingers when I am tempted by certain things as though the opportunity will never come again. But they still make these things. I can decide to put off having it now. And I never regret passing them up. My option is still open, I must realize. I don't have to exercise it.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:22.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.