This is so clear if we combine the UPF-4 findings that these artificial foods seem to have a great influence on this process. It "confuses" the body about its intentions, since it's not food once it's swallowed. But our mind is told "wonderful food, eat more" by the engineering that went into our snack foods, fast foods, and convenience foods.

When I watch videos in the weight/health sections of Youtube, many overweight people have been trapped in their choices to the point where they only eat these foods. They daily reach the 80% UPF content that causes the dramatic brain changes. And I suspect it keeps distorting the brain, so that a person's hunger signals are perpetually stuck in the EMERGENCY position. People have panic attacks and meltdowns when it's any kind of challenge, and they only meet it with food to shut down the unhappy emotions.

It's torture, but they don't believe either the cause or the solution. That's how bad it can get.

I think that's starting to sink in, because there are lots of people successfully managing their health by avoiding the fake foods. We were right all along!

No Frankenfoods.

How hard is it to look at brains of thin people?? Where was that data?

Maybe everyone has an enlarged brain on SAD.

Findings seem lacking.

In the book, Ultra-Processed People, he compares a month on 1-2% UPF, with the next month, 80% UPF. His findings was that, from a healthy baseline, 30 days of junk food did things already.

Is it just me who finds this logic to be quite twisted?



If a high fat diet is what causes the hypothalamus to enlarge to begin with, and then - and ONLY then - lead to faulty processing of blood sugar, increased appetite, and eventual weight gain, then how are little kids raised on low fat diets with no exposure to high fat foods becoming fat?

My mother simply did not use more than very minimal fats in her cooking, because she couldn't stand "grease" and felt sick on more than very minimal amounts of fats. We all ate the same food: the same vegetables, the same starches, the same meats. How is it that I was the only one in the family who managed to get enough excess fat in my diet to cause my hypothalamus to enlarge when I had no control over my diet, and was being fed the same very low fat diet as the rest of the family?



But of course this phenomena of enlarged hypothalamus on a high fat diet was observed in mice, and extrapolated to apply to humans, despite the fact that humans are not mice and mice are not humans.


Ms A said:


If they don't do that, then the whole theory is pretty meaningless.




Also, you know how naturally thin influencers will pull these stunts where they intentionally gain 20 or 40 lbs and then lose it just to prove that their weight loss method is the fastest or best way to lose weight and/or it's not that difficult to lose weight?

They need to study the hypothalamus of those people too - If in fact a high fat diet truly is to blame for an enlarged hypothalamus in humans, and the enlarged hypothalamus is what truly sets off the tendency for humans to gain weight, then they should be able to see that enlarged hypothalamus in them at their high weight - and that in turn should make it far more difficult for them to lose the weight they intentionally gained, much less keep it off.

The influencers are already doing half the experiment by eating excess amounts of food (and most likely very high fat to take in enough calories to gain that much weight). Might as well take the next step and find out what effect this has on their hypothalamus to either prove or refute their theory.

I don't get fat on fat. Remember the rice diet? People reacted by thirds. There's a lot of syndromes where people naturally fall into three groups, though not always proportionately.

I had to add carbs because, despite all the fat I was eating, and continue to eat, I kept losing weight. So I put fruit in my smoothies and flavor them with milk chocolate chips.

I'm back in the healthy BMI range. My brain works better on fat -- and I also have appetite problems from hormone issues. I try to make every meal count because I don't have the cellular energy to do too much of it.

I agree that inflammation is a symptom, not a cause. I was wondering about that myself. And the UPF studies show it was UPF content that inflamed human brains.

Are they just experimenting on mice because mice fit their criteria to demonize some foods, and push the safety of others? Because fat is the trickiest to fake, but can be covered with extra sweetener, binders, etc.

Mice are definitely the most expedient (cheapest experimental animal, shortest lifespan, fastest to show how they're affected by dietary changes), so I suspect that's the why they start with mice, and are more than willing to use mice as their immediate proof that it does the same thing in humans.

Standard mouse chow diet is almost completely devoid of fats - that's the go-to for mouse health. When they give mice a high fat diet to analyze the effects of a high fat diet, the mouse gains weight, develops heart disease, etc... and apparently develops an enlarged hypothalamus, and then blood sugar issues.

Their conclusions about what a high fat diet really means for humans is purely hypothetical on their part.


As far as the possibility that results seen in mice fit the criteria to demonize some foods and promote others - I think that's just a happy coincidence for those whose agenda happens to be supported by the results of the mouse studies.

None of this is deliberate in the Bond villain style, of course, but I wonder how heavily mouse studies pointed in the wrong direction, confusing some and being used by others.

It's like those epidemiological studies blaming sandwich meat, but somehow not sandwich bread. Or saying it must be the mustard.

I understand why they start with small rodents - you certainly can't immediately start out by testing a food/disease hypothesis on humans. First, it takes too long (years/decades), and then there's the ethical issues of human guinea pigs.

[Never mind that the whole food pyramid/My Plate/Mediterranean diet/DASH diet is essentially just the last step in testing the theory that "this is the best diet for humans" by convincing a large portion of the population that it's been thoroughly tested and determined to be the best way to eat. Then a couple of decades go by before they really start to see the results, and they come up with another "best way to eat" which is really only slightly different from the last "best way to eat".]

They KNOW that different mammals have different types of teeth and differing digestive tracts, and yet they seem to routinely ignore this when it comes to determining what constitutes an appropriate diet.



I'd never heard that they blamed it on mustard, LOL!

I thought it was normally the way that they immediately lump all red meat together - fresh, unadulterated red meat along with the chemically preserved sandwich meat. Which makes the assumption that all sandwich meat is red meat, and that all red meat is completely equivalent to sandwich meat.

And then pork is just considered deadly ☠️ all the way around - even though it's "the other white meat", only red when it's been smoked/preserved such as bacon or ham.

Of course they really should definitely be looking at the huge slabs of bread that those thin little pieces of sandwich meat are served between, but they assume (based on animal studies, which again started with small rodents) that the slabs of bread are the healthy part of the sandwich (especially if it's whole grain). But again that really only works if humans have the exact same teeth and digestive system of those small rodents.

Exactly. Yes, all mammals, and that means a lot, but being an animal rescuer I know the difference between dog food and cat food, and that is tested for survivability. We can't say that about any of the government plans, can we?

Testing every single food was part of what made me question a lot of keto ideas. Like my seeds and nuts consumption, which is exactly our hearthealthywholegrains, too. Once I made that connection, I dropped them.

At least in my body, they have a whole different nutrient profile than the label states. I kept doing elimination diets, but it turns out what I was really sensitive to was oxalates. Fixing that also seems to help my carb tolerance.

I'm saying big headlines for mouse studies is a deliberate PR tactic. It's all about pushing the plant-based past the science, and ignoring the foods that do shine for health purposes.

We have to get the marketing out of stuff we need for survival. It's how we doom ourselves, as people and a species.