Meanwhile, here's yesterday's eating:
- scrambled eggs
- tea with cream
- Monday's usual supplements
- dark chocolate with almonds (I bought some fundraising candybars last week and am eating them very slowly - this was one or two segments of a 4-part bar)
- chile (no beans - yeah, Chili's!)
- salad with blue cheese dressing
- iced tea
- french fries with ketchup (probably fewer than 10)
- two chocolate almonds
- one almond paleo "cookie"
By the way, Gary Taubes finished his series on the Food Reward Hypothesis, here. I'm no scientist, but he makes a very convincing argument that Guyenet has not proved much of anything. Guyenet's response seemed peevish at best ("he's cherry-picking my cited studies, and has a book to sell!") - I found it hard to read, and I can't make his definition of "reward" anything but circular - a food is "rewarding" if it makes you eat more of it, so by definition, since the obese folks in one of the studies they contended over ate less of the liquid diet, it was therefore not rewarding, even if it was a source of significant sugar - more than a Coke - and (theoretically) tasted sweet. Before I can buy the whole reward argument as valid, I would need a definition of reward that could be applied to a food without watching people eat it. Oh, and could someone explain to me why, if the liquid diet was very unrewarding to the obese folks, the normal weight folks didn't slack up in their consumption of it? Wouldn't they have found it unrewarding too, if it was fundamentally unrewarding? Supposedly, this dialogue is finished (it shouldn't be - this is science, dammit!), but I'll keep an eye out for new developments.