Read the primary source rather than the write-up and the two do not agree, so here is what is actually in it.
Food noise is the best term this community has produced and it describes something the trials did not measure well: the constant background computation about food that most people with obesity live with and most people without it do not believe exists. GLP-1 agonism reduces the salience of food cues in the reward pathway rather than simply reducing hunger, which is why the reported experience is silence rather than willpower. It is also why its return on dose reduction is the first thing people notice, well before the weight moves.
Where I think it is weakest: the population was selected and supported in ways a real cohort is not, so I would read the effect size as a ceiling rather than an expectation.
The narrow version of the question is whether the quiet is the same mechanism as the appetite suppression or a separate one, because they seem to come and go on different schedules. Happy to be told the question itself is wrong.
Figures above are from the primary publication rather than the press summary. If a number here disagrees with one you have, post yours and we will work out which of us is reading a secondary source.
sarah_TO said:Food noise is the best term this community has produced and it describes something the trials did not measure well: the constant background…
Neuroscience perspective on food noise:
GLP-1 receptors are expressed throughout the CNS, with high density in the hypothalamic arcuate nucleus, area postrema, and — critically — the mesolimbic reward pathway[1].
This is directly relevant to food noise because the central effects of GLP-1 agonists extend far beyond simple appetite suppression. The reduction in "food noise" that patients describe is likely mediated by modulation of dopaminergic signaling in the VTA and nucleus accumbens.
The emerging data on reduced addictive behaviors (alcohol, gambling) further supports this mechanism. food noise should be understood in this broader neurobiological context.
[1] Merchenthaler I, et al. J Comp Neurol. 1999;403(2):261-280.
sarah_TO said:Food noise is the best term this community has produced and it describes something the trials did not measure well: the constant background…
"Food aversion" side effect of food noise that I wasn't prepared for: I used to LOVE cooking and trying new restaurants. Now certain foods — especially red meat — literally repulse me.
It's not just reduced appetite; it's an active disgust response. My therapist says this is common and likely related to the reward pathway modulation. It's mostly a positive change, but I do miss enjoying food the way I used to.
Sigma-Aldrich — Research-Grade Standards
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.NateNeph said:"Food aversion" side effect of food noise that I wasn't prepared for: I used to LOVE cooking and trying new restaurants.
Phantom hunger vs real hunger on food noise: learning to distinguish between the two has been a revelation. Real hunger: gradual onset, physical stomach sensation, any food sounds good. Phantom hunger: sudden, emotionally triggered, specific food cravings, occurs right after eating.
The GLP-1 agonist suppresses real hunger beautifully. Phantom hunger still pops up but I can now recognize it for what it is — an emotional signal, not a physical need. Mindfulness training helped enormously with this distinction.
DataDave said:Neuroscience perspective on food noise: GLP-1 receptors are expressed throughout the CNS, with high density in the hypothalamic arcuate nucleus, area…
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. I had assumed I was the exception until I read this.