I've reached the conclusion that Gary Taubes is correct


(Bob M) #1

This is Gary Taubes’s latest Substack post:

Sorry if it makes you register.

Mr. Taubes believes that #2 is true:

image

I’ve reached this conclusion for many reasons, but one is the observation that some people who go on keto lose weight and get back to whatever their “best” weight was, very easily; yet others don’t. I’m in the latter, and I think it’s because there’s some hormonal error/defect I still have, which may be part genetic and part I broke something. This is obvious to me, as I am often not hungry in the evening.

But since my family is eating dinner, I’ll eat with them. I start out eating a small part of a meal, but that makes me hungry. So I eat more. Invariably, I eat basically a full meal or more.

Whatever hormone (hormones?) it is that is the “feedback” (in electrical engineering terms) hormone that is supposed to say “hey, you’re really not hungry and should stop eating” is broken in me. Not totally broken, because I can easily eat 2 or 1 meal a day, but it’s broken to the point where it doesn’t work as well as it should.

Further, I can only get so thin. Once I hit a certain weight, I always rebound from there.

Another observation is the pictures Taubes has in one of books where he shows two sets of sisters, one heavy and one thin. They look exactly alike. I see my wife and oldest daughter, and both of them have trouble with food. Hunger drives them.

Yet I see my daughter’s thin friends who eat high carb and are able to be thin. There is some feedback mechanism her friends have that she doesn’t (or at least has less of).

I’m therefore convinced that Taubes is correct. Being heavy is about an error in fuel partitioning.

The problem is that, while keto/low carb really helps with this,it doesn’t fully correct it in all of us. And I don’t know how to correct the part that’s broken or even what that part is.


#2

You may be right. And there are plenty of other reasons to overeat, it’s often mental. I always could eat a ton after reaching satiation (my chances depended on the circumstances). My overeating was due to 1. hunger (or lack of satiation as I had a strong urge to eat when not hungry but not satiated either) 2. mental/circumstantial things (some tempting food was present, for example, that is a strong one). Part of the latter is that I need a certain amount of satisfaction from my food so if it’s not good enough, I probably will go and find something better, almost no matter my satiation level (not a big danger as I focus on eating very tasty food but sometimes it’s not a full success or I desire more food enjoyment on that particular day). Knowing other people, I am far from alone, the mental part is often pretty significant. And it’s connected with the physical part. When I started to eat a very satiating diet, I lost the big urge to eat more and more. The physical hunger is something I can’t and don’t want to fight against, hunger means I need to eat (my stance has changed lately but I still tend to consider serious hunger like this. subtle hunger means I should fast more but I almost always felt like that unless there was temptation present already).
I have no idea what my hormones do, that part was always pretty much hidden from my consciousness. It’s my body’s job, I don’t think about it (it wouldn’t help anyway, I have no idea).
I just can experiment and figure out what works best.

For me, it’s almost all about calories (as far as I know, I almost always maintain so I have very little experience with losing or not extreme slow gaining) but what I eat controls how much I eat and health is even more important than slimming down so again, just trying to eat little from whatever food I find is a very, very bad idea for me just like it is for many people. Even the people on the “CICO forum” I frequent (I use it to keep my recipes and track) tend to realize it’s important what we eat if we don’t want to suffer unnecessarily. What we eat is clearly highly important, it’s another matter that many people reach success by eating their normal diet, just less. But the normal diet should be kind of good already or else it won’t be healthy at all, among other problems… But it doesn’t need to be low-fat or low-carb as long as it works for the one in question.


(KM) #3

This is me. However, if I put a bite of certain foods in my mouth, there is some kind of trigger that just delights in having more of it. I’m not sure it has anything to do with hunger signaling at all. Personally I think it is a dopamine response, or some similar chemical, perhaps it’s even an unknown one. I might report it as hunger, but it’s truthfully not that, it’s physical enjoyment and even mental joy happening. Whether the food itself is addictive I don’t know, but the response is absolutely the same as an addiction response. I can usually discipline myself, but it’s definitely in strong opposition to what my body wants of me.

That food challenge guy, Adam Moran, nearly always requests dessert after he has finished the challenge. I know it’s part of his stchick, but at times it seems he’s really in need of that sugar hit to signal his body to end what is basically a forced food binge.


#4

I noticed that it’s possible for my hunger sign to get triggered just because I really love the food available - or the opposite of it. I didn’t have this on high-carb but since low-carb, it rarely but happens. Normally I just feel I don’t need food but fancy eating it so I obviously eat it, who am I to deny my own desires.
But it’s not the same hunger as the proper, stronger one. And anyway, I can check if I really need energy intake, it’s independent from the hunger sign (correlated somewhat but one can be without the other). It requires some conscious thought and willingness to entertain the idea not eating if I don’t need it though.
I could write a long essay about my different hunger signs alone… Sometimes my stomach has hunger (I practically always ignore my stomach, I really don’t care about its state) but my belly doesn’t if it makes sense for anyone else. It’s weird but very rare.

Physical and mental joy (I don’t think it’s possible to have the former without the latter, we like physical joy from food because it feels good mentally, right? I do) can be problematic, especially the mental one as in very unfortunate cases, it can push through even physical discomfort, even PAIN. Obsessive eating is a bitch and my condolences to everyone who has it THAT bad. I don’t and I nearly always get food joy from it, it must be even worse when it’s no joy, just one is triggered and can’t help it. I wonder if it’s just bad mental state or something or the right food choices help everyone. They help me a lot, I love carnivore because it makes my relationship with food a lot healthier. I still can overeat (for a while or occasionally, it’s not easy for a long time on carnivore when one even tries not to), I still think about food a lot and do food related thing for hours (well I have to but I do more than strictly necessary) but I don’t get very wrong desires all the time. Non-animal net carbs mess with my body and mind, it’s nice to get rid of most of them.
But maybe there are people who are truly messed up, no matter the diet. OR they only like their bad trigger items and they feel unsatisfied on an otherwise good diet. I have heard a lot that “only unhealthy food is tasty” and I stopped to wonder if it’s really true for some super unlucky persons… Or if they have the wrong idea about what healthy food is, that has a chance too. I wouldn’t like a low-fat, low egg, very low red meat diet for sure but that wouldn’t be healthy for me anyway.

There are items where I just love eating a lot but it feels normal… And there are cases where it truly feels wrong and obsessed and addicted. I only have the first type on carnivore and it’s very rare.
Whenever I find something that does the second, I get super careful with it (usually. I have looser days but with good training, I never ever ever ever will eat a ton of peanuts, like 50g at once… 20g is my highest and it’s a very wild, loose, generous amount. 0.5-5g is my normal and it’s still more than what I actually should do, zero… but it’s fine and I feel loads better mentally because I am free… I used to eat very much peanuts nearly every day, in minutes and it was a problem for multiple reasons. my SO eating 250g peanuts at once, that was a reasonable meal in some situations - now he only does 120g or so - but for me… 100g was 100g more than ideal).

IDK if he needs sugar or dessert or it’s mostly mental “look I can even eat a dessert”. I don’t know him.
For me, dessert is dessert. It’s part of nearly every meal of mine since ages. I could lose habits but not this one. I usually miss it if I don’t have it but I don’t analyze it why. It’s dessert, not sugary and sometimes not even sweet but it is a dessert and that makes a difference.
My SO eats about 20 desserts per week, not counting his sweet, fruity meals (but we don’t consider oatmeal a dessert). He surely loves them but once I asked and he said he needs them to get his nutrients. And I can’t say it’s not true… He just couldn’t skip a day (one meal is a stretch already).
But we know desserts are special, especially us having a separate dessert stomach :wink:


(Central Florida Bob ) #5

Jason Fung, among others, has included plots of weight vs. time in his books. While the people pushing any kind of diet will publish those, they only tend to do the short period of time while the followers are losing weight. If they showed long periods, people would see that after several months, or maybe a couple of years, almost everyone’s weight drifts back up. Maybe not to where they started, but they drift in that direction.

I think that’s evidence of a feedback loop, but “the other side” says we just are used to eating more so we do. To borrow the phrase, “we’re just worthless and weak” and if we had any strength of character we wouldn’t gain it back. A fortune has been made many times on pushing the idea that gaining it back is our lack of will power.


(Bob M) #6

I look at it like an arrow:

image

If you’re set up (based on genetics, insulin resistance, hormones, mental aspects, etc.) to store energy instead of burn it (“no storage”), that’s what will happen. And this could be independent of calories, meaning that you could eat fewer calories than someone else who is the same age, sex, height, etc., and yet gain weight, when they don’t.

All of these people saying “but I barely eat anything while gaining weight” are probably correct.


(KM) #7

I’d also have to say, let’s face it. Weight loss is a lovely, linear marker of success. While you’re dropping weight you’re having triumphs. Once you get to a goal weight, and you no longer have that automatic positive feedback, it’s pretty easy to slide back into less rigorous eating patterns. It’s like you’ve been there, done that, next goal please. And I think even a bit of relaxing, especially in terms of carbohydrate consumption, even if it’s not an enormous number of calories, can slowly swing things back the way they came. I have noticed with myself over the past year or so, when I am just in “maintenance”, a pound or two creeps back every few months.

Doing a daily weigh in is useful to me. At this point it is not a goal but rather just a trend. Or rather, it’s a maximum goal, i e I want to weigh in at less than x pounds every day, with a bit of leeway. Say my ideal weight is 120, the goal is to weigh in under 123 every single day. If I look over a month and I realize I haven’t hit that mark more than four times, it’s time to recalibrate. Having this top goal also gives me a sense of positive numerical feedback, as I can add up the number of days I hit my mark, rather than the number of pounds I lost.


#8

I couldn’t care less about my weight, I just don’t want to be fat. I see and touch my fatty body every day, weighing is just to see if I had any change recently (I don’t, of course. my weight is the same since many months, each and every morning, no matter what. it’s kind of creepy, I am a human…).

Yeah, that may be one problem with rigorous eating patters. I don’t do those. If I change my diet, it’s never very temporal (except my very short experiments), it becomes my default for as long as I can imagine. It may change later, sure. So it must be enjoyable, more enjoyable than any other diet in my life, actually. It makes things harder and easier simultaneously.
And if I ever could slim down, I probably would appreciate it too much. Anyway, eating at maintenance is zillion times easier than eating at a deficit, at least it seems so to me, in my own case. Deficit means very little food. Okay, maintenance means very little food too (especially when being slim, probably. I never was that, not even as a kid) but still, I get all the energy I need for that time… And I maintain with way more food than what I need (at least I always did it, even when I weighed way less), that definitely helps.

Carbs are strange because they don’t make me nearly as hungry as in the past. Can low-carb/keto/carnivore solve this problem or what? No idea but I am glad it happened. (Probably my carnivore-ish did it or maybe my big focus on leaner protein, I only noticed I need less food on my carbier days since I made those changes (I still feel it’s not good for me if I eat too much carbs for too long. but I don’t overeat epically unlike in the past, even several years into low-carb). Or just adding meat was magical, who knows? though years passed until I saw the difference regarding carbs). Even my protein need (the minimum amount needed for me for satiation) seems to diminish, that is a huge help for me if it’s truly the case.

I know I never used any willpower I could notice to change my eating behaviour, that’s simply not my style but some physical and mental changes just happened. Some right away (carnivore does it to me immediately or in a few days at most), some after a very long period… Interesting.

There are still physical limits but indeed, some people have an unusually slow metabolism and I guess sometimes it’s normal for them, it’s not a slowed down one, they are just like that? Very unfortunate. And even if they have a decent one, sometimes the body refuses to use the stored fat, it does what we normal ones do when we are truly starving. So they may eat less and less and less and it’s already very severe starvation for a normal human and they still stay fat, just feeling cold and not working properly. Quite tragic. Their bodies are broken. I don’t know how they can solve this but according to what I have read, it exists. The shows and whatnots always bring up people who say they eat little but they eat A TON but there is the rare case when one really can’t just eat little and see results.

It’s probvably the case, usually. If one can force themselves to eat little enough, there is no way to gain, the energy must come from somewhere, after all. It may be super unhealthy, of course, super torturous but if there is little enough food, gain is simply impossible. My SO had this after he starved himself down, the next years weren’t easy and he realized he can’t stay at 56kg because it’s not just being hungry most of the time but his body refuses to work properly. So he chose a bit higher, still okay looking body and ate accordingly. And exercised a lot, he can’t stop as he rapidly gains fat then, he can’t eat little enough for a slim body with a sedentary lifestyle, it’s very painful.
There are many people like this, more or less good working body and a sacred goal. They make sacrifices for it. It’s not for every personality (definitely not for me. I don’t do sacrifices or much self control when it comes to food), circumstances or physical body (I mean, some just doesn’t work well enough). But as I see, most people just don’t care enough about their figure and/or health and yes, the efforts tire them out, they can’t do it forever. I can relate. I never forced things I disliked but even easy, nice diets can be tiresome after a while if we feel a bit restricted. I am stubborn with a goal, at least so I did tons of experiments, tried out things, made zillion new recipes, put really much effort into trying to find the way for me that I enjoy and do it easily enough. It helped that I had no option to go back to my old ways, they felt bad and wrong. Had to make myself comfortable on a diet that I knew were good and possibly for me at that time.
Gaining back is quite complicated. It’s very wrong and rude to call people weak-willed just because it happens. It’s not easy to find the right diet (and lifestyle, state of mind, whatever) to lose and maintain. I have spent a lot of time and effort and it took many, many years. It’s easier for some and if one has the right willpower, it may take no time and all for the losing part but maintaining is for a very long time and can be very tricky. So we mostly agree BUT with a strong will, effort, sacrifices, yep, most people could stay slim. It is about as helpful as “eat little and you will lose fat”. Almost surely true but it doesn’t bring us any more close to our goals to know that… I know I simply need to eat little, not even super little, my body works well enough. It doesn’t mean I can do it, even with much effort, research, experimenting, training and whatnot. It’s harder for some of us than for others. Or later in our life. I easily lost weight 15 years ago. It doesn’t happen now, on a much better diet.
But at least I know I just should try harder. I can’t but I should so I only blame myself for my fattiness (except I don’t. not a hedonistic state of mind to blame myself but you understand, I don’t blame anything external. not even my childhood circumstances though they led to my current body. so getting fat, that’s one thing. but not losing, that’s on me, 100%). That’s nice, knowing we aren’t victims and we have the power to change… Hidden somewhere real deep…
I really should break some barrier now. I had enough.


(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #9

And we won’t know, so long as fat gain is considered a failure of will power.

It occurred to me recently that fibre is one of the best arguments against the notion that calorie counts explain everything. Fibre contains 4 (k)cal/g, just like every other carbohydrate, but the point of fibre is that it is indigestible, so those calories don’t count.

Of course, Dr. Westman had to go an ruin this picture by pointing out that there is now evidence to show that most fibres are not so indigestible as we’d like to believe . . . .


(Jim Fife) #10

The more I eat the more I eat.


(Alec) #11

Paul
My understanding of the CICO argument is that calories in poop is counted as calories out. So any indigestible fibre is counted on the way out.(nice!).

My view is that the reason CICO is completely useless as even an idea is that estimates of calories out are just total guesses in the real world: we have very little control over how much energy the body uses. Our bodies decide what energy to use on what completely on its own with little conscious control by us.


(Bob M) #12

For me, it’s a mindset change. I stopped eating bacon because I could eat an entire meal and if we made bacon, if left to my own devices, I’d eat an entire pound (454 grams, I think) of it.

But what if eating a pound of bacon, even if that’s a ton of “calories”, would mean nothing in terms of weight? When I trialed a high (animal) fat diet, I felt like I had more energy. I believe this is Amber O’Hearn’s argument: eating higher fat for some people leads to higher caloric output.

The problem for me for high fat is that I get stomach upset eating beef suet, so then it’s hard to find fat to eat that’s not high polyunsaturated fat. Normal pork, for instance, is generally not great. I’ve tossed store-bought pork because the fat tasted bad.

I guess I just want things to be simple: eating keto will mean you’ll get to what you were when you were 16-24, where you could gain but then lose weight with zero issues. But somehow I think I “broke” something, because my belly fights against getting too small.


(KM) #13

Exactly! If the calories used are widely variable between individuals, ranging from the"low metabolism" person to the athlete burning calories simply by trimming his toenails, ingested calories behaving differently dependent on their molecular structure, the calories excreted also vary widely depending on gut health and function, and the body seemingly making independent decisions of how much nutrition is necessary depending on what is provided, individual calorie needs are so different it’s not a useful metric at all.


#14

Yep though many can make an educated guess. Or at least a guess for some minimum.
But it’s not like we always can estimate our eaten calories so well either… I know I can’t but still try. Still, calories out is a bigger mystery especially when we have some extra exercise. Like 30-40km hiking. I don’t even have a vague guess for that. Not like I need it, I surely lose fat on such a day. I can eat much but not so very much in the tiny eating window I normally have especially on such days.

And if someone has a body that doesn’t even absorb nutrition well, there is even a mystery loss… probably a healthier person don’t have it as a significant amount though. And if certain mystery things are fixed enough on average, it’s no problem. If I know I need to eat this much, I don’t need to do my CI and CO. If this guesstimation CI works, it’s cool. But one can keep a deficit without caring about the numbers, of course, I had such times. No tracking, just following what worked (eating as little as I comfortably can on low-carb).

Yeah, we should figure out what is good for us personally. After I figure out what numbers work for me (at that time. things tend to change, sadly), eating according to that works fine for me, I know it’s not that simple (or complicated) for everyone. It’s nice if one can find a healthy woe where numbers can stay hidden in mystery.


(Bob M) #15

This is from page 110 of the book Burn:

The book:

https://a.co/d/4HDdKGZ

Oddly, he never discusses why there can be a 300 calorie/day difference between individuals. To me, that seems very important.

Edit: he believes that we all burn about the same amount of calories per day. You can get it to go up a bit, but your body will compensate by lowering energy at other times.


#16

Various individual things. Here we see energy need for weight, of course people with the same weight may have a very different lean body mass and that matters. There is activity too but metabolism can slow down or be unusually quick or slow anyway. 300 kcal sounds a very tiny range, I would accept 3000 kcal more if we include extreme cases but that’s probably (surely?) just for individual days, not always. It’s known that activity can make a bigger difference if it’s occasional and well, it’s not very realistic to be super active all the time. It’s different occasionally. Ultramaratoners may lose kilograms of fat and muscle in days, allegedly. I just can’t help being interested in really extreme cases but many people do exercise with a very serious energy need at least occasionally.

Individual differences are huge, there was a successful veteran hobby bodybuilder who (allegedly but he seemed a decent one and why would he have lied about this) had a lower energy need than my SO, same height, similar activity but +20kg extra muscle on the man. So yes, individuals have some significant energy need differences sometimes. The bodybuilder must have had some problems though, it’s not like my SO has a really big energy need but it’s not small either. He is way below the top line on the graph, way above the mid line though as far as I can tell, I track his eating sometimes and he eats about the same amount nearly every day. So nothing special. But he needs his few hours of exercise per day to stay slim. As it’s regular exercise (not even sick off days) and nothing extreme, it probably doesn’t burn very many hundreds of kilocalories but it’s still highly significant when one can’t eat less than the actual intake. I suppose his body is less prone to keep the energy intake in the usual range if possible too, surely we are individuals in that as well.

Even without lean mass, I liked the see the graphs. It would be nice to learn about the dots especially the outliers :smiley: What caused them? Special individual factor, muscular body, high activity, swimming outside when it’s -50C (I saw videos about that and I never will forget it), other things?
And what about the energy need of 50kg male adults vs 50kg growing boys?


(Bob M) #17

I think the answers to why certain people can have higher intakes than others are important, and pretty much no one talks about those.

But I want to quickly do a thought experiment. The same person eats the following at the same time for three days in a row:

  1. 500 calories of table sugar (pure sugar)
  2. 500 calories of pork belly (let’s assume pure fat)
  3. 500 calories of ham (or shrimp) (almost all protein)

First, there’s a difference in how many calories it takes to digest these:

Or another way to look at, which adds in insulin:

So, eating high protein means that your body has to use more energy relative to carbs or fat to digest it.

Then, sugar = high glucose and high insulin; protein = no glucose change (for me, anyway), some insulin change; fat = little to no glucose or fat change.

Now, that last link says that fat is easily stored as fat. But is it, if you’re not combining fat and carbs? (Note: I did try a really high saturated fat diet and gained a ton of weight, but I also combined some carbs with that at times. Yet when I tried high fat carnivore, I felt like I had more energy and did not gain weight.)

And what are the effects on hormones other than insulin, like GLP-1 and all the many other hormones? I don’t know, but there are probably vastly different hormonal effects of the 3 variants.


(Central Florida Bob ) #18

I’m uncomfortable with the whole concept of digesting proteins. Our body is going to break the amino acids down for energy, rather than using them to repair and replace needed proteins? It seems stupid - our bodies should know better. What if it happens to be an amino acid you’re short of somewhere in your body? Your liver (or pick an organ) is short of some AA, and the fact it’s an essential AA means our body can’t make it. At a minimum, our bodies should have receptors on cells for the essential amino acids and a way to store them, not just digest them. Essential amino acids should just circulate in the bloodstream until an organ that needs it grabs it.

The whole concept of CICO just seems too oversimplified. Saying if CI is just a little over CO you’re going to gain weight or if it’s just a little less than CO you’re going to lose weight is saying your body is 100% efficient at extracting the available energy. 100% efficient just doesn’t happen enough in the real world. A guideline? An approximation? Sure. Knock yourself out.


#19

It’s known but why would it matter? We eat the right amount of protein anyway. It’s not like we eat no protein or we eat just protein or even that we eat in a huge range.
So if I want to lose fat, I can’t raise my protein intake (I actually lower it a bit on my lower-cal days as my protein minimization works better. but the difference isn’t significant regarding the teeny tiny extra energy cost), it just stays where it normally is. I still only need to focus on the calories. My guesstimation is so inaccurate that even with a 100g wide protein range (mine is way bigger if we consider EVERY day in my last years but not if we consider my usual days), the energy cost of digesting the protein is negligible. That’s 100 kcal at most, close to nothing. It’s quite important theoretically and to understand things! But not in practice.
And… If I eat 100g protein more, it may only mean 300 kcal extra but that’s still 300kcal EXTRA. Not great for my fat-loss. Unless it means I eat less fat but it probably means I eat more fat so… Not good.

It can get stored without an insulin bump, I have read. As it makes perfect sense, how would animals gain fat (when needed) so quickly using low-carb food otherwise…
It doesn’t interest me so much though, I want to lose fat, I don’t care if I can’t gain on keto (that’s apparently the case and not because of the somewhat lack of carbs, I just don’t eat much enough). But people gain on keto so of course it’s possible. It’s probably very individual, probably some bodies are more reluctant to store fat without higher insulin than others… So even when eating at a proper originally-surplus, one person may gain while the other doesn’t. It’s similar out of keto, not everyone who eats definitely too much for them gains fat. Not even on high-carb high-fat. I was good at that when I was already fat. My maintenance range was huge. It was a blessing and a curse in one.

Oh you have a point! If the energy loss happens only if it’s used as energy (I don’t know what processes happen in the different cases) then it’s even more a negligible amount - but it’s already not significant.

As far as I know, it only does it when it’s so much that yes, some protein gets the role of providing energy, even if it’s not very effective at it… If there are fats and garbs galore and the protein is better elsewhere, then it uses the resources in a logical, sane way. Unless there is some problem.

That’s the oversimplified CICO. In my mind, CICO is reality, it is always true, inevitably, very very complex and we can’t have any hope to figure out our CI or CO accurately… But it works, behind the scenes, hidden in mystery :slight_smile:

I saw it in books but it’s clearly not true. We aren’t robots with a fixed CO, effectiveness etc.
My CO just gets higher then. I add 500 kcal extra, I expect no fat gain whatsoever as my body prefers maintenance, at least at this point. Maybe it will change when I get slimmer.
Actually, that makes sense when one gets too slim… You give some extra food to an underweight one who is just at maintenance and hopefully their body works well enough to gain weight… But it’s not enough to add a tiny bit more and expecting CO and everything else stay put, of course. Add 500 kcal more, no other changes and yes, I expect gain unless the body is too messed up to use the food.

I don’t know our efficiency but I suppose a healthy person is close to 100% under normal circumstances…? But when we use CICO (as much as it’s possible) for our fat-loss plan, it doesn’t matter so much, it’s a full mystery but we just need to find a way to shift the balance to the right direction. Even with all the unknowns everywhere. Actually, tracking and caring about CICO or not, we just need to find the way to success and oversimplification isn’t helpful. To me, tracking is a vague guide and I am quite simple regarding that, I experienced eating little works for me and nothing else ever did. But I ensured it without tracking in my longest fat-loss period, merely using sane, healthy rules. Too bad it doesn’t work now but my whole woe is different now. I chase health, not mere fat-loss.


(Doug) #20

Most of us do pretty well with using protein, unless things are really messed up. Bob, you’re right that we could use better protein storage. Maybe it’s just not been an evolutionary imperative, like storing fat/energy seems to have been?

I know that when we need to, we’re good at conserving and recyling protein - nitrogen excretion (indicative of protein loss) tends to fall off a cliff when we fast, for example.

There are variables - individual genetic differences, the amount of fat we have, the fat/lean body mass ratio, etc.