Possible topics for consideration?

(Bob M) #1

May we present possible topics for consideration?

Here’s 1: Hormones and satiety.

Why is it that I often get more full hours after eating? Why is it that when I eat, I get hungry? For instance, there are plenty of times when if I wasn’t eating dinner with my family, I would not eat. But if I do eat, I can eat a normal meal.

I believe these are hormone effects, but I don’t know, don’t know which ones, and don’t know whether I can affect these.

Here’s 2/3: Protein.

I gained 20+ pounds trying the Croissant Diet. I have (re)lost a lot of that by going to back to lower fat, higher protein keto. Many of my days are well beyond the “high” level of protein advocated by the 2 keto dudes. Not all, but many. Now, I’m also relatively muscular, an older male, and doing body weight training 1+ hours twice a week to failure. (To failure = if I’m doing pushups, I do them until I cannot do them anymore. Almost every set is like this.)

I have found over the years (low carb/keto since 1/1/14, other than tests like The Croissant Diet) that I do well on lower fat, higher protein keto.

But Amber O’Hearn believes some people do better on higher fat, and also eating fat first. It’d be interesting to get her take.

And, of course, there are others like Ted Naiman who believe protein is hyper-important and believe fat intake causes one to get fat.

Two different takes, and it’d be interesting to see if there’s common ground.

(Joey) #2

Great topic … I always appreciate learning more about how these magical compounds interact to affect our metabolism. Great idea,

This doesn’t sound at all surprising to me. I had to google Croissant Diet to confirm it wasn’t an Onion gag.

Pick any biomarker … and please help me understand how eating large quantities of dessert buns could improve one’s health? :thinking:

And yet, there’s also something called the Donut Diet… :smirk:

(Bob M) #3

Well, there is a ton of…mouse data/studies indicating this works. There’s a bit of human data, but not a lot.

And there are plenty of people who believe it:

Now, this is about PUFAs, but the idea is that we ate sugar in the 1950s/60s/70s and saturated fat and weren’t fat. It wasn’t until we at PUFAs that we became fat. The theory is that we can eat croissants (high butter fat, high saturated fat, with not as many carbs as many think there are) and not get fat.

I really thought it would work, and it DID work if I ate a TON of saturated fat during a short time period. A massive satiety. The problem was that if I sat down with the family to eat a meal, even while NOT hungry AT ALL, I ate a normal meal. And, if I didn’t eat that ton of saturated fat quickly, I didn’t get any satiety. So, I could eat croissant with added butter after croissant with added butter after…

In fact, to reconcile that I could get massive satiety if I ate a ton of saturated fat quickly, but none if I ate saturated fat slowly, I came up with this graph (yes, I’m an engineer):

image
image.png1066×725 43.3 KB

(Joey) #4

Fascinating, thanks!

I guess if one’s goal were to condense feeding into an infrequent but satisfying eating window, this could be a way to achieve this. This would allow insulin levels to remain lower for longer - a good thing.

Then again, it’s unclear how LCHF eating falls short in this same regard. Or perhaps they’re essentially both scaling the same hill from a different direction?

Anyhow, putting one’s metabolism and associated urges aside, even if not hungry the social reality of family mealtime can throw sand in the gears, as you’ve reported.

Thanks again. I’m living and learning.

(Robin) #5

It’s all interesting and I think a lot of people would like to know more. Personally, once I find my groove, like now, I tend to put blinders on and just stick to my path that’s working. I’m not as curious about the why’s, I guess. (On this topic anyway. I am insatiably curious about other topics, hence living with with nose in books.)

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #6

Well, they’re called appetisers for a reason. . . .

Some indeed do, and some do better on higher protein—at least, according to the experiences I’ve read on these forums. For one thing, people’s nitrogen loss, and hence their need for more protein, is highly variable. If Raubenheimer and Simpson are right, then people who need more protein aren’t going to feel satiated until they get enough.

#7

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

(Bob M) #8

It’s true there are appetizers. But if one is not hungry AT ALL and eats, I would think he’d eat less. But that does not happen for me.

In other words, if I were single, I wouldn’t eat. Since I had people at home and eating, then I ate, and ate a normal meal.

To me, this means there’s something messed up with my hormones.

Similarly, that curve I show above. There’s an amount of saturated fat that causes my “appestat” to go “on” and cause massive satiety. But if I don’t get that amount of saturated fat, i don’t get any satiety.

What is that “appestat”? And why does it work that way?