confused on role of fat vs volume in satiety

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Jeffrey Brantley, Feb 1, 2005.

  1. Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    dense foods.

    But, I thought fat made people feel full so shouldn't they
    stop eating sooner? Instead we just eat larger portions
    of high calorie dense foods which is counter productive.

    I am confused by the mechanisms at work. Any ideas?
     
    Tags:


  2. Ignoramus13812 wrote:

    > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 07:41:12 -0800, Jeffrey Brantley <[email protected]> wrote:
    > The eat fat approach is actually working for me in the sense that
    > after I eat enough fat, I am not hungry. It's been 6 months since I
    > adopted a high fat diet, and it is still working, I am not gaining any
    > weight.


    So what weighting do you use? Do you eat a lot of less energy dense
    foods with a fat portion or the reverse? If you eat more fat do you
    eat less food overall than you would otherwise? Do you still feel
    satisfied? Did your total volume of food set point lower so you
    didn't eat more calories?
     
  3. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    Jeffrey Brantley wrote:
    :: Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    :: of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    :: dense foods.
    ::

    IME, that notion is nonsense.

    :: But, I thought fat made people feel full so shouldn't they
    :: stop eating sooner? Instead we just eat larger portions
    :: of high calorie dense foods which is counter productive.

    I'm not sure it's true that fat makes people feel full, but not eating a lot
    of carbs will typically reduce appetite due to nomalization of blood sugar
    levels. Hence, with carbs removed, you can eat smaller portions of calorie
    dense foods and not be overly hunger.

    ::
    :: I am confused by the mechanisms at work. Any ideas?
     
  4. Roger Zoul wrote:

    > Jeffrey Brantley wrote:
    > :: Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    > :: of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    > :: dense foods.
    > ::
    >
    > IME, that notion is nonsense.


    In the book volumetrics weight-control there are a lot of studies
    saying it's not nonsense. Do you have any substance behind
    your strong opinion?
     
  5. Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    >>So what weighting do you use?

    >
    > I am not sure if I properly understand your question. Are you asking
    > me about my fat/protein/carb ratio?


    Yes, sorry for being unclear.


    >>If you eat more fat do you eat less food overall than
    >>you would otherwise?

    >
    > yes.


    I wonder how that fits with the research showing people
    eat roughly the same volume of food?

    > I lost weight by "eating less" and exercising, and maintained in this
    > manner for about 10 months. I switched to low carb, hoping to be less
    > hungry. It works so far, although I am open minded to the possibility
    > that it might be harmful to my health. We'll see.


    On low carb I eat more salad vegies than ever before so that part
    is more healthful. The whole saturated fat vs hard disease issue
    has be concerned though.
     
  6. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    Jeffrey Brantley wrote:
    :: Roger Zoul wrote:
    ::
    ::: Jeffrey Brantley wrote:
    ::::: Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    ::::: of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    ::::: dense foods.
    :::::
    :::
    ::: IME, that notion is nonsense.
    ::
    :: In the book volumetrics weight-control there are a lot of studies
    :: saying it's not nonsense. Do you have any substance behind
    :: your strong opinion?

    Yes. Personal experience. I've lost over 130 lbs by eating way less food
    (in volume) than before. I didn't do that by eating a lot of lower energy
    dense foods, even though I do include them in my diet in the form of
    veggies. I ate mostly fat, then protein, and very few carbs.

    If I starting eat a lot more carbs, then my volume of food will increase
    dramatically, unless I work hard to restrain myself.
     
  7. Luna

    Luna Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Jeffrey Brantley <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    > of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    > dense foods.
    >
    > But, I thought fat made people feel full so shouldn't they
    > stop eating sooner? Instead we just eat larger portions
    > of high calorie dense foods which is counter productive.
    >
    > I am confused by the mechanisms at work. Any ideas?


    Where did you read that fat makes people feel full? That goes against my
    personal experience, and I don't think I'm all that unique. Example: a
    vegetable and chicken stir-fry cooked in olive oil will be more filling if
    I add more _chicken_, not if I add more oil.

    --
    Michelle Levin
    http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick

    I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
     
  8. Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    >>In the book volumetrics weight-control there are a lot of studies
    >>saying it's not nonsense. Do you have any substance behind
    >>your strong opinion?

    >
    >
    > can you post references to the actual studies? (such as on medline)


    In the book there are 14 or so, but i can't type that much.

    Bell, E. A., ....
    1998. Energy density of foods effected energy intake in normal-weight woman.
    American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67, 412-420.

    Bell, E. A., ...
    1999, Increasing volume of food wih air effects satiety. Obesity Research, 7, 44S.

    Duncan, K. H., ....
    The effects of high and low energy density diets on satiety, energy intake, and
    eating time of obese and nonobese subjects. American Journal of Clinical
    Nutrition, 37, 763-767
     
  9. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    :: On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:11:34 -0800, Jeffrey Brantley
    :: <[email protected]> wrote:
    :::
    :::
    ::: Roger Zoul wrote:
    :::
    :::: Jeffrey Brantley wrote:
    :::::: Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    :::::: of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    :::::: dense foods.
    ::::::
    ::::
    :::: IME, that notion is nonsense.
    :::
    ::: In the book volumetrics weight-control there are a lot of studies
    ::: saying it's not nonsense. Do you have any substance behind
    ::: your strong opinion?
    ::
    :: can you post references to the actual studies? (such as on medline)

    His original statement might be true under a particular set of
    circumstances. However, as it stands there, it's just a blanket statement.
    There is no way that I now eat the same volume of food that I used to. Now,
    perhaps if I were the same weight.....but for someone who has lost nearly 20
    inchs in waist measurement....

    :: --
    :: 223/173.2/180
     
  10. Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    > I was only able to find the last article in medline, which spoke about
    > a 5 day trial. Very short term.
    >


    Poppitt, S. D., 1995. Energy density of diets and obesity. Intenational Journal
    of Obesity.

    Stubbs, R. J., ...
    1998. The effect of covertly manipulting the energy density of mixed diets on ad
    libitum food intake in "pseudo free-living" humans. International Journal of
    Obesity.

    Saltzman, E., ...
    1997. Effect of high-fat and low-fat diets on voluntary energy intake and
    subsrate oxidation: Studies in identical twins consuming diets matches for
    energy denity, fiver, and palatibility. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

    Rolls, B. J., ....
    1999. Intake of fat and carbohydrate: Role of enerfy density. European Journal
    of Clinical Nutrition.
     
  11. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    :: On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:36:11 -0800, Jeffrey Brantley
    :: <[email protected]> wrote:
    :::
    ::: Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    ::::: In the book volumetrics weight-control there are a lot of studies
    ::::: saying it's not nonsense. Do you have any substance behind
    ::::: your strong opinion?
    ::::
    ::::
    :::: can you post references to the actual studies? (such as on medline)
    :::
    ::: In the book there are 14 or so, but i can't type that much.
    :::
    ::: Bell, E. A., ....
    ::: 1998. Energy density of foods effected energy intake in
    ::: normal-weight woman. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 67,
    ::: 412-420.
    :::
    ::: Bell, E. A., ...
    ::: 1999, Increasing volume of food wih air effects satiety. Obesity
    ::: Research, 7, 44S.
    :::
    ::: Duncan, K. H., ....
    ::: The effects of high and low energy density diets on satiety, energy
    ::: intake, and eating time of obese and nonobese subjects. American
    ::: Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 37, 763-767
    :::
    ::
    :: I was only able to find the last article in medline, which spoke
    :: about
    :: a 5 day trial. Very short term.

    It would make sense that people eat the roughly same volume of food daily if
    they 1) maintain their weight and 2) eat basically the same foods all the
    time (slight variations over the long term). However, if you next say you
    want to lose weight, then the notion of keeping the volume the same but
    lowering the energy density of food becomes a strategy...
     
  12. Luna wrote:
    > Where did you read that fat makes people feel full?


    Don't know. Seems to for me. Could be wrong though.
     
  13. jbuch

    jbuch Guest

    Jeffrey Brantley wrote:

    > Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    > of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    > dense foods.
    >
    > But, I thought fat made people feel full so shouldn't they
    > stop eating sooner? Instead we just eat larger portions
    > of high calorie dense foods which is counter productive.
    >
    > I am confused by the mechanisms at work. Any ideas?



    You might consider this.

    Eat HAY, with flavorings, of course. Zero calories ! !

    You can't digest the hay, so you can eat any volume you like.... really
    get stuffed.

    If some fiber is good, ain't a lot sever so much better?

    The idea of eating foods with a lot of volume and few calories is so
    appealing, that we should consider taking it to the maximum.

    Or, we should not even go down that way of selecting foods just because
    they have a lot of volume (or weight), and few calories.

    I would suggest that you read more from books, and less from the
    internet and popular media.
     
  14. Roger Zoul

    Roger Zoul Guest

    Jeffrey Brantley wrote:
    :: Luna wrote:
    ::: Where did you read that fat makes people feel full?
    ::
    :: Don't know. Seems to for me. Could be wrong though.

    If eating more fat was done while removing carb calories, this effect could
    definitely be possible. However, if you eat goodly amounts of fat and
    carbs, you will tend to eat too much and gain weight.
     
  15. Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:16:23 -0800, Jeffrey Brantley >
    > You do not have to eat saturated fat if you do not want it. You can
    > always eat, say, fish and chicken and nuts.
    >

    ????? What? Chicken HAS saturated fat!

    Martha
     
  16. In article <[email protected]>, Roger Zoul
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Jeffrey Brantley wrote:
    > :: Luna wrote:
    > ::: Where did you read that fat makes people feel full?
    > ::
    > :: Don't know. Seems to for me. Could be wrong though.
    >
    > If eating more fat was done while removing carb calories, this effect could
    > definitely be possible. However, if you eat goodly amounts of fat and
    > carbs, you will tend to eat too much and gain weight.


    Guilty as charged and that explains a few things likem extra pounds one
    through five.
    >
    >


    --
    Diva
    *****
    The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman
     
  17. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    On 1 Feb 2005 09:08:55 -0800, Black Metal Martha <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >
    > Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    >> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:16:23 -0800, Jeffrey Brantley >
    >> You do not have to eat saturated fat if you do not want it. You can
    >> always eat, say, fish and chicken and nuts.
    >>

    > ????? What? Chicken HAS saturated fat!
    >
    > Martha
    >


    So does fish:

    http://www.annecollins.com/dietary-fat/fish-fat.htm

    For the record, so do nuts:

    http://www.healthyeatingclub.com/info/books-phds/books/foodfacts/html/data/data2i.html

    --
    Bob in CT
     
  18. In article <[email protected]>,
    Black Metal Martha <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Ignoramus13812 wrote:
    > > On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 08:16:23 -0800, Jeffrey Brantley >
    > > You do not have to eat saturated fat if you do not want it. You can
    > > always eat, say, fish and chicken and nuts.
    > >

    > ????? What? Chicken HAS saturated fat!
    >
    > Martha


    The skin BMM
    >


    --
    Diva
    *****
    The Best Man For The Job Is A Woman
     
  19. Tom G

    Tom G Guest

    "Luna" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > Jeffrey Brantley <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    > > of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    > > dense foods.
    > >
    > > But, I thought fat made people feel full so shouldn't they
    > > stop eating sooner? Instead we just eat larger portions
    > > of high calorie dense foods which is counter productive.
    > >
    > > I am confused by the mechanisms at work. Any ideas?

    >
    > Where did you read that fat makes people feel full? That goes against my
    > personal experience, and I don't think I'm all that unique. Example: a
    > vegetable and chicken stir-fry cooked in olive oil will be more filling if
    > I add more _chicken_, not if I add more oil.


    I think part of the confusion is the difference in how people describe
    being satisfied. Some may use a "full belly" to say that is enough. And
    others may feel satisfied by stabilization of energy levels which takes a
    little longer. It is more likely a combination of both. If having a full
    belly was the best way to judge being full, than eating quickly would be
    better than eating slowly.
    Protein would give more of a full belly feeling because the volume is
    larger than an equal amount of calories of fat. Fat would give more of an
    energy level satisfaction feeling, but that effect is delayed.
    When I was trying to lose weight, I went by feelings of satisfaction. But
    I had to wait for about 20 mins. for that effect. A good example for me was
    nuts. If I ate a handful and waited a while, I could truly say that I would
    be ok with not having more(satisfied). If I would have continued eating more
    and more nuts until I felt satisfied, I would have eaten a whole bowl before
    feelings of having "enough" set in. One handful has about 250Cal, a bowlful
    1000+?
    I would have to say, that before lo-carbing, my feelings of full were
    more along the lines of full belly. But since my energy levels would go up
    and down, I often felt hungry an hour or so after even a large meal.
    Lo-carbing stabilizes my energy levels, and I am able to go for hours
    without food and not feel starved.
    So whenever I read about someone that doesn't feel full after eating fat,
    I believe them, because I think it is more of a perception of what full or
    satisfied means and the amount of time to feel that way.


    >
    > --
    > Michelle Levin
    > http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick
    >
    > I have only 3 flaws. My first flaw is thinking that I only have 3 flaws.
     
  20. Bob M

    Bob M Guest

    On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 17:45:20 GMT, Tom G <[email protected]> wrote:

    >
    > "Luna" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >> In article <[email protected]>,
    >> Jeffrey Brantley <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> > Supposedly we eat the same volume of food a day, regardless
    >> > of the energy density. The idea then is to eat lower energy
    >> > dense foods.
    >> >
    >> > But, I thought fat made people feel full so shouldn't they
    >> > stop eating sooner? Instead we just eat larger portions
    >> > of high calorie dense foods which is counter productive.
    >> >
    >> > I am confused by the mechanisms at work. Any ideas?

    >>
    >> Where did you read that fat makes people feel full? That goes against
    >> my
    >> personal experience, and I don't think I'm all that unique. Example: a
    >> vegetable and chicken stir-fry cooked in olive oil will be more filling
    >> if
    >> I add more _chicken_, not if I add more oil.

    >
    > I think part of the confusion is the difference in how people describe
    > being satisfied. Some may use a "full belly" to say that is enough. And
    > others may feel satisfied by stabilization of energy levels which takes a
    > little longer. It is more likely a combination of both. If having a full
    > belly was the best way to judge being full, than eating quickly would be
    > better than eating slowly.
    > Protein would give more of a full belly feeling because the volume is
    > larger than an equal amount of calories of fat. Fat would give more of an
    > energy level satisfaction feeling, but that effect is delayed.
    > When I was trying to lose weight, I went by feelings of satisfaction.
    > But
    > I had to wait for about 20 mins. for that effect. A good example for me
    > was
    > nuts. If I ate a handful and waited a while, I could truly say that I
    > would
    > be ok with not having more(satisfied). If I would have continued eating
    > more
    > and more nuts until I felt satisfied, I would have eaten a whole bowl
    > before
    > feelings of having "enough" set in. One handful has about 250Cal, a
    > bowlful
    > 1000+?
    > I would have to say, that before lo-carbing, my feelings of full were
    > more along the lines of full belly. But since my energy levels would go
    > up
    > and down, I often felt hungry an hour or so after even a large meal.
    > Lo-carbing stabilizes my energy levels, and I am able to go for hours
    > without food and not feel starved.
    > So whenever I read about someone that doesn't feel full after eating
    > fat,
    > I believe them, because I think it is more of a perception of what full
    > or
    > satisfied means and the amount of time to feel that way.
    >
    >


    I actually think that protein is better from a "feeling full" standpoint
    than fat. The worst are high calorie, dense carbs like pasta: not only
    do they seem to empty from your stomach quickly, but they also cause
    incredible blood sugar swings (for those of us who are affected by such
    things).



    --
    Bob in CT
     
Loading...