confused on role of fat vs volume in satiety

  • Thread starter Jeffrey Brantley
  • Start date



[email protected] wrote:
:: I think the thing to be aware of is that many
:: of the suggestions for lowering energy
:: density also would result, as a byproduct, of
:: raising carbohydrates/glycemic index. So it
:: may well be that for people with normal
:: responses to carbohydrates, lowering the
:: energy density and eating the same volume
:: of lower-density food would result in weight
:: loss.

I find little reason to disagree with that. But that doesn't necessarily
imply that people will always eat the same volume of food, especially if
they manage to lose significant amounts of weight.

::
:: However, for some of us, the problem appears
:: to be that if you lower the energy density by
:: increasing carbohydrates and reducing fat,
:: we may feel more satiated *briefly*, but then
:: an insulin rush kicks us in the butt and we get
:: ravenously hungry and wind up eating more.
:: I don't think this necessarily happens to
:: everyone, but probably most of us for whom
:: low-carb is successful would have this problem.

I think the more overweight and the longer one is overweight, the more
abnormal one's response to carbs is. Just a theory, though.

::
:: What appears to work better for me is higher
:: energy density/lower carbs/lower GI with
:: conscious portion control, which is easier
:: without wildly swinging insulin.

Does that imply the same volume? :)
 
jbuch wrote:
> I would suggest that you read more from books, and less from the
> internet and popular media.

Not that I think I should reply to your impolite reply, but this
was from a book with research behind it. Perhaps you should take
your own advice to the extreme and read only from books and get off
the internet until you grow up.
 
[email protected] wrote:

> I think the thing to be aware of is that many
> of the suggestions for lowering energy
> density also would result, as a byproduct, of
> raising carbohydrates/glycemic index.

By carbs are you talking complex carbs or simple
carbs? And if complex carbs what if you drop grains,
rice, etc in favor of veggies? Would that change
things for you?
 
"Bob M" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> 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.

Yes, and the fat probably aids in keeping that feeling around for a
longer time period after a meal.

> 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).

Exactly.


>
>
>
> --
> Bob in CT
 
Tom G wrote:
> Yes, and the fat probably aids in keeping that feeling around for a
> longer time period after a meal.

That may be it. Water on its own apparently doesn't make people
feel full. But if you add in the water with other food the body
perceives it as food so it stays around longer and makes you
feel full. So a broth based soup is very filling and has a low
calorie density. If you choose to eat foods with a higher water
content you can eat less while feeling full, which means you
eat fewer calories.

An example from the book (volumetrics) is an experiment where
they gave women a 270-calorie first course before lunch. On
some days the women got a chicken casserole. One others
they got the same casserole plus a 10-ounce glass of water.
One other days the got the 10-ounces of water cooked into
the casserole to make a soup. It was only the soup that
reduced the calories they ate at the lunch that followed.
The women consumed about 100 calories less at lunch after
the soup, they didn't feel hungry later, and didn't eat more at
dinner to make up the difference. Other studies replicated
the same effect.

In another experiment they gave people a broth-based soup
before lunch, they ate less if given the same number of
calories in an appetizer of cheese and crackers. A 200-calorie
pre-lunch snack of cheese and crackers weighs only 1.5 ounces
while the soup weights 20 ounces. My interpretation is that
you'll eat more of the calorie dense cheese and crackers
to get the same feeling of satiety.
 
"Jeffrey Brantley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Tom G wrote:
> > Yes, and the fat probably aids in keeping that feeling around for a
> > longer time period after a meal.
>
> That may be it. Water on its own apparently doesn't make people
> feel full. But if you add in the water with other food the body
> perceives it as food so it stays around longer and makes you
> feel full. So a broth based soup is very filling and has a low
> calorie density. If you choose to eat foods with a higher water
> content you can eat less while feeling full, which means you
> eat fewer calories.
>
> An example from the book (volumetrics) is an experiment where
> they gave women a 270-calorie first course before lunch. On
> some days the women got a chicken casserole. One others
> they got the same casserole plus a 10-ounce glass of water.
> One other days the got the 10-ounces of water cooked into
> the casserole to make a soup. It was only the soup that
> reduced the calories they ate at the lunch that followed.
> The women consumed about 100 calories less at lunch after
> the soup, they didn't feel hungry later, and didn't eat more at
> dinner to make up the difference. Other studies replicated
> the same effect.
>
> In another experiment they gave people a broth-based soup
> before lunch, they ate less if given the same number of
> calories in an appetizer of cheese and crackers. A 200-calorie
> pre-lunch snack of cheese and crackers weighs only 1.5 ounces
> while the soup weights 20 ounces. My interpretation is that
> you'll eat more of the calorie dense cheese and crackers
> to get the same feeling of satiety.

I know what you mean. It is possible to fool the body, as long as the
difference in calories is not too great, as the mechanisms tend to be
homeostatic. A 100 calorie deficit can easily be adjusted to. This would
help in maitaining weight. Someone who is trying to lose weight will need to
do more to reduce calories and still be able to feel somewhat satisfied with
the new amounts they're eating.
 
"Jeffrey Brantley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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.
=======================
On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so switched
to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay for
these tests.
--
Wysong
Age 60. Height 5'6"
Starting date: 1/8/05
171/ 166 / 140 lb
==========================================
 
X-No-Archive: yes

"Black Metal Martha" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> 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
====================
Very little if you REMOVE and discard the skin and all visible fat.
--
Wysong
Age 60. Height 5'6"
Starting date: 1/8/05
171/ 166 / 140 lb
==========================================
 
X-No-Archive: yes

"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,

$$ It goes against mine as well.

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.

$$ BINGO! :) No size does not fit all.....

--
Wysong
Age 60. Height 5'6"
Starting date: 1/8/05
171/ 166 / 140 lb
==========================================
 
"Wysong *~" <P@P> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeffrey Brantley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > 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.
> =======================
> On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so switched
> to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay for
> these tests.

She posted here a few months ago, so I know who you are talking about.
Do you believe that a person who has overeaten for so many years, and then
happens to have a heart attack while not following a weightloss program
properly has any justification to blame that diet for their ailments? I'm
afraid you are only getting a partial story from her.


> --
> Wysong
> Age 60. Height 5'6"
> Starting date: 1/8/05
> 171/ 166 / 140 lb
> ==========================================
>
 
Wysong *~ wrote:
> On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so switched
> to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay for
> these tests.

What will she do if she has another? Blame WW?
 
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.

On your plan. Not on any plan I've ever considered.

> 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?

It does pretty much knock down the theory behind a
system based on volume.

For the same total calories, carbs tend to be the least
satiating. Because of insulin reaction some even
become more hungry when eating carbs. This makes it
usefull to eat low glycemic index carbs ranging from
celery to carrots. Carbs are more filling in the
stomach, which isn't quite the same thing as satiating
via reduced appetite.

For the same total calories, protein tends to be in the
middle. It digests slowly so it has the stomach
fullness advantage. Even better it doesn't much
interact with either carbs or fat in effecting
appetite.

For the same total calories, fat tends to give the
best appetite reduction so in that sense it gives the
best satiating. it comes with some buts, though. Fat
makes most folks feel full but it digests quickly so
the feeling doesn't last long. And mix in enough
carbs and the appetite reduction goes away. Think of
eating a stick of butter. Then think of mixing that
butter with flour and calling it a batch of cookies.

Like all trends you'll find exceptions to it as well.
Some get more fullness from protein than fat, etc.
 
Doug Freyburger 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.
>
> On your plan. Not on any plan I've ever considered.

Not my plan. It's called volumetrics by Barbara Rolls, Ph.D.

>>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?
>
>
> It does pretty much knock down the theory behind a
> system based on volume.

I think once the water angle is figured in, as discussed
in a later post, it makes sense.

> Then think of mixing that
> butter with flour and calling it a batch of cookies.

I try not to think of such things :)
 
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 16:35:50 GMT, Luna
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Luna, my experience is the absolute opposite. If I add a little more
fat, I will feel much more full, much more quickly AND it will take
many more hours before I'm hungry again. Adding more protein to a
dish does nothing to make ME feel fuller. Doubling or even tripling
lean protein in a dish does nothing at all to make me less hungry -
but increasing fat content by about a quarter does the trick in almost
every case. It's one reason why I like to add about 2 tsp of sour
cream to a soup - the sour cream makes the soup seem more filling.

I know a lot of people who claim the same response as you do, and I
know a lot of people who find it works that way for me.

Isn't it great that LC allows (nay ENCOURAGES) people to find what
works for them?

Aramanth
 
In article <DkULd.248792$Xk.191501@pd7tw3no>, [email protected] says...
>
> "Wysong *~" <P@P> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >

> > On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so switched
> > to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay for
> > these tests.
>
> She posted here a few months ago, so I know who you are talking about.
> Do you believe that a person who has overeaten for so many years, and then
> happens to have a heart attack while not following a weightloss program
> properly has any justification to blame that diet for their ailments? I'm
> afraid you are only getting a partial story from her.

The woman who had the heart attack is JAIME, who introduced herself in
the WW newsgroup and blamed her heart attack on Atkins.

--
Saffire
205/144/125 - 5'1.5"
Atkins since 6/14/03
Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333
 
"Saffire" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <DkULd.248792$Xk.191501@pd7tw3no>, [email protected] says...
> >
> > "Wysong *~" <P@P> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
>
> > > On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so
switched
> > > to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay
for
> > > these tests.
> >
> > She posted here a few months ago, so I know who you are talking
about.
> > Do you believe that a person who has overeaten for so many years, and
then
> > happens to have a heart attack while not following a weightloss program
> > properly has any justification to blame that diet for their ailments?
I'm
> > afraid you are only getting a partial story from her.
>
> The woman who had the heart attack is JAIME, who introduced herself in
> the WW newsgroup and blamed her heart attack on Atkins.

The claim was made on this NG as well.

http://groups.google.ca/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=kGyed.37189$J16.2283398%4
0news20.bellglobal.com&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26q%3Djaime%2Bh
eart%26btnG%3DSearch%26meta%3Dgroup%253Dalt.support.diet.low-carb


>
> --
> Saffire
> 205/144/125 - 5'1.5"
> Atkins since 6/14/03
> Progress photo: http://photos.yahoo.com/saffire333
 
X-No-Archive: yes

"Tom G" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:DkULd.248792$Xk.191501@pd7tw3no...
>
> "Wysong *~" <P@P> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Jeffrey Brantley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > 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.
> > =======================
> > On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so
switched
> > to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay
for
> > these tests.
============================
> She posted here a few months ago, so I know who you are talking about.
> Do you believe that a person who has overeaten for so many years, and then
> happens to have a heart attack while not following a weightloss program
> properly has any justification to blame that diet for their ailments? I'm
> afraid you are only getting a partial story from her.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, I don't know the women or her history. I'm taking her post at face
value. What program was she following? I think you would agree that anyone
who is obese and on any diet should have their
cholesterol/triglicerides/blood sugar levels checked at least once a year if
not every 6 months.
--
Wysong
Age 60. Height 5'6"
Starting date: 1/8/05
171/ 166 / 140 lb
==========================================
 
"Jeffrey Brantley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Wysong *~ wrote:
> > On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so
switched
> > to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay
for
> > these tests.
>
> What will she do if she has another? Blame WW?
=====================
Beats me.... how long was she low carbing? Her arteries may be in such bad
shape no diet will make a difference. I still think everyone should get
their cholesterol/triglicerides/sugar checked at least once a year - don't
you?
--
Wysong
Age 60. Height 5'6"
Starting date: 1/8/05
171/ 166 / 140 lb
==========================================
 
She low-carbed about as well as you did.

--
Now ********. You cannot possibly be this stupid and remember to
breathe. You must be trolling. -- Carmen


"Wysong *~" <P@P> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jeffrey Brantley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> Wysong *~ wrote:
>> > On the WW NG there's a women who just had a heart attack on LC so
> switched
>> > to WW. Get your cholesterol levels checked. Most Ins. companies pay
> for
>> > these tests.
>>
>> What will she do if she has another? Blame WW?
> =====================
> Beats me.... how long was she low carbing? Her arteries may be in such
> bad
> shape no diet will make a difference. I still think everyone should get
> their cholesterol/triglicerides/sugar checked at least once a year - don't
> you?
> --
> Wysong
> Age 60. Height 5'6"
> Starting date: 1/8/05
> 171/ 166 / 140 lb
> ==========================================
>
 
On 2005-02-02 03:07:39 -0500, "Wysong *~" <P@P> said:
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> OK, I don't know the women or her history. I'm taking her post at face
> value. What program was she following?

I think it was the seefood diet.


SKW
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back