LOLTaubes in the NYT
Options
Replies
-
My own experience looking back at any time I used low carb dieting is that the difference between when it worked well and when it didn't came down to how much I was eating chicken. If a lot of my food was boneless skinless chicken breasts with 90%+ of calories from protein, I could make it feel like work to eat even 1,000 calories, and beyond being fat, I've won amateur eating contests before, I can definitely eat. Bacon, fatty beef, butter, avacado, etc and it was easier to get to higher calories.stevencloser wrote: »If I hadn't known the amount of calories in it (and had more eggs) I would have eaten more. I had to make the conscious decision to not eat more. I think that's the definition of appetite/hunger. I could have easily filled my whole day's calories on breakfast alone, without consuming a single gram of carbs. That's kinda the opposite of "On keto you don't have to count calories because there's no way you'd overeat".
I'm guessing you aren't on a ketogenic diet, only judging one zero carb meal in the context of a presumably carb based diet ?
Had you been on keto you may not have eaten as much, or you may have done so and not felt hungry for the rest of the day.
I kind of wish I'd done more diary tracking to substantiate it as this is just my retrospective view.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »For another n of 1 , I usually have a terrible time with hunger on higher carb & it's the worst w lower protein days (any time I don't consume meat). Satiety easily achieved with lots of protein, fat & complex carbs.
And for another n of 1 (and why I always say trying to generalize about this is pointless), carb and fat percentage makes little difference to my satiety/hunger. What does is getting enough protein and eating decent volume (lots of vegetables). Some carbs (like potatoes and sweet potatoes and also fruit) also seem to promote satiety, whereas others (bread, whole grain or not) doesn't--although it also doesn't make me hungrier within the context of a normal balanced diet, it just doesn't seem to fill me up as much as other things for the calories. Adding fat to protein or carbs simply does not promote satiety for me either (lean meats are as filling or more than fattier meats, skim or low fat dairy vs. higher fat). I am never low fat because I find my overall diet more enjoyable/satisfying with a normal level of fat, but NOT because it helps with satiety. (And I'd be miserable trying to do high fat, I think.)
I wouldn't say trying to generalize is "pointless", that is kind of the point of any study. There is clearly a subset of people for whom the kind of diet I described works to mitigate hunger. There may be unknown variables distinguishing these people. In the absence of knowledge about how to identify these variables or ppl (though some clinical or subclinical groups are known to benefit from this diet), there is no harm whatsoever in suggesting a given approach. The person can try it or not, and it MAY help.
I think pointing out that people vary in what is most filling/satisfying for them is important, and also suggesting that they try different things (assuming they are struggling with hunger) and also pay attention to the timing of when they are hungry. There are some things that seem to work for many people (like getting adequate protein, more fiber, more volume, and other things that seem to work for a smaller subset (reducing carbs in general if IR).
What frustrates me -- and I wasn't suggesting that you were doing it -- is the low carb gospel that lowering carbs and increasing fat inherently and for most will affect hunger levels. Fat doesn't do a thing for my hunger (and given the number of people who claim to get hungry 2 minutes after eating a fast food burger -- which I expect would be filling for me, burgers generally are -- I think the idea that fat fills up everyone is likely false. (Those who study such things actually claim that protein is on average most filling and fat on average least filling, although I personally think there are huge differences in foods independent of macro content, so the incessant discussion of macros here is rather beside the point, although explained by people such as Taubes.)
I think some of it (this is just my guess) is that some people use hunger and cravings/drive interchangeably. I get hungry, my stomach rumbles, I eat. Before I ate lower carbs, before my stomach ever rumbled my BG plummeted, I got dizzy, headachy and I acutely wanted or craved food (usually a processed carb), and then finally my real hunger signs, rumbling tummy, would kick in.
Mild hunger is easy to ignore. An intense craving or want along with that hunger, is much more difficult to ignore.
This is just my experience. I realize many, if not most, people will not experience hunger/cravings that way. I am willing to guess that many overweight people, especially the ones who binge, do though.
Dizziness & headache sounds like a blood sugar issue tbh0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »For another n of 1 , I usually have a terrible time with hunger on higher carb & it's the worst w lower protein days (any time I don't consume meat). Satiety easily achieved with lots of protein, fat & complex carbs.
And for another n of 1 (and why I always say trying to generalize about this is pointless), carb and fat percentage makes little difference to my satiety/hunger. What does is getting enough protein and eating decent volume (lots of vegetables). Some carbs (like potatoes and sweet potatoes and also fruit) also seem to promote satiety, whereas others (bread, whole grain or not) doesn't--although it also doesn't make me hungrier within the context of a normal balanced diet, it just doesn't seem to fill me up as much as other things for the calories. Adding fat to protein or carbs simply does not promote satiety for me either (lean meats are as filling or more than fattier meats, skim or low fat dairy vs. higher fat). I am never low fat because I find my overall diet more enjoyable/satisfying with a normal level of fat, but NOT because it helps with satiety. (And I'd be miserable trying to do high fat, I think.)
I wouldn't say trying to generalize is "pointless", that is kind of the point of any study. There is clearly a subset of people for whom the kind of diet I described works to mitigate hunger. There may be unknown variables distinguishing these people. In the absence of knowledge about how to identify these variables or ppl (though some clinical or subclinical groups are known to benefit from this diet), there is no harm whatsoever in suggesting a given approach. The person can try it or not, and it MAY help.
I think pointing out that people vary in what is most filling/satisfying for them is important, and also suggesting that they try different things (assuming they are struggling with hunger) and also pay attention to the timing of when they are hungry. There are some things that seem to work for many people (like getting adequate protein, more fiber, more volume, and other things that seem to work for a smaller subset (reducing carbs in general if IR).
What frustrates me -- and I wasn't suggesting that you were doing it -- is the low carb gospel that lowering carbs and increasing fat inherently and for most will affect hunger levels. Fat doesn't do a thing for my hunger (and given the number of people who claim to get hungry 2 minutes after eating a fast food burger -- which I expect would be filling for me, burgers generally are -- I think the idea that fat fills up everyone is likely false. (Those who study such things actually claim that protein is on average most filling and fat on average least filling, although I personally think there are huge differences in foods independent of macro content, so the incessant discussion of macros here is rather beside the point, although explained by people such as Taubes.)
I think some of it (this is just my guess) is that some people use hunger and cravings/drive interchangeably. I get hungry, my stomach rumbles, I eat. Before I ate lower carbs, before my stomach ever rumbled my BG plummeted, I got dizzy, headachy and I acutely wanted or craved food (usually a processed carb), and then finally my real hunger signs, rumbling tummy, would kick in.
Mild hunger is easy to ignore. An intense craving or want along with that hunger, is much more difficult to ignore.
This is just my experience. I realize many, if not most, people will not experience hunger/cravings that way. I am willing to guess that many overweight people, especially the ones who binge, do though.
You may well be correct -- I think IR likely causes cravings that are different than many people get, at least in some.
However, my post wasn't about whether hunger can be ignored or not, but that even physical hunger will be best controlled in different ways by different people.
This is actually why I often suggest trying lowering carbs or supporting someone experimenting with a low carb diet and think they are great approaches for some -- because although low carb/high fat likely would not be the best approach for me, I think it is for others. But I wish there was the same acknowledgement that people are different by some in the low carb camp, and we didn't have to hear preaching about how people just ARE less hungry on low carb, people just need fewer calories on low carb, etc. (And I dislike this argument because I don't think cutting calories as low as possible is a healthy approach in general.) People can tell for themselves whether it works for them, and for many people physical hunger isn't really such an issue that it needs to determine macronutrient percentage. I don't know why some low carbers seem to need others to acknowledge that it's the best of all possible approaches.
(For the record, I am not referring to you. I think you do say that it's an approach that works well for some, not all, and that other approaches may work better for other people.)0 -
Bacon, fatty beef, butter, avacado, etc and it was easier to get to higher calories.
Yeah. Sigh. I like bacon a lot (although clearly not as much as some do, as I tend to think it's a bit overrated), but I rarely eat it because it doesn't have much protein per calorie and IME I tend to get hungry faster when I eat it vs. my usual breakfast with more protein from a leaner source.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »For another n of 1 , I usually have a terrible time with hunger on higher carb & it's the worst w lower protein days (any time I don't consume meat). Satiety easily achieved with lots of protein, fat & complex carbs.
And for another n of 1 (and why I always say trying to generalize about this is pointless), carb and fat percentage makes little difference to my satiety/hunger. What does is getting enough protein and eating decent volume (lots of vegetables). Some carbs (like potatoes and sweet potatoes and also fruit) also seem to promote satiety, whereas others (bread, whole grain or not) doesn't--although it also doesn't make me hungrier within the context of a normal balanced diet, it just doesn't seem to fill me up as much as other things for the calories. Adding fat to protein or carbs simply does not promote satiety for me either (lean meats are as filling or more than fattier meats, skim or low fat dairy vs. higher fat). I am never low fat because I find my overall diet more enjoyable/satisfying with a normal level of fat, but NOT because it helps with satiety. (And I'd be miserable trying to do high fat, I think.)
I wouldn't say trying to generalize is "pointless", that is kind of the point of any study. There is clearly a subset of people for whom the kind of diet I described works to mitigate hunger. There may be unknown variables distinguishing these people. In the absence of knowledge about how to identify these variables or ppl (though some clinical or subclinical groups are known to benefit from this diet), there is no harm whatsoever in suggesting a given approach. The person can try it or not, and it MAY help.
I think pointing out that people vary in what is most filling/satisfying for them is important, and also suggesting that they try different things (assuming they are struggling with hunger) and also pay attention to the timing of when they are hungry. There are some things that seem to work for many people (like getting adequate protein, more fiber, more volume, and other things that seem to work for a smaller subset (reducing carbs in general if IR).
What frustrates me -- and I wasn't suggesting that you were doing it -- is the low carb gospel that lowering carbs and increasing fat inherently and for most will affect hunger levels. Fat doesn't do a thing for my hunger (and given the number of people who claim to get hungry 2 minutes after eating a fast food burger -- which I expect would be filling for me, burgers generally are -- I think the idea that fat fills up everyone is likely false. (Those who study such things actually claim that protein is on average most filling and fat on average least filling, although I personally think there are huge differences in foods independent of macro content, so the incessant discussion of macros here is rather beside the point, although explained by people such as Taubes.)
Yes, always important to say that ppl need to try things out for themselves, but ++ protein/fiber/fat works for so many, as you note, that I almost feel like it'd be irresponsible to not at least mention it.
(Personally & tmi, I'm having to watch out for insoluble fiber, so that's that. But in balance w the other stuff (protein especially, agreed), it def helped w appetite for a time, at least compared to pasta etc. I also like fat, but am not positioned to say whether it affects my appetite differently than eg lean chicken. Bc I can't make myself eat gd boneless skinless.)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »For another n of 1 , I usually have a terrible time with hunger on higher carb & it's the worst w lower protein days (any time I don't consume meat). Satiety easily achieved with lots of protein, fat & complex carbs.
And for another n of 1 (and why I always say trying to generalize about this is pointless), carb and fat percentage makes little difference to my satiety/hunger. What does is getting enough protein and eating decent volume (lots of vegetables). Some carbs (like potatoes and sweet potatoes and also fruit) also seem to promote satiety, whereas others (bread, whole grain or not) doesn't--although it also doesn't make me hungrier within the context of a normal balanced diet, it just doesn't seem to fill me up as much as other things for the calories. Adding fat to protein or carbs simply does not promote satiety for me either (lean meats are as filling or more than fattier meats, skim or low fat dairy vs. higher fat). I am never low fat because I find my overall diet more enjoyable/satisfying with a normal level of fat, but NOT because it helps with satiety. (And I'd be miserable trying to do high fat, I think.)
I wouldn't say trying to generalize is "pointless", that is kind of the point of any study. There is clearly a subset of people for whom the kind of diet I described works to mitigate hunger. There may be unknown variables distinguishing these people. In the absence of knowledge about how to identify these variables or ppl (though some clinical or subclinical groups are known to benefit from this diet), there is no harm whatsoever in suggesting a given approach. The person can try it or not, and it MAY help.
I think pointing out that people vary in what is most filling/satisfying for them is important, and also suggesting that they try different things (assuming they are struggling with hunger) and also pay attention to the timing of when they are hungry. There are some things that seem to work for many people (like getting adequate protein, more fiber, more volume, and other things that seem to work for a smaller subset (reducing carbs in general if IR).
What frustrates me -- and I wasn't suggesting that you were doing it -- is the low carb gospel that lowering carbs and increasing fat inherently and for most will affect hunger levels. Fat doesn't do a thing for my hunger (and given the number of people who claim to get hungry 2 minutes after eating a fast food burger -- which I expect would be filling for me, burgers generally are -- I think the idea that fat fills up everyone is likely false. (Those who study such things actually claim that protein is on average most filling and fat on average least filling, although I personally think there are huge differences in foods independent of macro content, so the incessant discussion of macros here is rather beside the point, although explained by people such as Taubes.)
I think some of it (this is just my guess) is that some people use hunger and cravings/drive interchangeably. I get hungry, my stomach rumbles, I eat. Before I ate lower carbs, before my stomach ever rumbled my BG plummeted, I got dizzy, headachy and I acutely wanted or craved food (usually a processed carb), and then finally my real hunger signs, rumbling tummy, would kick in.
Mild hunger is easy to ignore. An intense craving or want along with that hunger, is much more difficult to ignore.
This is just my experience. I realize many, if not most, people will not experience hunger/cravings that way. I am willing to guess that many overweight people, especially the ones who binge, do though.
Dizziness & headache sounds like a blood sugar issue tbh
I'm sure it was. I'm prediabetic (or I was) and have some issues with reactive hypoglycemia. It's resolved by eating low carb though. For me, it helped.0 -
He reminds me of the Rev. Sylvester Graham (1794-1851), a zealot from another age.
As such, they practiced abstinence from alcohol, frequent bathing, daily brushing of teeth, vegetarianism, and a generally sparse lifestyle. Graham also was an advocate of sexual abstinence, especially from *kitten*, which he regarded as an evil that inevitably led to insanity. He felt that all excitement was unhealthful, and spices were among the prohibited ingredients in his diet. As a result his dietary recommendations were inevitably bland, which led to the Grahamites consuming large quantities of graham crackers, Graham's own invention. White bread was strongly condemned by Graham and his followers, however, as being essentially devoid of nutrition, a claim echoed by nutritionists ever since. Some Grahamites lost faith when their mentor died at the age of fifty-seven. Other than the crackers, the Grahamites' major contribution to American culture was probably their insistence on frequent bathing. However, Graham's doctrines found later followers in the persons of Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and his brother Will Keith Kellogg. Their invention of corn flakes was a logical extension of the Grahamite approach to nutrition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sylvester_Graham0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »For another n of 1 , I usually have a terrible time with hunger on higher carb & it's the worst w lower protein days (any time I don't consume meat). Satiety easily achieved with lots of protein, fat & complex carbs.
And for another n of 1 (and why I always say trying to generalize about this is pointless), carb and fat percentage makes little difference to my satiety/hunger. What does is getting enough protein and eating decent volume (lots of vegetables). Some carbs (like potatoes and sweet potatoes and also fruit) also seem to promote satiety, whereas others (bread, whole grain or not) doesn't--although it also doesn't make me hungrier within the context of a normal balanced diet, it just doesn't seem to fill me up as much as other things for the calories. Adding fat to protein or carbs simply does not promote satiety for me either (lean meats are as filling or more than fattier meats, skim or low fat dairy vs. higher fat). I am never low fat because I find my overall diet more enjoyable/satisfying with a normal level of fat, but NOT because it helps with satiety. (And I'd be miserable trying to do high fat, I think.)
I wouldn't say trying to generalize is "pointless", that is kind of the point of any study. There is clearly a subset of people for whom the kind of diet I described works to mitigate hunger. There may be unknown variables distinguishing these people. In the absence of knowledge about how to identify these variables or ppl (though some clinical or subclinical groups are known to benefit from this diet), there is no harm whatsoever in suggesting a given approach. The person can try it or not, and it MAY help.
I think pointing out that people vary in what is most filling/satisfying for them is important, and also suggesting that they try different things (assuming they are struggling with hunger) and also pay attention to the timing of when they are hungry. There are some things that seem to work for many people (like getting adequate protein, more fiber, more volume, and other things that seem to work for a smaller subset (reducing carbs in general if IR).
What frustrates me -- and I wasn't suggesting that you were doing it -- is the low carb gospel that lowering carbs and increasing fat inherently and for most will affect hunger levels. Fat doesn't do a thing for my hunger (and given the number of people who claim to get hungry 2 minutes after eating a fast food burger -- which I expect would be filling for me, burgers generally are -- I think the idea that fat fills up everyone is likely false. (Those who study such things actually claim that protein is on average most filling and fat on average least filling, although I personally think there are huge differences in foods independent of macro content, so the incessant discussion of macros here is rather beside the point, although explained by people such as Taubes.)
Yes, always important to say that ppl need to try things out for themselves, but ++ protein/fiber/fat works for so many, as you note, that I almost feel like it'd be irresponsible to not at least mention it.
(Personally & tmi, I'm having to watch out for insoluble fiber, so that's that. But in balance w the other stuff (protein especially, agreed), it def helped w appetite for a time, at least compared to pasta etc. I also like fat, but am not positioned to say whether it affects my appetite differently than eg lean chicken. Bc I can't make myself eat gd boneless skinless.)
Oh, I'm with you on that, as you may remember. I use it in some recipes, but primarily I like my chicken roasted with its skin on and bones in! ;-) I found a low fat diet perfectly satiating, but I'd get bored, so I don't think it's sustainable for me absent some actual medical need for it. But not because I'd be hungry.
I also agree about passing on ideas for satiety if people are struggling/asking for help/wondering about how to cut, especially if I've seen the diary and it's low protein/high carb as many are (although that was never my issue). I just think it should be passed on as "here are some ideas to try" or "experiment with things like..." or "review your diary and think about when you are hungry or not" as opposed to you must eat this way to be satisfied. I also don't like -- and again am speaking theoretically here, not about anyone in particular -- the posts that say "cut this" based on an assumption that anyone needing to lose weight eats a particular kind of diet (high in sugar, high in soda, high in fast food, whatever). It feels presumptuous to me, even if on average it might be true more often than not. It's often not (as my own example shows).0 -
@lemurcat12 - I hear you, but I think not everyone is always going to benefit from "review your diary and think about whether you feel hungry or not" w/o some other suggestion, bc those kinds of associations aren't always obvious (& something that works one day for one reason might not on another, for a different one); not everyone is analytically minded; and it could just take a really long time for people to happen upon or understand a good ratio for them.
I feel like saying "hey this works _**** for many - try it" as a starting point for later tweaking could just save ppl a lot of time and aggravation & even emotional stress, when they run into hunger related road blocks along the way0 -
I never struggled with hunger and I think part of it was that I started by thinking about what I was eating and how I was getting excess calories and what would be painless ways to reduce the calories.
And, sure, part of it is that I naturally increased vegetables to keep volume the same and cut lower nutrient items and upped my protein (more to preserve lean mass) and stuff like that, but a lot of that is common sense.
But I'm absolutely NOT saying that someone struggling with being hungry/going over shouldn't be given tips like increase protein and fiber and volume to try out -- I do that all the time. I just also say that people are different so if one thing doesn't work try another (and I always include cutting carbs as something to experiment with if the person is high carb and low in fat/protein or if the person is IR). (However, if the person is on 1200 and is active or not that small I also think simply not cutting so aggressively is valid advice.)
What annoys me is when the person does not say anything about struggling with hunger and we don't know anything about the diet and people make assumptions that she needs to "cut processed foods" or whatever. That's what seems presumptuous.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 971 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions