I can't do it! I can't live with hunger

chris_in_cal

lemurcat2 wrote: »

. . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.

Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.

I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?

HilTri

I eat night fiber cereal and a banana, that holds me over until lunch between 1 and 2 when I usually have 6oz chicken and cauliflower rice, dinner is protein and 1/2 cu Nishiki brown rice, Jersey white sweet potato or two servings of other veggies. I try to hold out on dinner until 530-6. I have nonfat plain Greek yogurt, some raisins and 1/4 cu granola for dessert.. I weigh 130 am in maintenance but over the last two weeks I have been ravenous. I am talking about finishing a meal and almost obsessing about the next meal. I burn 1000-1600 cals 6 days per week. I have been eating right around 2000 and I am still hungry! I guess I am not offering up valid info for your case but I can certainly relate. I am watching my parents dog for two weeks which is terribly emotionally draining because he is in a lot of pain and it hurts me to watch him. I wonder if that is contributing to my “hunger”. Stress has a big impact on me.

psychod787

chris_in_cal wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

. . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.

Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.

I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?

I doubt Kevin Hall at the NIH, well at least one of his studies was well dubious, not his fault, really equations that were used MIGHT have been off a little, would actually intentionally skew data. I think it was a FINE study actually, just not practical. MOST people will eat a combo of high and low processed. Sad bubba, I actually think we are on nearly the same page, so if Fernt21. She is a bright gal!

manderson27

joowelz wrote: »

manderson27 wrote: »

Well I hope all this advice has reached the OP and she has tried some of the great advice and found a way to keep going without feeling hungry all the time. Perhaps she will come back and update us at some point.

I've been reading every single response. Some have been kinder than others.

Thanks for asking.

Oh that's good, so many posters never actually get back to the post they start. Or if they do they don't let us know that they are still reading the responses.

I know a lot of this has gone a bit off topic from the hunger issue that you were struggling with but has anything actually helped you. Only I know how hard it can be to keep going if you are hungry all the time.

lemurcat2

chris_in_cal wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

. . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.

Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.

I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?

No, I don't think and am not saying they were trying to skew the data. I am saying that the average "ultraprocessed food" is different from the average "minimally processed food" and they were trying to look at what happened if people mostly ate one or the other.

Do I think it is likely possible to create diets of minimally processed and ultraprocessed foods where different results were obtained? Yes, I do, but that doesn't mean the study was skewed -- they are looking at commonplace real world conditions. I was taking issue with the claim that we would be surprised by the results given the meals chosen just because they weren't all cheetos and big gulps.

The meals chosen (pretty typical of what they represented) did seem to me (and others here involved in the earlier discussion of it) pretty much likely to lead to the results that they got, but we specifically discussed in the thread the value of doing the study even if one anticipated the results, and also the likely reasons for the results.

I do take issue with your claim that we'd all assumed they would be basically just junk food (they were meals, so I don't expect a meal to be just junk food, and the base meals were matched for macros). I also take issue with the claim that we'd see them as healthy meals in that they were, among other things, absurdly low veg -- which is not a criticism of the study. I personally don't see any diet that low in vegetables as healthy or what I'd expect others to see as surprisingly healthy as you suggested. They looked to me to be, among other things, low volume and not taking long to eat, and I don't believe a diet that gets a large percentage of the fiber from a supplement in lemonade is "surprising" if it's not that filling despite the fiber content.

I do think the likely reasons for the differences are more interesting (if not at all surprising, IMO) than "ultraprocessing is inherently bad in all cases."

It would probably be helpful to read through the comments on the study in the big thread in which we discussed it in debate. (I also feel bad that OP's thread got so off-track; I'd assumed she was long gone. There's some excellent advice in the early pages.)

lemurcat2

psychod787 wrote: »

chris_in_cal wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

. . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.

Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.

I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?

I doubt Kevin Hall at the NIH, well at least one of his studies was well dubious, not his fault, really equations that were used MIGHT have been off a little, would actually intentionally skew data. I think it was a FINE study actually, just not practical. MOST people will eat a combo of high and low processed. Sad bubba, I actually think we are on nearly the same page, so if Fernt21. She is a bright gal!

Again, no one was saying it was intentionally skewed. I would recommend a read or reread of the threads here on it for anyone who thinks I am saying that.

nowine4me

TLDR but if what you’re eating isn’t working, why not mix it up? Something as easy as replacing rice with potatoes could help. Or a bowl of fruit in lieu of yogurt.

psychod787

lemurcat2 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

chris_in_cal wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

. . . suggested that they made choices that were rather obviously non filling or likely to be overeaten.

Perhaps. I work in research, what you are saying is the Hall team made conscious decisions to try and skew the data and results to report a preconceived conclusion.

I doubt that. But it is always a possibility? Cui bono? Why?

I doubt Kevin Hall at the NIH, well at least one of his studies was well dubious, not his fault, really equations that were used MIGHT have been off a little, would actually intentionally skew data. I think it was a FINE study actually, just not practical. MOST people will eat a combo of high and low processed. Sad bubba, I actually think we are on nearly the same page, so if Fernt21. She is a bright gal!

Again, no one was saying it was intentionally skewed. I would recommend a read or reread of the threads here on it for anyone who thinks I am saying that.

Not you @lemurcat2 . I was just saying that almost every study Kevin hall has been a part of was really well done expect the Biggest loser study. Few holes in the way rmr was predicted and subjects were not in a lab OR weight stable.