LOLTaubes in the NYT

Indeed, the studies available do not allow that distinction to be made, but do confirm the observed effect in the ketogenic diet (for whatever reason).

As they said, "Ketosis appears to provide a plausible explanation for this suppression of appetite". Also occurs in starvation.

250 calories for breakfast will fill me up whether it's low carb (my usual breakfast of eggs and vegetables and smoked salmon) or not (oatmeal with berries and protein powder, plus veggies). So that you are not hungry for a few (or several) hours after eating 250 calories doesn't really say much about whether one would be less hungry on low carb.

As an aside, my bigger problem is that I enjoy eating more for breakfast, and probably don't need to, as I'd have no temptation to eat before lunch anyway, eating less. This has nothing much to do with eating because hungry (it does have to do with meeting my nutrition goals, but I should divvy up the calories differently).

I don't get how anyone can attribute hunger/appetite universally to one or the other macro.

There are people who will happily eat fat all day long and still have an appetite for more. There are those who are nauseated when they eat high fat diets and will basically starve themselves if they're sticking to a keto plan.

Sometimes these two types of people exist in the same family and make the other family member's life miserable for several months before giving up - one because after an initial weight drop they gained all of it back and more, and the other because they just can't take the thought of eating this way ever again (plus is starting to get dizzy from severely undereating).

yarwell wrote: »

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.

OK, I'll bite. What is the mechanism where being on a keto diet (in ketosis) suddenly reduces hunger/appetite signals?

mathjulz wrote: »

yarwell wrote: »

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.

OK, I'll bite. What is the mechanism where being on a keto diet (in ketosis) suddenly reduces hunger/appetite signals?

Don't know. The scientists said in http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25402637 "Thus, the clinical benefit of a ketogenic diet is in preventing an increase in appetite, despite weight loss, although individuals may indeed feel slightly less hungry (or more full or satisfied). Ketosis appears to provide a plausible explanation for this suppression of appetite."

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey 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.

tomatoey wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey 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.)

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

tomatoey 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.