Does anyone else need to eat high calories to feel full
Options
Replies
-
I am 5'1", 55 years old, and 118 pounds. I could maintain on 2400 calories, and I'm not training for a half marathon.
OP, your calorie intake isn't surprising at all. You need to fuel your activity.9 -
takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol
We veterans usually jump into the “1200 calories” threads and say unless women are really really short and really really sedentary, they can (and should) eat more than 1200 calories and still lose weight.
2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol
We veterans usually jump into the “1200 calories” threads and say unless women are really really short and really really sedentary, they can (and should) eat more than 1200 calories and still lose weight.
More than 1200 net? I get confused by this a lot lol
0 -
takemetosingapore19 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol
We veterans usually jump into the “1200 calories” threads and say unless women are really really short and really really sedentary, they can (and should) eat more than 1200 calories and still lose weight.
More than 1200 net? I get confused by this a lot lol
Yes, net
0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.1 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
That could work temporarily to fill the hunger void, but in the end no matter how much volume I will be hungry... over time. It doesn't always happen at the beginning but later in the week my body will tell me if I haven't eaten enough.
Also in terms of high calories, interestingly, my body seems to figure it out very well. Even if I try to "trick" it with high calorie foods, processed foods, smoothies. I just came off a bulk where I was eating 3000-3500 calories everyday for 7 months or so.. while something calorie dense and tasty, it was easy to go down and palatable... I still felt full for the rest of the day eating a high calorie meal or smoothie.
Anyways I wasn't trying to say volume of foods doesn't help or matter, but over time your body will tell you if it is being under-fed or under-nourished, at least mine does.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?2 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
This.
When I'm trying to low-restrict, I'll pile up on veg, leafy greens, high amounts of smoked salmon, etc.
And you know what happens if I still go and run my 10 miles?
I get hungry.
800 calories a day, even at high volume, isn't going to convince my stomach that it's not hungry.4 -
I have a big appetite too, but it is a bit better when focusing on very low carb foods. The only problem for you is that this could be problematic depending on when your HM is planned. It will take 2-3 months to become fat adapted, and running performance will suffer on a low carb diet during the adaptation period.0
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
I want my awesome button back.6 -
collectingblues wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
This.
When I'm trying to low-restrict, I'll pile up on veg, leafy greens, high amounts of smoked salmon, etc.
And you know what happens if I still go and run my 10 miles?
I get hungry.
800 calories a day, even at high volume, isn't going to convince my stomach that it's not hungry.
Same here. I'm a volume eater, but volume only goes so far. I need calories (and sufficient protein and fat) to feel satisfied.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
Well that's just taking this to the extreme . . . seriously, by suggesting eating rocks. Your stomach recognizes how much stuff is in it doesn't it?
Your stomach figures out how much it can hold and then sends signals to say hey I'm full or no, still got room.
That's a measurement of volume, not calories. Again . . . never once did I say calories don't matter. I just simply suggested maybe he needs more volume to help him feel fuller. I'm not a doctor, never pretended to be one. All I can speak is from experience with figuring out my own diet and weight loss and volume foods helped. Obviously I watched my calories - otherwise I wouldn't be down the amount I am - but volume foods, with higher nutritional value and lower caloric value really helped. Just a suggestion - that's all food wise. Calorie wise there's no way you can tell me your digestive organs know 500 calories from 700 calories - they just digest. I'm sure your body recognizes nutritional value of what you eat . . . I feel way better now than I did 4 years and 100lbs ago but I'd be interested to see how my stomach can tell how many calories are in the meals I eat.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
What am I suggesting doesn't happen exactly?0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
Well that's just taking this to the extreme . . . seriously, by suggesting eating rocks. Your stomach recognizes how much stuff is in it doesn't it?
Your stomach figures out how much it can hold and then sends signals to say hey I'm full or no, still got room.
That's a measurement of volume, not calories. Again . . . never once did I say calories don't matter. I just simply suggested maybe he needs more volume to help him feel fuller. I'm not a doctor, never pretended to be one. All I can speak is from experience with figuring out my own diet and weight loss and volume foods helped. Obviously I watched my calories - otherwise I wouldn't be down the amount I am - but volume foods, with higher nutritional value and lower caloric value really helped. Just a suggestion - that's all food wise. Calorie wise there's no way you can tell me your digestive organs know 500 calories from 700 calories - they just digest. I'm sure your body recognizes nutritional value of what you eat . . . I feel way better now than I did 4 years and 100lbs ago but I'd be interested to see how my stomach can tell how many calories are in the meals I eat.
Of course it does.
IF I drink a solution that's 1 pint water, and half a pint each of karo and Olive oil. My body will via the mechanism described be able to distinguish that from a solution that is 1 pint karo and 1 pint Olive oilAaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
Read it again. SLOWLY!!0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
Well that's just taking this to the extreme . . . seriously, by suggesting eating rocks. Your stomach recognizes how much stuff is in it doesn't it?
Your stomach figures out how much it can hold and then sends signals to say hey I'm full or no, still got room.
That's a measurement of volume, not calories. Again . . . never once did I say calories don't matter. I just simply suggested maybe he needs more volume to help him feel fuller. I'm not a doctor, never pretended to be one. All I can speak is from experience with figuring out my own diet and weight loss and volume foods helped. Obviously I watched my calories - otherwise I wouldn't be down the amount I am - but volume foods, with higher nutritional value and lower caloric value really helped. Just a suggestion - that's all food wise. Calorie wise there's no way you can tell me your digestive organs know 500 calories from 700 calories - they just digest. I'm sure your body recognizes nutritional value of what you eat . . . I feel way better now than I did 4 years and 100lbs ago but I'd be interested to see how my stomach can tell how many calories are in the meals I eat.Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
Read it again. SLOWLY!!
That's pretty patronizing and unappreciated.
This is insane. Did I ever once say just eat grass . . . or rocks . . . or whatever? I simply suggested perhaps the volume of his food wasn't high enough for him and suggested more volume. If you want to take it to the extreme by all means that's cool, but it was just a suggestion.3 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
Well that's just taking this to the extreme . . . seriously, by suggesting eating rocks. Your stomach recognizes how much stuff is in it doesn't it?
Your stomach figures out how much it can hold and then sends signals to say hey I'm full or no, still got room.
That's a measurement of volume, not calories. Again . . . never once did I say calories don't matter. I just simply suggested maybe he needs more volume to help him feel fuller. I'm not a doctor, never pretended to be one. All I can speak is from experience with figuring out my own diet and weight loss and volume foods helped. Obviously I watched my calories - otherwise I wouldn't be down the amount I am - but volume foods, with higher nutritional value and lower caloric value really helped. Just a suggestion - that's all food wise. Calorie wise there's no way you can tell me your digestive organs know 500 calories from 700 calories - they just digest. I'm sure your body recognizes nutritional value of what you eat . . . I feel way better now than I did 4 years and 100lbs ago but I'd be interested to see how my stomach can tell how many calories are in the meals I eat.Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
Read it again. SLOWLY!!
That's pretty patronizing and unappreciated.
This is insane. Did I ever once say just eat grass . . . or rocks . . . or whatever? I simply suggested perhaps the volume of his food wasn't high enough for him and suggested more volume. If you want to take it to the extreme by all means that's cool, but it was just a suggestion.
You wrote: "So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content."
I think that might be the statement that is prompting people to respond to you. Your body relies on a number of factors to determine satiety. Overall calorie consumption is part of it -- even if your diet is high volume, many people will feel hungry if their overall calorie consumption is low. Your body is absolutely capable of registering low calorie consumption.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
Well that's just taking this to the extreme . . . seriously, by suggesting eating rocks. Your stomach recognizes how much stuff is in it doesn't it?
Your stomach figures out how much it can hold and then sends signals to say hey I'm full or no, still got room.
That's a measurement of volume, not calories. Again . . . never once did I say calories don't matter. I just simply suggested maybe he needs more volume to help him feel fuller. I'm not a doctor, never pretended to be one. All I can speak is from experience with figuring out my own diet and weight loss and volume foods helped. Obviously I watched my calories - otherwise I wouldn't be down the amount I am - but volume foods, with higher nutritional value and lower caloric value really helped. Just a suggestion - that's all food wise. Calorie wise there's no way you can tell me your digestive organs know 500 calories from 700 calories - they just digest. I'm sure your body recognizes nutritional value of what you eat . . . I feel way better now than I did 4 years and 100lbs ago but I'd be interested to see how my stomach can tell how many calories are in the meals I eat.
Of course it does.
IF I drink a solution that's 1 pint water, and half a pint each of karo and Olive oil. My body will via the mechanism described be able to distinguish that from a solution that is 1 pint karo and 1 pint Olive oilAaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
Read it again. SLOWLY!!
Ok so your body knows the differences in what you eat/drink is compromised of . . . but let's say you eat Meal A that is one cup and is equal to 100 calories. Then you eat meal B X amount of time later and it's one cup, but compromised of something different and is worth 500 calories. Both are a cup, and your body can distinguish they are made of different foods but can your digestive tract determine the difference in caloric value? It's a serious question - not being smart, if you have a reference/article I'd be interested to read it.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
Well that's just taking this to the extreme . . . seriously, by suggesting eating rocks. Your stomach recognizes how much stuff is in it doesn't it?
Your stomach figures out how much it can hold and then sends signals to say hey I'm full or no, still got room.
That's a measurement of volume, not calories. Again . . . never once did I say calories don't matter. I just simply suggested maybe he needs more volume to help him feel fuller. I'm not a doctor, never pretended to be one. All I can speak is from experience with figuring out my own diet and weight loss and volume foods helped. Obviously I watched my calories - otherwise I wouldn't be down the amount I am - but volume foods, with higher nutritional value and lower caloric value really helped. Just a suggestion - that's all food wise. Calorie wise there's no way you can tell me your digestive organs know 500 calories from 700 calories - they just digest. I'm sure your body recognizes nutritional value of what you eat . . . I feel way better now than I did 4 years and 100lbs ago but I'd be interested to see how my stomach can tell how many calories are in the meals I eat.
Of course it does.
IF I drink a solution that's 1 pint water, and half a pint each of karo and Olive oil. My body will via the mechanism described be able to distinguish that from a solution that is 1 pint karo and 1 pint Olive oilAaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
Read it again. SLOWLY!!
Ok so your body knows the differences in what you eat/drink is compromised of . . . but let's say you eat Meal A that is one cup and is equal to 100 calories. Then you eat meal B X amount of time later and it's one cup, but compromised of something different and is worth 500 calories. Both are a cup, and your body can distinguish they are made of different foods but can your digestive tract determine the difference in caloric value? It's a serious question - not being smart, if you have a reference/article I'd be interested to read it.Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
Aaron gave you two.
Like I said, Read it again.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions