Does anyone else need to eat high calories to feel full

stanmann571 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

stanmann571 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

sardelsa 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 oil

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!!

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.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

sardelsa 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.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. Your gastrointestinal tract does have receptors dedicated to signalling associated with what is and what is not in your gastrointestinal tract that relates to saiety. But those receptors aren't somehow triggered by "volume" they are triggered by macros such as fats and proteins which, of course, are caloric. In your prior posts you seemed to be claiming that those don't exist.

So you couldn't, for example, feel satiated by eating 4 pounds of celery because despite the volume of your stomach being filled by a material that is difficult to digest and will likely be there for a while (the fibers) it has very low macro content and there will be little triggering of the signal pathways that actually relate to saeity.

You seem to be saying that for saeity the caloric value of food isn't important, the volume and rate of digestion is important. But that isn't true. There is some truth in the rate of digestion, but volume is irrelevant. What matters is the dissolved macro content in your gastrointestinal tract in relation the the signalling pathways they trigger...those macros are directly related to caloric content but are not connected to volume. I am not aware of any "volume" triggered receptors related to saiety or how that would even work. I mean if you stuff your gut full of stuff then you will likely become physically uncomfortable and as a result not want to stuff more stuff into your mouth but I'd hardly call that saeity.

My example with rocks was meant to be ridiculous as to show how it would be ridiculous to believe that volume and rate of digestion are all that matters. Rocks take up volume, rocks would take really long time to digest...and yet rocks aren't satiating are they. Why aren't they? Because they don't have the digestable macros such as proteins and fat that trigger the receptors in your gastrointestinal track that are related to saeity. What do those macros have? Calories.

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

Aaron_K123 wrote: »

acorsaut89 wrote: »

sardelsa 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.

Sorry if my post wasn't clear. Your gastrointestinal tract does have receptors dedicated to signalling associated with what is and what is not in your gastrointestinal tract that relates to saiety. But those receptors aren't somehow triggered by "volume" they are triggered by macros such as fats and proteins which, of course, are caloric. In your prior posts you seemed to be claiming that those don't exist.

So you couldn't, for example, feel satiated by eating 4 pounds of celery because despite the volume of your stomach being filled by a material that is difficult to digest and will likely be there for a while (the fibers) it has very low macro content and there will be little triggering of the signal pathways that actually relate to saeity.

You seem to be saying that for saeity the caloric value of food isn't important, the volume and rate of digestion is important. But that isn't true. There is some truth in the rate of digestion, but volume is irrelevant. What matters is the dissolved macro content in your gastrointestinal tract in relation the the signalling pathways they trigger...those macros are directly related to caloric content but are not connected to volume. I am not aware of any "volume" triggered receptors related to saiety or how that would even work. I mean if you stuff your gut full of stuff then you will likely become physically uncomfortable and as a result not want to stuff more stuff into your mouth but I'd hardly call that saeity.

My example with rocks was meant to be ridiculous as to show how it would be ridiculous to believe that volume and rate of digestion are all that matters. Rocks take up volume, rocks would take really long time to digest...and yet rocks aren't satiating are they. Why aren't they? Because they don't have the digestable macros such as proteins and fat that trigger the receptors in your gastrointestinal track that are related to saeity. What do those macros have? Calories.

No I wouldn't suggest filling yourself to the brim with celery because that wouldn't work, and I wasn't suggesting to solely exist off of veggies because I don't believe that's the answer either. I was suggesting that more volume might help him out if he's worried about his calories being "too high" - which I don't think they are, but that isn't for me to decide. Some people, when they look at a meal, even if it's nutritionally sound, will feel it's not enough food based on the size of the meal they're eating. It doesn't matter if it has enough calories, macro content, etc it's all about how big the meal is. So, from experience in being one of these people, putting more high-volume low calorie foods into my diet, beefed up my meals without really beefing up the calories. I got eat a lot more without eating a lot more and I feel more satisfied. But again, this is personal experience and maybe just something to try . . . if you see you're eating more, it might help.

Volume has nothing to do with saeity. You repeating that it does does not make it so. Recommending to someone that they focus on how much volume their food occupies instead of the caloric or macro content of that food is poor advice. You seem to be conflating the feeling of discomfort from your stomach being overly full to satiation but those are two very different things.

takemetosingapore19 wrote: »

Hi! My total and net calories are very different I’ll start by saying... I don’t eat all my exercise calories back but I eat TOTAL 2500ish calories a day or else I feel starving.. my net works out to about 1200-1600 after all my exercise (training for a half marathon). I’m 19, 5’10” and very active. I have tried having total 2000 calories but I was starving. Even on 2500 total before exercise I still feel borderline hungry. I am losing on this amount. About 0.5lb per week now that the fast initial loss has slowed. I am very happy with this rate. I just worried something could be wrong with me to be this hungry all the time? Is it because I’m young and active? Anyone my age or older eat this much while losing?