Hunger Question

David7881 wrote: »

So I've been on a caloric deficit since March of this year. Doing about 1500 cal per day to be at a 2 lbs per week loss. By the end of April i wanted to either slow down or stop the loss so I started adding calories slowly. I increased it to 1900 cal per day which puts me at 1 lb per week loss. I stopped dropping weight towards the middle of April and my appetite had dropped as well. My question is what would cause my appetite to increase as you increase your calorie intake? I would of expected to not go up since I am increasing my intake. My exercise routine has not increased or changed.[/q
How lean are you? Could have come to a homeostasis zone? Huh?

You look pretty lean. What are your goals now? Maintain, bulk? I mean, if you are not having hunger and satiety issues, what's the issue? If you are happy where you are at with intake and exercise, enjoy it! Or, switch goals maybe? JMHO

David7881 wrote: »

psychod787 wrote: »

You look pretty lean. What are your goals now? Maintain, bulk? I mean, if you are not having hunger and satiety issues, what's the issue? If you are happy where you are at with intake and exercise, enjoy it! Or, switch goals maybe? JMHO

Thanks. So to be honest I'm stuck in the fat loss mentality. I am trying to tapper it off by going from a 2lbs per week to 1lb per week or less to lose the last little bit. Hunger is kind of my issue. The 2 months I was on a 1500 cal diet my appetite went down after the 1st month. Now That I've increased my calories to 1900 my appetite shot up. Trying to kind of understand whats going on.

There is a drive to regain. Some people will woo me for saying this. Some people think there is a bf set point. Some says it's all choice and environment. I am starting to THINK it is both. Evidence for both models exist. I have the idea of BF settling point. Kind of a midway between both trains of thoughts. Where there is a "zone" where environment, food choice, activity, and hormones, and brain response all meet. After a cut, your body wants to go back to its happy place. Leptin is lower, ghrelin is higher. Muscles burn less energy per unit mass than before. NEAT tends to go down and there is a alight decrease in RMR. The brain tends to push us towards energy dense foods. I got pretty lean from class 3 obese. Sub 10% per dexa. I still have hunger and satiety issues and probably always will. I have bulked or some regain on purpose to help. It has actually. I also keep a high protein intake. Protein is been shown in many subjects to increase satiety. Probably because of an increase in PPY. I have also been researching food rewards and caloric density. No food is inherently "bad", BUT there is some evidence that less palatable , less calorie dense food may help with hunger and satiety. Also, SOME evidence in rats that a less palatable diet, less energy denae diet, along with a higher activity level MAY help lower that settling point. Oh fiber! Lol I would direct you to a Kevin hall study of a hyperprocessed diet vs a less processed diet and caloric intake and some work by Dr. Stephan Guyenet. Best of luck.

Hey, you look pretty lean to me. From my point of view based on my experience is, my greatest enemy is patience. I'll say it again...patience. Understand that what we're really doing is "body transformation". The body is very complex and needs time to adjust to the changes we are forcing on it. What you're doing is great. Increase your calorie intake to 1900. Just make sure its the right food and that at least 150 of it is protein. You may plateau for 2 or 3 weeks. Hell, maybe even a month. But all a sudden you'll drop from say 190 to 189, then 187. Its just a matter of science. It will happen. The worst thing you can do, is give up on something that WILL work, without giving it its proper respect. Imagine this: staying at the same weight, but adding a quarter inch to your arms, while losing a half inch on your waist. That Is where you're headed. Stay with the 1900, and have patience.
One thing I have done is decreased my rest between sets. I rested 2 minutes between heavy sets. Now I rest only 1 minute between sets, all exercises. This is adding a cardio affect, as well as forcing a major change on my body. Its adding size, but I've lost weight.

VioletRojo wrote: »

liz0269 wrote: »

Macros are irrelevant. I eat HCLF as in up to 70% carbs, 15% fat, 15% protein. I am losing more weight than I planned because I simply don't have the appetite to eat all of my calories.
Before someone woos me, for the record, since I started eating this way, my cholesterol has dropped from 210-220 to 132. My fasting glucose and A1C went from prediabetic to healthy. My GERD has dramatically improved. My depression has gone into remission. My insomnia is gone. I have never felt better.

Macro aren't important in regards to how well or how fast you lose weight, they're important in regards to satiety and compliance. If I ate HCLF I would be hangry all the time because carbs don't satiate my appetite, but when I eat high fat -moderate protein-lowish carbs I'm perfectly satisfied and don't get hungry much at all.

Agree. One of the earlier posters said he was hungry because carbs make you hungry. That's not true for everyone. That was my point.

earlandrew48 wrote: »

Macros matter incredibly. The % of what you put in your body will have a large degree of say over the result. You can't have muscle build without protein. You have energy without carbs. You need healthy fats to make it all work. There are things you can tinker with. But protein, carbs, fats need the right mix for an individual, and should be measured. That's why I live this app!!!!! Go myfitnesspal (:

That is what works for you and that's great. If I eat lower carb and higher fat, I end up with precancer on my esophagus that takes over two years to heal, major depression, high cholesterol, insomnia, and a host of other health issues. The point is that there is a wide variety of macros that work for a wide variety of people. Everybody needs to figure out what works for them.

I said what I said originally because one of the earlier posters said that carbs make you hungry. That's not true for everyone. My body prefers carbs to fat.

So, I agree with you that macros matter and I was wrong to word it otherwise.

What I meant and should have said was that macros are individual.

psychod787 wrote: »

earlandrew48 wrote: »

Macros matter incredibly. The % of what you put in your body will have a large degree of say over the result. You can't have muscle build without protein. You have energy without carbs. You need healthy fats to make it all work. There are things you can tinker with. But protein, carbs, fats need the right mix for an individual, and should be measured. That's why I live this app!!!!! Go myfitnesspal (:

Yes, to a point macros matter in the context on your goals. If you JUST want to lose weight, calories are all that matter. For body composition aspects, yes! At least in most meta's and research i have read.

I agree re protein, but will qualify. For optimal muscle building having protein above a certain gram number (depending on lean body mass) is important. For health or any muscle building/protecting muscle, the same is true, but the numbers will be lower (for health most are easily going to be above, for protecting muscle or gaining some, I think the number is higher).

Re:

earlandrew48 wrote: »

Macros matter incredibly. The % of what you put in your body will have a large degree of say over the result. You can't have muscle build without protein. You have energy without carbs. You need healthy fats to make it all work. There are things you can tinker with. But protein, carbs, fats need the right mix for an individual, and should be measured. That's why I live this app!!!!! Go myfitnesspal (:

I disagree that it's important (for everyone, or even most) to measure macros beyond perhaps making sure you get a certain level of protein if your goals require higher levels than just health (or if you are someone who has a very low protein diet for some reason). Macros as in carbs vs. fat or specific macro percentages likely only matter depending on individual preferences (or for people quite serious about sports that require anaerobic levels of effort or other specific training considerations). (Yes, it's true fats can be too low, but that would be very uncommon unless someone were specifically restricting them, even without counting macros.)

For satiety, I think there's no evidence that any specific macros work for all or are better for all (and I know you didn't claiming that, but this all started since a poster upthread did). Also, for many people (maybe even most), I suspect that other things matter much more than specific macro ratios.

Adding to this, from what I've seen of the studies, there's no evidence that merely eating higher fat, lower carb (protein staying the same) ON AVERAGE leads to lower appetite/higher satiety. There is some evidence ON AVERAGE that increasing protein causes lower appetite/higher satiety. There is also some evidence that independent of changes to protein that changing the diet in other ways (higher fiber, more nutrient dense foods) also may ON AVERAGE lead to lower appetite/higher satiety. This is why I think it can both be true for an individual person that a higher protein diet increases satiety and that a lower protein WFPB diet (or some similar kind of diet) might. And for others, of course, neither could be true, or increasing fat or even lower fiber carbs could help in some cases. Or macros could be irrelevant to satiety compared with something else, like meal timing.