Get the latest news about how Reclaimed Recycled Salvaged Building Materials are finding their way into modern green building design and green remodeling projects. Sustainable businesses are turning to Recycled Building Materials for their designs….

RE: Satiety

I think satiety is worth mentioning because it helps determine how long people can stay on a particular diet. If you can eat 1200-1500 calories per day, and not feel hungry, you’re not going to be completely miserable and will tolerate a caloric deficit longer. IMO, that’s why low-carb and higher fat/protein diets *can* work better (not always) because they tend to keep people feeling fuller than carbohydrates do — at least, they do for me and countless other people. On the other hand, if you’re constantly hungry and still eating 1500 calories per day, eventually, you’re going to cave in and go bananas. Or, on a more regular basis, you’re going to eat more calories in an attempt to stave off the hunger.

“Losing five pounds while carb depleting over a couple days is not very difficult. Putting on five pounds after carb restricting for a long period of time is pretty simple too.”

If it really is a simple matter of calories in vs. calories out, and going back to carbs packs on the pounds more quickly, doesn’t that point to the efficacy of low carb diets? That, too, ties into satiety. It’s easy to overeat on those carbs and put all that weight right back on because they just don’t do the trick like proteins and fats do. On the other hand, it’s hard(er) to overdo it on 6 oz of chicken breast and a teaspoon of olive oil with 3 cups of broccoli.

Don’t be scared…set point theory is a load of BS. First of all if set point theory had any genetic basis at all why would people have a ‘set point’ that is in a measurably unhealthy range.

Also only overweight people worry about or talk about ‘set point’ theory. Thin people don’t talk about it or read about it, and probably have never even heard about it.

You haven’t been 255 pounds your whole life, you’ve probably gradually got there. As you said you were even heavier than this at some point, and I’m sure you’ve been much lighter than this at some point.

Set point theory is a way for people to explain away their inability to lose weight.

I’ll say it again: Losing weight isn’t easy. It’s kinda hard, and it kinda sux. But once you’ve lost it, it’s much easier to maintain a lower body weight.

Also, think about set point in relation to your environment. Do you think if you were poor and living in a third world country with minimal food that you would really be 255 pounds…I’ll bet you would be about 155 pounds!

Set point theory people neglect to think that our environment of food abundance is the bigger issue with weight gain and not anything to do with ‘set points’.

JB

Great points. It is scientifically irresponsible to ever quote a single study and assume that the results mean anything to a broader population. This unfortunately is exactly what the media does when they have a headline that says “New study shows…”

It is always the weight of all the evidence that must be considered before anything meaningful can be said about an area of research.

It’s kinda like watching one football game of the season when the detroit lions actually win and assume that they are the best team (without ever being exposed to their other 15 losses)…this is just about the same ridiculous conclusion that people come to when they see and hear about one study…and its’ even worse when they quote the abstract as it is not peer reviewed (don’t get me started about this!)

Thanks for the comment.

JB