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

I think that Andrew and John are both right about high calorie foods. It’s true that if one is in a calorie deficit eating pizza and doughnuts, one will lose weight. But it’s also true that calorie-dense foods are hard *not* to overeat. I know their proponents would argue to the contrary, but that’s probably the main reason for the success of a low carb or low fat or Paleo or vegan diet: with any of the aforementioned diets, one is potentially reducing or eliminating a lot of foods that contain massive amounts of calories.

Interesting comments about hormones, chemicals, etc. I’m certainly no expert, but I tend to think that weight loss is more behavioral than anything.

John, what do you think about the set point theory? As an overweight person, that’s probably the scariest idea I can imagine!! There is one set point proponent I know of who actually thinks that overweight people don’t eat any more than other people! lol. I know for certain that I eat more than the average person. You make an interesting point about studies showing that people simply don’t want to eat less. A set point proponent might say that that’s the body trying to get back to their set point. Obviously this is unscientific layman’s speculation, but I’ve wondered if it’s more like a “calorie set point” than a body weight set point. I find that I tend to eat about the amount of calories that keeps me about 255, give or take. On the surface, it could seem like a set point, but I think it’s just the amount of calories that I like to eat. Although if I really let myself go, I can put on more weight. My highest weight is 267 pounds.

I love this part;

“Further research on differences in the composition of weight loss and on the influence of satiety on compliance with energy-restricted diets is needed to explain the observed increase in weight loss with diets high in protein and/or low in carbohydrate.”

Why bring up satiety unless it meant one group (carb eaters) ended up consuming more calories and were unable to maintain their diet as easily?

Sounds like one side ate more calories.

Thank you so much for taking the time to reply!

I think that many of your concerns and questions regarding this particular study would be answered with a full look at the video. However, it is quite long and I know you’re a busy guy, so I’ll gladly give you a break on that one

“In my opinion the simplest approach that people can actually implement into their lives without turning their life into a weight loss study is the best one. And for me that is ‘eat less calories and enjoy the food you eat’.”

I absolutely agree. Most people don’t have the discipline to follow a diet, even if it works. The only thing I wonder about this approach is if it is actually any easier to adhere to in the long-term than a traditional diet. For most people, the foods they enjoy eating are incredibly energy-dense and people will still overestimate exactly how much of it they are eating unless they begin to micromanage it. How often do people actually limit themselves to just two Oreos? Not very often, and each serving is 150 calories. I believe that for many foods, not just snacks and sweets, it’s exceedingly difficult to limit intake. Many foods just don’t fill you up or keep you feeling full for a long time. That makes it that much harder to simply eat less calories when you are constantly feeling hungry.

Thanks again for the response.

These topics come up so fitness/nutrition marketers have something to write about and something to sell you. and also for researchers to study. The clinical research on weight loss is showing more than anything that people simply do not want to eat less food and will give up on most weight loss programs no matter what the intervention is. So since we know people simply don’t have the discipline to eat less food, researchers are hoping to find the magic bullet hormone or neurotransmitter that they can study and put into a pill and the sell to all the overweight people. So far nothing has stood up to the test of science.

Think about it the other way around.
Do people who are thin/lean and ‘in shape’ read about this stuff or care about this stuff. Do you think people who don’t have a weight problem just magically know how to mix and match carbs, and control their insulin with correct carbohydrate and meal timing choices, and pay attention to protein content and actually think about eating for things like cortisol control? <– not likely.

All these people do is eat until they are satisfied and don’t over eat. Thats it. But that is a pretty weak story to sell a product around.

So fitness/nutrition marketers continue to bring up meaningless arguments about things like cortisol and leptin and a bunch of other irrelevant factors for people who want to lose weight to chew on (haha, pardon the pun, I couldn’t help myself there)…when the real answer is just less calories.

JB