Cravings vs. Appetite

[ysabella]

I suggest you try a GF (gluten free) diet. Gluten sensitivity is not uncommon. My symptoms all seem to have evaporated with the avoidance of Gluten. 25% of Americans have the gene for it, and it may be activated by a virus.
It's a simple diet, just stay away from wheat, barley, and rye. Difficlut if you live and die by fast foods, easy if you cook from scratch.

It's also important to note that many processed foods that are sold as "low-carb" are packed full of gluten, like 'vital wheat gluten.'

My toughest problem was that I brewed my own beer- Malty, Rye beer. Now I'll have to malt my own sorghum to continue that hobby.

You could also brew mead - a gluten-sensitive friend of mine does that. Or yeah, the sorghum. I'll bet that becomes more common for home brewers, after all, Budweiser is now making a sorghum beer (apparently it's not bad).

ETA: Hmmm, another epiphone here at JREF- I wonder how many of the supposedly "low carb cures" are actually fixing gluten senstivity? Since step one of so many diets are "Stay Away From Bread" ? Atkins, Sugar Busters....

Also note that white bread has a higher glycemic index than pure sucrose. White bread is 70, sucrose is 58, on a scale where glucose is 100. I doubt there is enough fiber in white bread to slow down the insulin reaction, either. I don't have the gluten problem, but I have to manage my blood sugar for sure (diabetes on both sides of my family tree).

 

[jon]

By the way, I have started a nutrition blog: http://www.skepticalnutrition.com/ Not much there yet, but I do have some essays I'm planning to put up, on raw food/enzymes, raw milk, placentophagia, and MSG. I would love any ideas or comments.

just a quick note to say a sceptical nutrition blog is a great idea. Have spent a bit of time trauling through nutrition blogs for links/info for my blog, and the majority seem to range from non-evidence-based to dangerous...

 

[Almo]

BBC commissioned a study on Atkins for their Horizon show.

They found that Atkins is really just a low-calorie diet, since eating meat and stuff makes you not hungry. But in their tests, they were unable to substantiate any of Atkins' bogus claims about keytosis and all that garbage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've heard all the same claims about fat being satiating and sugar being insulin boosting. But the lecture by the doc on the UWTV the other night essentially said that meta-analyses have not supported any of those claims. People don't tolerate all protein diets or high fat lo carb diets for very long and there is no diet which has been superior over the others. People migrate back to the usual proportions and after initial weight loss, gain more back. Only 5-10% of people get out of that cycle and actually lose weight.

I'll go with the research if anyone has any good studies to post.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

This was on the BBC a couple of months ago.

ETA: The Dairy diet section is interesting.

 

[jimlintott]

This was on the BBC a couple of months ago.

ETA: The Dairy diet section is interesting.

Some good little articles there. I like this quote:

So, next time you go to blame your metabolism for your weight, remember the cold hard truth - thin people eat less.

For all I go on about trying to cut down on sugar and such the truth is I don't eat a whole lot. I'll leave food on my plate if I'm full. I'm also a fairly physically active person. I only try to watch my diet because I feel better and I want to still play golf when I'm in my eighties.

ETA: I just read the dairy diet part. I drink a good half litre of homogenized milk (3.25% fat) every day.

 

[El Greco]

Some good little articles there. I like this quote:

So, next time you go to blame your metabolism for your weight, remember the cold hard truth - thin people eat less.

Which is wrong of course. Thin people don't eat less than fat people; thin people (and fat people who stay at their weight) eat less than people who are gaining weight. There's a big difference.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Which is wrong of course. Thin people don't eat less than fat people; thin people (and fat people who stay at their weight) eat less than people who are gaining weight. There's a big difference.

Hmmm. What about basal metabolic rate? The more a person weighs the higher it will be. I.e. a larger person has to eat more than a thin person just to stay alive at their increased weight.

I’d say it was over-simplifying the issue (as BMI does), rather than flat out wrong.

 

[El Greco]

Hmmm. What about basal metabolic rate? The more a person weighs the higher it will be. I.e. a larger person has to eat more than a thin person just to stay alive at their increased weight.

No, according to most studies fat doesn't affect the bmr. I happen to have some of them handy:

Cunningham JJ. Body composition as a determinant of energy expenditure: a synthetic review and a proposed general prediction equation. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;54:963-9

Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO. A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:241-7

Ferraro R, Ravussin E. Fat mass in predicting resting metabolic rate. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;56:848-56

Cunningham JJ. A reanalysis of the factors influencing basal metabolic rate in normal adults. Am J Clin Nutr 1980;33:2372-4

Ravussin E, Lillioja S, Anderson TE, Christin L, Bogardus C. Determinants of 24-hour energy expenditure in man. Methods and results using a respiratory Chamber. J Clin Invest 1986;78:1586-78

There are a few others which show a small contribution of bodyfat in BMR, but it's mostly negligible.

Then of course there is some muscle gain when one gains weight, even if s/he doesn't exercise at all. This should increase the BMR a little, but it's a very little little (nowhere near the usually mentioned 50 kcal/day/pound of muscle).

 

[jimlintott]

Which is wrong of course. Thin people don't eat less than fat people; thin people (and fat people who stay at their weight) eat less than people who are gaining weight. There's a big difference.

That actually makes sense. Don't eat enough and you lose weight. Eat too much you gain weight. Eat right and your weight stays stable. Probably just as important is to use up what you take in.

I suppose the reasons why people over eat are as varied as the number of people who over eat.

 

[ysabella]

I've heard all the same claims about fat being satiating and sugar being insulin boosting. But the lecture by the doc on the UWTV the other night essentially said that meta-analyses have not supported any of those claims.

I think that it's more important for a specific population - people who have diabetes or pre-diabetic problems like insulin resistance. I'm not sure long-term studies have been done that have taken that into account.
Here is a meta-analysis that discusses "metabolic syndrome" and restricted carb diets.
I know people for whom, say, Weight Watchers has worked very well, which was restricting calories, and restricting fats more than carbs. It clearly works. All I'm trying to say is, for some people, the low-carb model works better.

People don't tolerate all protein diets or high fat lo carb diets for very long and there is no diet which has been superior over the others. People migrate back to the usual proportions and after initial weight loss, gain more back. Only 5-10% of people get out of that cycle and actually lose weight.

Anecdotally, I hang out on a site with plenty of long-term low-carbers, but it's of course a self-selecting population. (Actually, some researchers ran a survey via the site, that might be of some interest.)
I have been there since I started with Atkins in January, 2003. I have not stayed on Atkins, but I have never gone back to the way I was eating before January, 2003. Even when I'm not trying, I eat a moderate-carb diet of mostly whole foods.

I'll go with the research if anyone has any good studies to post.

I'm hoping the meta-article I linked at the top has some interesting references for now, as right now I need to finish some work. I'll see what else I can find of interest.
Also: I mentioned something earlier in the thread about how previous testing of high-fat diets were really high-fat high-carb diets - here is a discussion of that. It's mostly mouse models we're talking about in that case; most lab mouse chow is high-carb, so then when they feed the mice extra fats, they are getting both.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No, according to most studies fat doesn't affect the bmr. I happen to have some of them handy:

Cunningham JJ. Body composition as a determinant of energy expenditure: a synthetic review and a proposed general prediction equation. Am J Clin Nutr 1991;54:963-9

Mifflin MD, St Jeor ST, Hill LA, Scott BJ, Daugherty SA, Koh YO. A new predictive equation for resting energy expenditure in healthy individuals. Am J Clin Nutr 1990;51:241-7

Ferraro R, Ravussin E. Fat mass in predicting resting metabolic rate. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;56:848-56

Cunningham JJ. A reanalysis of the factors influencing basal metabolic rate in normal adults. Am J Clin Nutr 1980;33:2372-4

Ravussin E, Lillioja S, Anderson TE, Christin L, Bogardus C. Determinants of 24-hour energy expenditure in man. Methods and results using a respiratory Chamber. J Clin Invest 1986;78:1586-78

There are a few others which show a small contribution of bodyfat in BMR, but it's mostly negligible.

Then of course there is some muscle gain when one gains weight, even if s/he doesn't exercise at all. This should increase the BMR a little, but it's a very little little (nowhere near the usually mentioned 50 kcal/day/pound of muscle).

Is there an explanation for this?

For example, if two people of equal weight and a similar fitness level walked 1km up a hill but one was pulling a 25kg weight, then simple physics shows the person pulling the extra weight would use more energy.

I would have thought that even when lying down the extra moving mass while breathing would have made a measurable difference to BMR.

 

[El Greco]

Is there an explanation for this?

For example, if two people of equal weight and a similar fitness level walked 1km up a hill but one was pulling a 25kg weight, then simple physics shows the person pulling the extra weight would use more energy.

I would have thought that even when lying down the extra moving mass while breathing would have made a measurable difference to BMR.

Well, subcutaneous fat (the common "blubber") is almost metabolically inactive, mostly a storage area. Visceral fat is more active and this is why it's also associated with most of the negative health effects of obesity. IIRC Visceral fat is only 10% of total fat in normal people, even less in obese.

Irrespectively of the BMR you'd expect obese people to burn more calories just by performing daily tasks, but apparently this isn't the case. I recall a study which showed that with increasing obesity comes decreasing mobility.

 

[Soapy Sam]

That actually makes sense. Don't eat enough and you lose weight. Eat too much you gain weight. Eat right and your weight stays stable. Probably just as important is to use up what you take in.

I suppose the reasons why people over eat are as varied as the number of people who over eat.

But Jim- how does this equate with my earlier post? I've cut 10-15% off all intake (and there's lots of stew / casserole, so it's probably a proportonal cut of all food types) - yet my weight, after a short term drop, returned to the previous value and has stayed there now for 24 days.
Could be I am losing, but so slowly as to be unmeasurable with the scale we have here. Of course by that logic, I may also be gaining slowly. I'm certainly not going hungry or suffering cravings. Well, I'd like a beer, but it's been three weeks.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

But Jim- how does this equate with my earlier post? I've cut 10-15% off all intake (and there's lots of stew / casserole, so it's probably a proportonal cut of all food types) - yet my weight, after a short term drop, returned to the previous value and has stayed there now for 24 days.
Could be I am losing, but so slowly as to be unmeasurable with the scale we have here. Of course by that logic, I may also be gaining slowly. I'm certainly not going hungry or suffering cravings. Well, I'd like a beer, but it's been three weeks.

I think I read that to loose a couple of pounds a week you need to cut your daily intake down or increase energy expendature by ~500kcal.

 

[Cuddles]

I know people for whom, say, Weight Watchers has worked very well, which was restricting calories, and restricting fats more than carbs. It clearly works. All I'm trying to say is, for some people, the low-carb model works better.

The thing is, there isn't just physics and biology involved, there's also psychology. Many people fail to lose weight, or keep their weight down, because they simply don't stick to the diet. Things like Weight Watchers provide a friendly environment of like-minded people as support that can be much more important than the specific diet they choose.

 

[jimlintott]

But Jim- how does this equate with my earlier post? I've cut 10-15% off all intake (and there's lots of stew / casserole, so it's probably a proportonal cut of all food types) - yet my weight, after a short term drop, returned to the previous value and has stayed there now for 24 days.
Could be I am losing, but so slowly as to be unmeasurable with the scale we have here. Of course by that logic, I may also be gaining slowly. I'm certainly not going hungry or suffering cravings. Well, I'd like a beer, but it's been three weeks.

I have no idea whatsoever.

It's a pretty confusing subject, isn't it.

Do you want me to have a beer for you?

 

[Kaylee]

Great posts! I've really enjoyed the links that people have been providing and Ysabella I think a skeptical blog about nutrition is a great idea! I just bookmarked your web site.

FWIW, I'm posting some information about MSG that I had found out about last summer. I would have posted it sooner, but I had only saved my notes, not the links they were based on and that's just not good enough for this forum ... and rightly so, but I have some of the links now.

Here are some abstracts found in www.PubMed.com showing a correlation (and assuming a cause and effect) between MSG intake and obesity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=9252497&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum

1: Am J Physiol. 1997 Jul;273(1 Pt 1):E202-6.

Attenuation of leptin-mediated effects by monosodium glutamate-induced arcuate nucleus damage.

Dawson R, Pelleymounter MA, Millard WJ, Liu S, Eppler B.

Department of Pharmacodynamics, College of Pharmacy, University of Florida, Gainesville 32610, USA.

<snip>

Leptin is a protein secreted by adipocytes that is important in regulating appetite and adiposity. Recent studies have suggested the presence of leptin receptors in the arcuate nucleus of the hypothalamus (ANH). Neonatal administration of monosodium glutamate (MSG) damages the ANH, resulting in obesity and neuroendocrine dysfunction.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=16463577&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

1: An R Acad Nac Med (Madr). 2005;122(2):341-55; discussion 355-60.

Effect of monosodium glutamate given orally on appetite control (a new theory for the obesity epidemic)]

[Article in Spanish]

Fernandez-Tresguerres Hernandez JA.

<snip>

In conclussion, oral administration of MSG during pregnancy and development in rats is able to significantly affect hypothalamic control of various hormones and increases appetite.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...uids=15925301&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum

1: Nutrition. 2005 Jun;21(6):749-55.

Monosodium glutamate in standard and high-fiber diets: metabolic syndrome and oxidative stress in rats.

Diniz YS, Faine LA, Galhardi CM, Rodrigues HG, Ebaid GX, Burneiko RC, Cicogna AC, Novelli EL.

Department of Clinical Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo State, Botucatu, Brazil.

<snip>

CONCLUSIONS: MSG added to a standard diet increased food intake. Overfeeding induced metabolic disorders associated with oxidative stress in the absence of obesity. The fiber-enriched diet prevented changes in glucose, insulin, leptin, and triacylglycerol levels that were seen in the MSG group. Because the deleterious effects of MSG, i.e., induced overfeeding, were not seen in the animals fed the fiber-enriched diets, it can be concluded that fiber supplementation is beneficial by discouraging overfeeding and improving oxidative stress that is induced by an MSG diet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=3823160&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum

1: Physiol Behav. 1986 Oct;38(4):465-9.

Dose-related stimulation of feeding by systemic injections of monosodium glutamate

Reddy VM, Meharg SS, Ritter S.

Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is an excitotoxin capable of both stimulating and lesioning neurons in circumventricular organs (CVOs) after systemic administration. In this study, MSG and equiosmotic concentrations of NaCl were administered subcutaneously to adult rats in order to observe the effects on food and water intake. MSG (0.5, 1, 2 and 6 g/kg), but not NaCl, stimulated feeding. The magnitude of the feeding was dose-related.

===

Off-topic: MSG may have a role in causing Alzheimer's Disease later in life. I don't want to start a thread derail, but am just mentioning this because it is another issue with MSG. Link:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Search&DB=pubmed

1: Med Hypotheses. 1992 Jul;38(3):185-8.

A possible role for nitric oxide in glutamate (MSG)-induced Chinese restaurant syndrome, glutamate-induced asthma, 'hot-dog headache', (my emphasis) pugilistic Alzheimer's disease, and other disorders.

Scher W, Scher BM.

Rochelle Belfer Chemotherapy Foundation Laboratory, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York, NY 10029.

===

MSG is just one of several forms of free glutamate added to foods. Below are some links that provide the ingredient labels that are associated with free glutamate additives.

The first one is an article that is on one of the FDA's web site. (The FDA does not consider MSG or other forms of glutamate added to foods to be unsafe and I'm just including this article for another point of view. Notice however the article only refers to summaries of studies or reports, but no links to actual studies or even the names of the scientists who did them. )

http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/msg.html

While technically MSG is only one of several forms of free glutamate used in foods, consumers frequently use the term MSG to mean all free glutamate. For this reason, FDA considers foods whose labels say "No MSG" or "No Added MSG" to be misleading if the food contains ingredients that are sources of free glutamates, such as hydrolyzed protein.

and from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

Under current FDA regulations, significant amounts of free glutamate can be included in food under the following ingredient labels: MSG, monosodium glutamate, glutamic acid, hydrolyzed protein, autolyzed protein, textured protein, yeast extract, autolyzed yeast extract, protein isolate, soy sauce, modified food starch, modified corn starch, calcium caseinate, and sodium caseinate. In some cases, significant amounts of free glutamate are also added as broth, maltodextrin, seasonings, or natural flavor. [1] [2] [3]

My personal opinion is that I while realize that many foods naturally contain glutamate such as tomatoes, mushrooms, milk, meat, and etc, I’m not interested in consuming more than what is naturally present and will do my best to avoid consuming them as additives.

However, this is not easy to do when the FDA allows glutamates to be hidden in ingredients like seasonings or natural flavor, which may or may not contain them.

One way to avoid hidden MSG and other glutamates additives is to look for foods low in sodium -- one can always add MSG free seasonings at home or even take your own MSG free spices with you.

 

[ysabella]

The thing is, there isn't just physics and biology involved, there's also psychology. Many people fail to lose weight, or keep their weight down, because they simply don't stick to the diet. Things like Weight Watchers provide a friendly environment of like-minded people as support that can be much more important than the specific diet they choose.

Certainly true - much like the low-carb forum where I hang out.

There's also personal preference; I'd much rather eat low-carb food selections than low-fat ones, in general.

 

[casebro]

Kaylee, I hate to rain on your anti-glutamate parade, but Glutamic acid is an amino acid that is in just about everything.

Here's a link to "nutritiondata.com", (cool site)
<http://www.nutritiondata.com/foods-000093000000000000000-w.html> re: glutamic acid. Meats are about 6 to 12 %. It's even in veggies.

Yes, amino acids do add savory-ness. That's why they are even in mother's milk. Try Googling "umami". Most aminos are taken in as proteins, and then broken down into amino acids for absorption. No problems if you don't have diseases like phenalaline xxxx, ummm, PKA, allergy to Aspartame? Is there a GKA?

So leaving the MSG out of your Chinese food won't exactly lead to a Glutamate deficiency- it's naturally in the pork, chicken, soya, cabbage....