This is a key element of the whole weigh loss debacle. The lack of definition here is troubling and confuse both those who easily feel satiated and those who never feel it in the first place. They're all speaking a different language.
Enough sleep is a master switch for satiety for me. And the easiest way for me to not get enough sleep is to not eat to satiety. I seem to do this often, which has me wake an hour or three early.
I also get cement-truck satiety when consuming cream. It's a bit disconcerting because of how quickly it happens.
Sleep deprivation is also the surest way for me to not feel satiated. I can immediately tell when I've had a bad night's sleep because I start feeling hungry much earlier in the day than normal. I attribute this to a ghrelin/leptin imbalance caused by the sleep disruption.
Yea once again it would be fascinating to measure these live.
I don't have "just" no satiety switch when severely sleep deprived, I am worse at noticing anything. Including being hot/cold and even physical fullness. Basically as if every signal is blunted or going through a fog.
You are the guy in the CICO and FO post picture, correct? If so, your lean mass is 125 pounds top. Your BMR is somewhere around 1350. And that's why you can't lose any fat eating 3k+
I have about 150lbs of lean mass via DEXA (145-155lbs, depending on hydration status). By real-world DLW measurements, my expected TEE would be about 3,215kcal/day, which is pretty much exactly in line with the 3,300kcal I seem to eat ad-lib and am weight stable on.
My RMR was measured at 2,200-2,400kcal/day, and my TEE (via DLW) anywhere from 2,900-4,600kcal/day.
Fascinating to read as someone coming from the opposite angle. I get sick with satiety almost immediately at the most random times. Ex. about twice a week I'll be ten bites in to a random meal (lentils, salad, whatever) and my body will suddenly throw every "satiety" switch in its arsenal, screaming "if you eat one more bite of literally anything you will be ill". I find it hard to eat enough food but am otherwise in good health.
From family anecdata, GLP-1s maky my family's bodies act more like mine (hair trigger satiety) than their own baseline (no satiety, able to keep eating indefinitely or to physical fullness)
That SMTM article is extraordinary, thanks for the link! I think it's wrong in several important ways, but it makes more sense than any previous pile of psychological bullshit I've ever seen. I wonder if they've found their 'new paradigm'. Big if true.
But I really hate it when people try to redefine common words to mean something they don't intuitively mean. The correct reaction is to consult a classical dictionary and find a usable word that doesn't yet have a common meaning in English. This means that laypeople will find your new theory frightening, but that is better than causing endless confusion. The classic example is heritability. 'Happiness is not an emotion' strikes me as about as bad as 'Hair colour is not heritable in Japan'.
Yes, I agree on the emphasis on LA has somehow never been really pronounced as a crucial part of the diet. Also the importance of meat nad animal fat was easy to overlook because there were no rules around it (since some contemporary HG don't consume that much meat).
Gluten free was easier to stick to because it was a simple rule, don't eat grains. Some people kinda thought that eating grain-free dairy free vegetarian diet (ie. only fruits and vegetables and nuts, which is, well... vegan actually) would qualify as ancestral, which is insane. It's easy to drop actual hunter-gatherers from the picture and rebrand paleo as an "everything-free" diet (I don't know if you have this term, in Hungary, for example, gluten/dairy/sugar free cakes or home-delivery meals used to be called paleo, and nowadays they are labeled "everything-free" [mindenmentes], cakes are often vegan as well).
In Hungary, the guy who brought Paleo into the country just assumed that subsisting on pastured pork and beef was impossible (it was very hard to find proper beef and pastured pork back then here), and recommended to supplement omega-3 to "balance" high LA.
Then, a few years later the paleomedicina guys started experimenting with exactly that (a pastutred/grass-fed meat based, protein-restricted ketogenic diet).
From an obesity perspective, starch might not be a horseman, but I am not sure if eating starch as a staple is a good idea. Poor people didn't usually get diabesity "back then" (in the 19th or early 20th centruy), but some of them did, and they were far from a generally healthy population.
Interesting, I haven't heard "everything free" I think that hasn't made it into US vernacular.
The "you can't all live pasture/grass fed therefore take fish oil" was very prevalent in US paleo as well. The mistake was, of course, that pasture/grass-fed wasn't the important variable, but low LA was. Hence grain feed beef is totally fine, in fact much better than almost any pastured pork.
So they destroyed then entire benefit paleo might've had on o6 intake.
I suspect that the issue with starch is mostly poverty. Northern/Central Europeans ate lots of starch for energy, but if they also had enough meat and dairy they seemed fine. The stunted growth and other stuff you see in high starch populations is probably because they can't afford meat or dairy. Would be my guess.
I’m puzzled by your rice only diet. Maybe I missed the details. It can’t be compared to your high fat cream diet that includes beef, green beans and tomato sauce.
One more question, you speak of eating three pounds of rice. Is that one pound of dry rice cooked in two parts water?
I haven't posted the detailed report yet, as I'm not quite done. Should be next week though, or maybe the week after.
Why can't it be compared, would you say?
The rice I mostly cooked in a rice cooker, and currently (due to travel) it's pre-cooked rice that I microwave to warm it up. I don't know if it's exactly 1:2, but I was frequently eating 2-3 dry cups (cooked, of course) of ~130-135g each in a sitting. 3 such dry cups is almost 1lb of dry rice, so it seems roughly right.
This is a key element of the whole weigh loss debacle. The lack of definition here is troubling and confuse both those who easily feel satiated and those who never feel it in the first place. They're all speaking a different language.
Your distinctions are useful!
Thanks!
Enough sleep is a master switch for satiety for me. And the easiest way for me to not get enough sleep is to not eat to satiety. I seem to do this often, which has me wake an hour or three early.
I also get cement-truck satiety when consuming cream. It's a bit disconcerting because of how quickly it happens.
Sleep deprivation is also the surest way for me to not feel satiated. I can immediately tell when I've had a bad night's sleep because I start feeling hungry much earlier in the day than normal. I attribute this to a ghrelin/leptin imbalance caused by the sleep disruption.
Yea once again it would be fascinating to measure these live.
I don't have "just" no satiety switch when severely sleep deprived, I am worse at noticing anything. Including being hot/cold and even physical fullness. Basically as if every signal is blunted or going through a fog.
"I’d need to eat this meal 4x a day just to get to 2,400kcal, or 5-5.5x to get to the 3,000-3,300kcal that would be expected for my lean mass."
You don't have that much lean mass my friend!
Yes, I do
You are the guy in the CICO and FO post picture, correct? If so, your lean mass is 125 pounds top. Your BMR is somewhere around 1350. And that's why you can't lose any fat eating 3k+
No, that's the FAFO meme.
I have about 150lbs of lean mass via DEXA (145-155lbs, depending on hydration status). By real-world DLW measurements, my expected TEE would be about 3,215kcal/day, which is pretty much exactly in line with the 3,300kcal I seem to eat ad-lib and am weight stable on.
My RMR was measured at 2,200-2,400kcal/day, and my TEE (via DLW) anywhere from 2,900-4,600kcal/day.
Are you familiar with the story of Tarrare?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarrare
Would you consider being tested for amygdala problems, or similar brain scans?
Lol holy shit, I was not aware. He ate entire cats?!
Have not tested for such problems. If there were acute signs I might consider it.
Fascinating to read as someone coming from the opposite angle. I get sick with satiety almost immediately at the most random times. Ex. about twice a week I'll be ten bites in to a random meal (lentils, salad, whatever) and my body will suddenly throw every "satiety" switch in its arsenal, screaming "if you eat one more bite of literally anything you will be ill". I find it hard to eat enough food but am otherwise in good health.
From family anecdata, GLP-1s maky my family's bodies act more like mine (hair trigger satiety) than their own baseline (no satiety, able to keep eating indefinitely or to physical fullness)
Hair trigger satiety is a good word. I call it cement truck satiety.
That SMTM article is extraordinary, thanks for the link! I think it's wrong in several important ways, but it makes more sense than any previous pile of psychological bullshit I've ever seen. I wonder if they've found their 'new paradigm'. Big if true.
But I really hate it when people try to redefine common words to mean something they don't intuitively mean. The correct reaction is to consult a classical dictionary and find a usable word that doesn't yet have a common meaning in English. This means that laypeople will find your new theory frightening, but that is better than causing endless confusion. The classic example is heritability. 'Happiness is not an emotion' strikes me as about as bad as 'Hair colour is not heritable in Japan'.
I wonder how you say 'error signal' in Sanskrit?
Yes, I agree on the emphasis on LA has somehow never been really pronounced as a crucial part of the diet. Also the importance of meat nad animal fat was easy to overlook because there were no rules around it (since some contemporary HG don't consume that much meat).
Gluten free was easier to stick to because it was a simple rule, don't eat grains. Some people kinda thought that eating grain-free dairy free vegetarian diet (ie. only fruits and vegetables and nuts, which is, well... vegan actually) would qualify as ancestral, which is insane. It's easy to drop actual hunter-gatherers from the picture and rebrand paleo as an "everything-free" diet (I don't know if you have this term, in Hungary, for example, gluten/dairy/sugar free cakes or home-delivery meals used to be called paleo, and nowadays they are labeled "everything-free" [mindenmentes], cakes are often vegan as well).
In Hungary, the guy who brought Paleo into the country just assumed that subsisting on pastured pork and beef was impossible (it was very hard to find proper beef and pastured pork back then here), and recommended to supplement omega-3 to "balance" high LA.
Then, a few years later the paleomedicina guys started experimenting with exactly that (a pastutred/grass-fed meat based, protein-restricted ketogenic diet).
From an obesity perspective, starch might not be a horseman, but I am not sure if eating starch as a staple is a good idea. Poor people didn't usually get diabesity "back then" (in the 19th or early 20th centruy), but some of them did, and they were far from a generally healthy population.
Interesting, I haven't heard "everything free" I think that hasn't made it into US vernacular.
The "you can't all live pasture/grass fed therefore take fish oil" was very prevalent in US paleo as well. The mistake was, of course, that pasture/grass-fed wasn't the important variable, but low LA was. Hence grain feed beef is totally fine, in fact much better than almost any pastured pork.
So they destroyed then entire benefit paleo might've had on o6 intake.
I suspect that the issue with starch is mostly poverty. Northern/Central Europeans ate lots of starch for energy, but if they also had enough meat and dairy they seemed fine. The stunted growth and other stuff you see in high starch populations is probably because they can't afford meat or dairy. Would be my guess.
don't forget mitochondrial toxins in the list of horsemen: heavy metals, mycotoxins, some pesticides, some herbicides
microplastics... :puke.gif: there's just so many lol
Ive dropped a couple hundred hours experimenting, studying, and thinking about satiety. I sent you a DM. I really like your blog btw
I’m puzzled by your rice only diet. Maybe I missed the details. It can’t be compared to your high fat cream diet that includes beef, green beans and tomato sauce.
One more question, you speak of eating three pounds of rice. Is that one pound of dry rice cooked in two parts water?
I haven't posted the detailed report yet, as I'm not quite done. Should be next week though, or maybe the week after.
Why can't it be compared, would you say?
The rice I mostly cooked in a rice cooker, and currently (due to travel) it's pre-cooked rice that I microwave to warm it up. I don't know if it's exactly 1:2, but I was frequently eating 2-3 dry cups (cooked, of course) of ~130-135g each in a sitting. 3 such dry cups is almost 1lb of dry rice, so it seems roughly right.