4 ms·
Were people eating smaller portion sizes just perpetually in a higher state of felt hunger than we are today? Or were people eating an amount that satiated them
by ethanbond 3y ago
Were people eating smaller portion sizes just perpetually in a higher state of felt hunger than we are today? Or were people eating an amount that satiated them, and people are doing the same today, but those are different amounts of food/calories/nutrients for some reason?
IMO it's absurd how little attention the felt sensation of hunger gets in the conversation about diet. It is the thing that motivates people to eat or to avoid eating. If you take that framing, then it's especially clear what has been happening: food manufacturers have gotten really good at jamming enormous amounts of calories into extremely lightweight (as in actual weight) food. The physical weight of your food intake is a big signal for satiation. If you take this "caloric density" perspective and then go walk around the grocery store, you will be utterly shocked at how huge the caloric density gap between a Snickers bar and a watermelon is.
If we did actually need to be mobile while consuming tons of calories, Snickers (and most other manufactured foods) would be bona fide miracles.
- hotpotamus 3y agoI believe arctic explorers rely on butter for a dense calorie source. Fat has 9 calories per gram and I don't think it's possible to do better than that. I don't think the sensation of hunger is actually ignored; it's pretty clear that drugs like ozempic were made specifically to artificially induce satiety.
- ethanbond 3y agoOzempic, a pharmaceutical brought to market in 2023, is not a counterpoint to "directly managing the sensation of hunger has been largely ignored in the conversation around diet."