3 ms·
I'll say this up front - I know very little about nutrition and diet science. But, your comment makes me think: -You start with caffeine, a known hunger suppre
by batiudrami 13y ago
I'll say this up front - I know very little about nutrition and diet science. But, your comment makes me think:
-You start with caffeine, a known hunger suppressant
-Meat is high protein, which is (I think) fairly confidently known to be what stops your brain thinking that it is hungry.
These two factors, along with internal knowledge that you're attempting to lose weight and may therefore conciously attempt to eat less, should result in you eating less than you otherwise would.
Yet you purposely eat high fat and low nutrition foods such as butter - if you replaced those with other options - vegetables and starchy carbs - and attempted to eat protein-dense but low fat meats such as chicken breast - would you be still losing as much weight and also overall having a healthier body (which is less likely to lead to problems later in life?).
Obviously this article throws some of those assumptions into question, but I think few people would argue that replacing some fat in a (relatively) high fat diet with vegetables would be a negative for your weight loss or future health.
- IgorPartola 13y agoSeconded. From what I have seen in terms of research and experienced, eating vegetables is pretty much the only thing we know for sure is a safe bet. There are tons of controversial things that can be debated, but I have never seen any credible source say "eat less veggies".
- beagle3 13y agoThis reasoning may feel satisfying, but it is very far from sound scientific reasoning. > You start with caffeine, a known hunger suppressant And yet, most of the western world, including most obese people, drinks coffee. So apparently, the "hunger suppression effects" are not relevant, or they would be relevant to everyone. > internal knowledge that you're attempting to lose weight and may therefore conciously attempt to eat less, should result in you eating less than you otherwise would. That would also be true for ... just about every person who is trying to lose weight. And the vast majority of them fail spectacularly. So this can't be a reason either. > Yet you purposely eat high fat and low nutrition foods such as butter What does "low nutrition" mean, and why would you think butter is not nutritious? "Butter" is not one thing, much like "Meat" is not one thing. European style and US style butters have different nutrient contents. Butter from well treated, grass fed cows contains a lot more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid than grain fed cows that are not treated well (The taste is also different - after I got used to the former, which I can eat by the stick, the latter is disgusting in any form or amount). Butyric acid is seriously good for you (see e.g. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/butyric-acid-ancient-controller-of.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/12/butyric-acid-a... ) > would you be still losing as much weight and also overall having a healthier body (which is less likely to lead to problems later in life?) Why would you believe that? That it causes problem, or that you would lose as much weight? Calorie in - calorie out is a theory that was never scientifically proved, and was scientifically disproved numerous times.
- Shorel 13y ago> Yet you purposely eat high fat and low nutrition foods such as butter You make it sound like a bad choice, but that's exactly the keto food that gives them results, and the one that makes the difference. High fat food like butter. Most people subscribed to /r/keto already tried all you advocate, and failed. Keto works for them, don't try to disregard that.