# How exactly is fast food "killing" me? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 1, 2014, 8:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066 "2014-10-01T08:27:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![by-tor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/by-tor/32/266_2.png) [@by-tor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/by-tor)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/21 "2014-10-02T18:57:21Z")
There is also the possible link between red meat and bowel cancer: [Red meat and bowel cancer risk - NHS](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/red-meat.aspx) ---
**Author:** ![Renee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/renee/32/287_2.png) [@Renee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Renee)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/22 "2014-10-02T19:27:54Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The packaging impacts how the food is delivered to different portions of your gut and thus how it impacts your system endocrinologically and how it impacts your microbiome which impacts your in many ways including endocrinolgically and immunologially. It seems like we’re just starting to get a sense of how gut microbes impact health and weight. Really interesting stuff. That sugar free soda the OP mentioned could also be having a negative effect on his gut bacteria. > **[This Might Explain Why Diet Soda Drinkers Are Often Overweight](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/artificial-sweeteners-gut-bacteria_n_5837646)** > > This Might Explain Why Diet Soda Drinkers Are Often Overweight ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/23 "2014-10-02T19:51:46Z")
> [@by-tor](#): > > There is also the possible link between red meat and bowel cancer: [Meat in your diet - NHS](http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/red-meat.aspx) Although it must be noted that the data is only solid for the processed meat category and in point of fact McDonalds hamburgers are notably low in HCAs and PAHs that are formed with exposure of meats to high heat (the stuff fearmongered at the start of every grilling season for their cancer causing potential). ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/24 "2014-10-02T20:07:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Still not very well understood AFAICT, but [here’s an article](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261179.php) you might be interested in: I may have missed it but I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned here about a potential fatal flaw in that study - in its design. The subjects were given either water or sucralose before the glucose challenge. But, [sweet taste and expectation of nutrients soon to enter the stomach causes a so-called ‘incretin effect’.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817624/) In other words, we are hard wired to make (more) insulin simply by the conscious expectation of food about to come in (cephalic phase of digestion). So, priming with sucralose instead of water before ingesting the glucose would be expected to lead to higher insulin levels in the study. If I am correct, I am surprised it made it by the editors (but, then again, Diabetes Care is hardly a first rank journal). ---
**Author:** ![Surreal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/eada6e/32.png) [@Surreal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Surreal)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/25 "2014-10-02T22:07:57Z")
> [@sandra\_nz](#): > > I’m interested in learning more about this. Are you talking about an effect happening when a person injests carbs and artificial sweeteners at the same time? Or are you saying this effect happens when a person injests artificial sweeteners only? Could you point me towards some articles/experiments that proved this? > > Thanks! Not much evidence that non-caloric sweeteners have any impact on insulin secretion or blood glucose levels. Mark Sisson has a good summary of the research here: [http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin/#axzz3F1k2Zty4](http://www.marksdailyapple.com/artificial-sweeteners-insulin/#axzz3F1k2Zty4) ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2014, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/26 "2014-10-02T23:01:51Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Yes, as stated, item one is that the fries and hamburger is high calorie and high palatability (fats, salts, and sugars, especially combined, trigger the centers that say “eat lots of me”) and low satiety (little trigger to the centers that say “fulla uppa”). A burger and fries, largely because of their high fat content, will actually provide a lot more “satiety” and feeling of fullness than most so called “healthy” foods will. Indeed, that is one of the main reasons why people like them. Disclaimer: I, in fact, very rarely eat “fast food”, but not so much for health reasons as because I am not particularly fond of most of it. Despite largely avoiding it, I am fat and unhealthy anyway. > [@DSeid](#): > > The “real food” comment brings us to item two: _the packaging does matter_; a macronutirent is not a macronutrient. Despite **DrCube** ’s assertion, you need more than the right amounts and proportions of each, with the vitamins and minerals you need. The packaging impacts how the food is delivered to different portions of your gut and thus how it impacts your system endocrinologically and how it impacts your microbiome which impacts your in many ways including endocrinolgically and immunologially. It comes with more than the now well identified and mostly understood vitamins and minerals but in real foods of some diversity including vegetables and fruits, a host of other substances with a host of other impacts of which we are only beginning to get a handle on. Hence complete _diets_ high in vitamins and minerals adequate for all macronutrients are associated with excellent short and long term outcomes, longer life and better physicial and cognitive function including into that old age. But diets full of foods merely adequate for those micronutrients and supplemented with a pill containing the usual multi stuff, also adequate for all macronutrients, are not associated with those excellent outcomes. This seems to be mostly a bunch of speculative and remote possibilities and pure woo. You mention that several times that this or that isn’t really understood, but you do not seem to to entertain the very real, indeed, overwhelmingly likely, possibility, that there is really noting to be understood, that most of these fine details of diet will turn out to have negligible if not completely non-existent health impacts. Furthermore, even in the unlikely event that the “packaging” of macronutrients and various yet-unknown micronutrients do turn out to have actually significant health impacts, you have made no sort of case that there is any reason (beyond popular prejudice and the ingrained masochism of foodies) to believe the “packaging” of the nutrients in a hamburger and fries is any worse than in in any sort of allegedly “healthy” food, or that the burger and fries are any less likely to contain yet-unknown beneficial micronutrients than anything else. There seem to be a lot of people who like to obsess about the fine details of diet, and to imagine that if only they could find the perfect diet (whose benefits, they often seem to imagine, are likely to positively correlated with the amount of time they will have to spend in food preparation, and at least weakly negatively correlated with palatability) they will live forever, or at least for a few months longer than the non-diet-obsessed. This is a fantasy, despite the fact such people will often grasp at straws of scientific speculation, or studies showing tiny, usually spurious, correlations, to support their obsessions. ---
**Author:** ![yoyodyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a9a28c/32.png) [@yoyodyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yoyodyne)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/27 "2014-10-03T00:15:58Z")
> [@KarlGauss](#): > > I may have missed it but I don’t think anyone has yet mentioned here about a potential fatal flaw in that study - in its design. > > The subjects were given either water or sucralose before the glucose challenge. But, [sweet taste and expectation of nutrients soon to enter the stomach causes a so-called ‘incretin effect’.](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2817624/) In other words, we are hard wired to make (more) insulin simply by the conscious expectation of food about to come in (cephalic phase of digestion). > > So, priming with sucralose instead of water before ingesting the glucose would be expected to lead to higher insulin levels in the study. If I am correct, I am surprised it made it by the editors (but, then again, Diabetes Care is hardly a first rank journal). If I drink a diet soda and unneeded insulin is released in anticipation, are there any long-term effects of the raised level if the sugar doesn’t follow? ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/28 "2014-10-03T00:37:12Z")
> [@tigerwoods](#): > > Believe me, as a child I tried. I ate white sugar, straight, by the teaspoon, from the sugar bowl and loved it. I don’t know why I stopped actually. I could do it right now. Do you have any teeth left? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/29 "2014-10-03T00:46:07Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > A burger and fries, largely because of their high fat content, will actually provide a lot more “satiety” and feeling of fullness than most so called “healthy” foods will. Indeed, that is one of the main reasons why people like them. > > Disclaimer: I, in fact, very rarely eat “fast food”, but not so much for health reasons as because I am not particularly fond of most of it. Despite largely avoiding it, I am fat and unhealthy anyway. You’re correct on this bit, high fat and protein tend to provide high satiety. Fat in particular is good at lasting satiety, on that count you’re correct. It tends to be certain very high carb (due to sugar, it’s hard for any vegetable to be truly “high carb” like a muffin because they lack the nutrient/energy density to be so) foods that deliver super high calories but little satiety. French fries are probably in that spectrum, although they tend to have some decent fat. The high fat burger that probably has 40-50g of protein is pretty satiating though for sure. > [@](#): > > This seems to be mostly a bunch of speculative and remote possibilities and pure woo. You mention that several times that this or that isn’t really understood, but you do not seem to to entertain the very real, indeed, overwhelmingly likely, possibility, that there is really noting to be understood, that most of these fine details of diet will turn out to have negligible if not completely non-existent health impacts. I’ve followed **DSeid** in a lot of nutrition threads and agree with him more than I disagree with him. But again, you are probably right that ultra fine details probably aren’t _that_ important. But he even acknowledges the same when he points out it isn’t one meal that causes a problem. > [@](#): > > Furthermore, even in the unlikely event that the “packaging” of macronutrients and various yet-unknown micronutrients do turn out to have actually significant health impacts, you have made no sort of case that there is any reason (beyond popular prejudice and the ingrained masochism of foodies) to believe the “packaging” of the nutrients in a hamburger and fries is any worse than in in any sort of allegedly “healthy” food, or that the burger and fries are any less likely to contain yet-unknown beneficial micronutrients than anything else. One of the big things he didn’t say ab out the “packaging” that may help you to understand is a lot of this is tied into human behavior and choices. Someone with perfect willpower who intentionally tracks what they eat can probably eat one fast food meal per day plus a mixture of other things for the rest of the day and come out with a decent calorie and macronutrient profile in which he gets fiber, essential amino and fatty acids and all the vitamins and minerals we think/know people need. The problem is that person is the exception. Most people do not track foods, and most people have extremely imperfect willpower. So the reason the “packaging” is important is how it affects behavior. Super-palatable foods lead to overeating. Is it possible to stop yourself from over-eating super-palatable foods and make them part of an every day, but moderate, portion of your diet? Absolutely. But the person who can do that is far, far outside the norm of behavior. We know this because of the observed results on society from the development of super-palatable foods, and we also know based on how diets focusing on less palatable foods tend to have better results. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/30 "2014-10-03T00:50:03Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > A burger and fries, largely because of their high fat content, will actually provide a lot more “satiety” and feeling of fullness than most so called “healthy” foods will. Indeed, that is one of the main reasons why people like them. > … This falsehood gets repeated often, see [this recent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=734251), and is nevertheless still incorrect (see in particular[this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17737963&postcount=39)). Fats are low satiety; protein and fiber high. The evidence and science behind that is very deep. > [@](#): > > This seems to be mostly a bunch of speculative and remote possibilities and pure woo. … If you call where the science actually is woo then sure. If I have some time to kill later maybe I will post a small selection of thousands of literature citations for you\* giving you a taste of where the scientific literature is on this but the claim that the complete package matters, is not speculative; it is well accepted. Details of how, of what processes are involved, whether it is specifically what gets delivered where and when and how that makes an impact or unrecognized other factors, are being worked out. But that there is something to be worked out? That is solidly known. Agreed that the search for “the perfect diet” as a Holy Grail is silly. Many many diets are healthy. What we do know is what is not healthy: pretty much the typical standard American diet with “fast food” as its poster child. \*If you really want to “cite please” on this and not just trust me. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/31 "2014-10-03T00:55:51Z")
> [@Ethilrist](#): > > You skipped right over the carbs and, ironically enough, sugar-free sweetener. Eating an entire day’s worth of carbs at one sitting means your blood sugar is spiking within an hour after you eat. Plus, the sugar-free sweetener fools your body into thinking you just ate a bunch of sugar, so your body pumps out an extra-large dose of insulin to deal with all these carbs. There are only three main things your body can do with glucose: store it in cells which use it as fuel (and, since you don’t exercise much, you don’t need to replenish much), store it in the liver as glucagon (an emergency reserve in case you skip a meal, which it doesn’t sound like you do), and store it as fat. Guess where it ends up? And? Insulin spikes are not intrinsically a bad thing, it’s a weird fetish of people who seem to think so. An insulin spike is 6-8 hours of heightened insulin levels and the process causes 3-4 days of heightened hormones that burn stored body fad. Insulin spikes are not bad, and are in fact a necessary physiological process. Diets designed to keep insulin levels low all the time are almost always poorly thought out. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/32 "2014-10-03T02:24:36Z")
> [@Surreal](#): > > Not much evidence that non-caloric sweeteners have any impact on insulin secretion or blood glucose levels. … [Not so fast](http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/36/9/2530.abstract). > [@](#): > > … Compared with the control condition, sucralose ingestion caused 1) a greater incremental increase in peak plasma glucose concentrations (4.2 ± 0.2 vs. 4.8 ± 0.3 mmol/L; P = 0.03), 2) a 20 ± 8% greater incremental increase in insulin area under the curve (AUC) (P \< 0.03), 3) a 22 ± 7% greater peak insulin secretion rate (P \< 0.02), 4) a 7 ± 4% decrease in insulin clearance (P = 0.04), and 5) a 23 ± 20% decrease in SI (P = 0.01). … These data demonstrate that sucralose affects the glycemic and insulin responses to an oral glucose load in obese people who do not normally consume NNS. [And insulin is not the only factor to consider](http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/35/5/959.short) … > [@](#): > > In healthy youths, we recently reported accentuated glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) secretion in response to a diet soda sweetened with sucralose and acesulfame-K. In this study, we examined the effect of diet soda on gut hormones in youths with diabetes. … Ingestion of diet soda before a glucose load augmented GLP-1 secretion in type 1 diabetic and control subjects but not type 2 diabetic subjects The evidence may be mixed and complicated but there is a fair amount of it. The answer seem to depend on the exact population studied and the exact protocol followed. Can’t say I have all that much nterest in this though. The practical bit is that there is little evidence that artifical sweetners help people lose or maintain weight. Just avoid the sweet stuff altogether. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/33 "2014-10-03T03:15:11Z")
For **njtt** , Honestly I don’t know where to begin. I think I’ll offer you a list and you can choose what area you want some citations about. About the microbiome’s role in heath and disease, including endocrinologic and immunologic processes, and how the foods we eat impact it? How food with similar macronutrient percents have differing impacts on health and disease, from varying glycemic indices, to differing levels of resistant starch, to different sorts of fiber, to protein with differing levels of various sorts of amino acids and differing absorption rates which impact muscle synthesis and catabolism in differing ways, to differing impacts on satiety? (Pick any.) That foods high in vitamins are associated with significant positive health outcomes that taking similar amounts of supplements do not result in? [Here’s just one](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/97/6/1346.full) though, about why added nuts in a diet do not cause weight gain, are even possibly associated with weight loss and with improved health markers, without a request to whet your appetite. > [@](#): > > Our findings confirmed the results of epidemiologic studies that suggested an inverse association between the frequency of nut consumption and BMI and risk of obesity. Cross-sectional studies showed either that nut consumption was associated with lower BMI (16), or there was no relation between the frequency of nut consumption and BMI (55). Two large, prospective cohort studies (the Adventist Health Study and Nurse’s Health Study II) showed significant inverse associations between the frequency of nut consumption and BMI (56, 57), whereas no relation was reported in the Physicians’ Health Study (58). Frequent nut consumption was also associated with reduced risk of weight gain in the Seguimiento University of Navarra cohort of young university graduates (15). > > Biological plausibility > Several biological mechanisms may explain the results of the current meta-analysis regarding the effect of nut consumption on adiposity. Nuts are very rich in unsaturated fatty acids, and evidence has suggested that MUFAs and PUFAs are more readily oxidized (59) and have a greater thermogenic effect (60) than do saturated fatty acids, which can lead to less fat accumulation. Because of their energy density and abundance of unsaturated fatty acids, fiber, and protein, nuts are a highly satiating food, and thus, after the consumption of nuts, hunger is suppressed and subsequent food intake is curtailed (61). The physical structure of nuts may also contribute to their satiety effect because they must be mechanically reduced to particles small enough for swallowing. Mastication activates mechanical, nutrient, and sensory signaling systems that may modify appetitive sensations (62). Furthermore, a small degree of fat malabsorption occurs after nut intake because fat is contained within walled cellular structures that are incompletely digested in the gut (63), which is an effect that can be compounded by incomplete mastication (64). … Note the emphasis on understanding precisely which fats are present and the physical structure that the nutrition is contained within impacting its effects. If you want some articles about some of the specific phytonutrients putatively believed to contribute to the health benefits of nuts alone, e.g. L-arginine, phenolic antioxidants, and others, most of which had not been understood much until recently and are still incompletely comprehended, I can provide them. I’ll ask for one in return though - and you can pick which one. Either something in real scientific literature that supports that fat is higher satiety than foods high in protein and fiber or even broadly the group “carbs”, or something in real literature that supports that packaging does not matter. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 10:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/34 "2014-10-03T10:37:15Z")
> [@yoyodyne](#): > > If I drink a diet soda and unneeded insulin is released in anticipation, are there any long-term effects of the raised level if the sugar doesn’t follow? The “incretins” _potentiate_ subsequent insulin release but don’t directly release insulin themselves. So, assuming you consume only the diet soda and don’t follow it with anything else, I wouldn’t expect anything to change. Disclaimer - I am no expert in the field (although I am reassured by the observation that even _with_ subsequent glucose ingestion in the cited study, insulin increased by only eight percent.) ---
**Author:** ![tigerwoods](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47c2d/32.png) [@tigerwoods](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tigerwoods)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2014, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/35 "2014-10-03T13:10:09Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Do you have any teeth left? :eek: Yeah a few, but I needed 4 good fillings by age 35 due to interproximal cavities/decay. Lost one of them that was due to a bad filling job or the tooth was too far gone. I think I have lost a fair bit of enamel to acid erosion too. I am slowly depleting the earth’s stannous fluoride supply in a desperate attempt to prevent any more tooth decay/erosion. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/36 "2014-10-05T17:04:34Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > This falsehood gets repeated often, see [this recent thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=734251), and is nevertheless still incorrect (see in particular[this post](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=17737963&postcount=39)). > > Fats are low satiety; protein and fiber high. The evidence and science behind that is very deep. I think it depends on what we mean by satiety, I think you can overeat fats pretty easily because they are high density and they don’t make you feel immediately “full” like large amounts of high fiber bread will. But I think there’s evidence high lipid intake controls hunger long term and suppresses later food consumption. ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/37 "2014-10-05T18:40:10Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > But I think there’s evidence high lipid intake controls hunger long term and suppresses later food consumption. [Fats also delay gastric emptying](http://arbl.cvmbs.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/digestion/stomach/emptying.html)\* making us more likely to feel full faster. \*more "sophisticated cites available on request ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/38 "2014-10-05T19:21:26Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I think it depends on what we mean by satiety, I think you can overeat fats pretty easily because they are high density and they don’t make you feel immediately “full” like large amounts of high fiber bread will. But I think there’s evidence high lipid intake controls hunger long term and suppresses later food consumption. You may think so but you’d be mistaken. The first part of what you mention in actually most properly called “satiation.” That’s the immediate sense of fullness and stopping eating that meal. The suppressing later food consumption is most properly what is meant by “satiety” and whether measured by how long until one feels hungry again, how hungry one is a certain time later, or by how much one eats at the next meal after a “preload” fat pretty consistently scores lower than protein and fiber rich carbs which for both satiation and satiety rock. (At best there are a scattered studies that show that in some models fat is not much different than carbs and protein if artificially placed in a product such that it has the same energy density. Not even a single study I can find that claims fat has higher satiety than protein or even carbs.) Yes **KarlGauss** more “sophisticated cites” are requested; that one does not say what you think it says and is more a claim than a study. All it says is that a lot of calories will delay gastric emptying. No question a higher calorie, energy dense meal empties slower than a lower calorie one. Satiety and satiation however are usually measured on an isoenergetic basis. Please, something that demonstrates that calorie for calorie a high fat meal is either more satiating or higher in satiety than one low in fat but high in protein and/or fiber. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/39 "2014-10-05T19:48:09Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > You may think so but you’d be mistaken. Based on what? You’re aware of science showing what makes me more satiated? I’ve experimented with a lot of different diets and while low carb, high fat and high protein was only a temporary experiment of two weeks for me it was the only period of my life where I was losing weight but never felt hunger. Fat was the only variable that as any different, because on the diet I followed to lose most of my weight some years ago I focused on three things: 1. Caloric deficit (I felt I had enough fat I needed to be in deficit, although I can also personally attest if you get the right macronutrient balance and utilize resistance training you can maintain the same weight while losing fat and building new muscle.) 2. Macronutrient balance that is protein sparing (so 1g of protein per pound of my estimated lean body mass), because if you lose muscle and fat in equal proportion it serves no purpose. 3. Enough carbs to fuel my exercise requirements. This all ended up being 215g of protein, 75g of fat, and 150g of carb. I lost 60 some pounds, I minimized muscle loss (I ascertained this because I did not fall very much in my core lifts) and I was hungry the entire time. My brief foray into removing the carbs and replacing them with fat made me never hungry. The reason I abandoned it was I frequently felt close (to the point of needing to sit down) to passing out in the gym after or during vigorous work outs, so I concluded that while I know some lifters like Mark Bell were able to exercise vigorously with very low carb diets, I wasn’t able to do so. I do believe you probably have some hyper-specific studies not applicable to any humans, and probably from the same group of brainiacs that told us don’t eat saturated fat, and hey if you replace them with trans fats that’s great. Or that told us eggs are as bad for you as tobacco (the same week another group from the same tribe told us eggs are amazing.) The same that told us low sodium is a cure all for high blood pressure, that blood cholesterol can easily be changed via changes in dietary cholesterol intake etc. Because doctors are usually smarter than their patients I think they often forget how ignorant they are about the human body (because science is ignorant of it), most studies on nutrition are simply too limited in scope, too specific to things that are not generalizeable and have offered no advice that has been rigorously proven to help people that just relying on those studies does nothing. If we want to talk about the relative complexity of nutrition and why the science can provide us so few consistent answers that’s fine, but let’s not pretending citing peer reviewed nutrition articles has anything to do with how people should actually eat in their day to day lives. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2014, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066/40 "2014-10-05T20:51:47Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > … I do believe you probably have some hyper-specific studies not applicable to any humans… No, multiple studies in which they fed humans food and measured in some ratings of hunger at various points and in others how much they ate at that meal and later given differing “preloads.” Please note: the comment about satiation and satiety is about in the first case individual meals and in the second case the period of time several hours after the meal. It is not about an overall diet plan. It does not bear on what happens to those who eat high fat every meal every day one way or the other. It is specific to the specific claim made, that fat is especially high satiety. It aint. Protein and fiber however are. And as always, what is true for the mean and the median may not be true for one particular anecdotal individual. Your personal experience is not however “evidence.” The evidence, the sum large body of research studying humans actually fed the same number of calories as fat or as carbs or as protein does not support either the claim that fat is particularly high satiety, in fact the bulk of the studies find the opposite is true. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-exactly-is-fast-food-killing-me/700066.md?page=3)