Oh, let me re-emphasize something else. In the real world we are not eating isolated fat or protein or carbs. We are eating complex substances and complete diets that are, once again, not just the sum of their macronutrinet and micronutrient parts. The statement that burgers and fries are high satiety because of their high fat content is all kinds of wrong, the statement that “fat in particular is good at lasting satiety” is not supported by any evidence, but it may be true that particular real complete foods high in fat are (and that others are very much not).
Also a fun btw for KarlGauss that additionally further illustrates how real meals are more than the sum of their parts - gastric emptying time has long been known to not be key in satiation or satiety. But of note, soluble fiber with fat was synergistic in satiety impact, not because of change in gastic emptying time but presumptively because of delayed intestinal transit.
We both know that you know a lot more than me about this area. In other words, I’m bound to ‘lose’ this discussion. Still, what would you say about this recent reference from the European Jour of Clin Nutr? I know it’s not the apex of nutrition journals but it should do, no?
I would say it is interesting.
The rice pudding with the extra fat had a faster gastric emptying time than the rice pudding with extra carbohydrate (not specified in abstract if sugar or what but I do think it is reasonable to presume it was a simple carbohydrate) and more of a sense of fullness than the rice pudding with extra carbohydrate. Not very impressive P values but still.
So gastric emptying time did not correlate with a sense of fullness but having the fat along with the rice pudding (whatever its nutritional composition was) did (for any given volume), more than extra carb (sugar?) did anyway.
Obviously we do not have the actual article but I wonder what the soluble fiber content of that rice pudding was? The synergistic effect of fat and soluble fiber on satiety noted above would be one explanation for the result.
In any case, the macronutrient satiety superiority claim is usually made for protein and fiber, not simple carbohydrate. Which is more filling when added to a dessert food, extra fat or extra sugar? Whatever the answer it does not support a claim that fat is particularly high satiety.
I again want to re-emphasize though that I was just debunking the claim that fat is particularly high satiety (and therefore a burger and fries is high satiety food). Fat per se is not. I am not wanting to defend or diss ANY particular macronutrient or macronutrient balance here.* All carbs are not alike; all fats are not alike; all proteins are not alike; all fiber is not alike. The physical structure of the complete food does actually matter and the exact combination of substances matters too. If one was to make the broad brushstroke claiming fat is high satiety is the least true and as a broad brushstroke foods high in protein and fiber are. But while a 300 calorie bowl of oatmeal (high soluble fiber and reasonably high protein) may have higher satiety than 300 calories of butter (3 Tbs, 3/8 of a stick), a slightly smaller bowl with a pat of butter may have greater satiety yet. Again, the combinations are more than the sums of their parts.
*Ach. I have to comment some on Martin Hyde’s macronutrient balance. Generally speaking 25 to 30, maybe even 35% of energy intake from protein is considered “high” and works for many partly because protein is high satiety. MH your diet as described was 40% (!) of daily intake from protein. (Your estimated lean body mass is really 215 pounds?) At that level your body WAS hungry, not for calories but for enough fat or carbs (either one) so it could process the protein intake adequately. Also, agreed that a diet realtively high in protein (especially timed right) coupled with resistance exercise can result in muscle gain during fat loss.
Nice article Surreal.
Please note however that the specific question they ask is substituting a low-calorie sweetener for a regular calorie version … and the answer is mixed with prospective cohort studies showing slightly higher BMI and RCTs showing very modest BMI, weight, and fat mass loss - on the scale of 2 pounds difference over time scales like 6 months.
What was not asked is how it does in in compison to the advise that was the line I said after the part you quoted:
YMMV but I still call that meta-analysis “very little evidence.”
Bad typing makes that last point of mine pretty incomprehensible. Sorry. The point being that the RCTs chosen compared exclusively substituting a low calorie sweetened product for an added sugar product (and found a statistically significant but clinically minimal if not insignificant impact); it did not compare the a low calorie sweetened product to not having the added sweetener at all.
Funny thing though … that article intrigued me enough to look at it in more detail, and the editorial written about it in the journal. The editiorial was written by someone who is funded by the American Beverage Institute and the Coca Cola Company and who is a paid consultant to Coca Cola, General Mills, and McDonalds. The article is funded in part by the International Life Sciences Institute which consists of food and beverage, agricultural and chemical companies and has in the past been involved in controversies based on funding from tobacco companies. One author works for Exponent Inc., a consulting group that caters to the food industry.
Apparently these apparent of conflicts of interest have been an issue for this journal.
So I appreciate the find and the link but, well …
“There Is No ‘Healthy’ Microbiome”. The fact is, the microbiome is very complex and variable, and its effects on health remain very poorly understood.
I stick by what I said in post #26: much of what you said in post#20 is wildly speculative and verging on, if not actually, woo, and the fact that you might be able to cherry-pick articles from the vast and contradictory scientific literature on nutrition to support your speculations does not make them solid, settled science.
Not sure what you think that article says that you believe is contradicting anything I have said. If you actually read its content it is reinforcing it.
My apparently controversial speculative “woo” statement:
The NYT’s article’s position:
The point of the lede?
They are certainly not saying that the micobiome does not have a major role in health and disease or that the actual real foods we eat do not matter to it; quite the opposite. They are instead reinforcing that our microbiomes are complex major players that respond to the complexity they are exposed to of course including the foods we eat.
I completely concur with the article and in fact that is the perspective that informs my statement. Microbiomes are complex complete ecosystems, not just certain bacteria. Think in those ecological terms and you might begin to comprehend why a complete real food packaged with certain nutrients locked away such they are delivered to particular regions and their bacterial populations and unique environments in particular balances and combinations is different than a food that dumps the same individual macronutrients with no regard for timing, location, other travellers, or what balance is where when.
What part of this do you not understand?
BTW, if you believe there are many articles within the vast scientific literature that contradict the ones that I might “cherry pick” to support the idea that the complete packaging of food matters, then please offer a few up. (No, Twinkie man does not count as a study.)
The idea that food is more than its macronutrient component parts and that what we eat as complete foods has major impact on our health is by now solid settled established science. It does so in very (and varying) complex ways (not one “healthy” microbiome fits all) that we do not yet have completely worked out, yes.