If so, could the secret of weight loss be indegestible “food”? I’m postulating some kind of plastic balls that wouls swell up in the stomach, and make you feel full.
This stuff would (of course) contain zero calories, and pass through.
Would this work?
It seems that most diest that relay on reduced portion sizes fail-so why not follow the opposite strategy-fill up with stuff that you cannot digest?
Actually, that would not work. Once the plastic balls reach the perimeter, your stomach is authorized to shoot them with deadly force.
[moderating]
This should have been its own thread, and not part of the Area 51 discussion. I split the OP out on its own, and took Duke’s comment (which makes little sense outside of the Area 51 thread, but it is a direct response to the OP of this thread) with it.
[/moderating]
It partly is and partly isn’t. There have been times when I was exhausted and also hadn’t eaten all day, where I ate until my stomach was full but my body was still telling me it needed more calories. On the other hand, if your stomach is empty it can also lead to the hunger sensation.
Indigestable food is also called “fiber.” it’s good for you – helps you poop.
Hunger is not solely caused by an empty stomach. It’s a complex reaction involving stomach nerves, your blood sugar levels, various endocrine pathways, and psychological aspects. It is not well understood.
I get unstoppable “hunger” if I eat carbs without adequate protein after a weights session, in fact, it is far worse than if I eat nothing at all as though the furnace fires up but finds only newspaper where it really needs coal. Plastic balls wouldn’t work against these messages. For the same reason most “Lite” foods are useless for me, if I am craving sugar I will still be starving after a dozen muffins made with splenda. It is better for me to eat a mini chocolate bar and be satisfied.
ETA: when I was in high school lots of girls were taking fibre pills that supposedly swelled up when swallowed with water and filled your stomach. They didn’t appear to stop anyone from eating all the usual crap on top and I didn’t notice a lot of weightloss going on.
No.
An empty stomach produces appetite.
Hunger is malnutrition.
You die from hunger.
Newsflash: words mean many things. Film at 11. (By “film” I probably mean videotape.)
Pssst. It’s digital now. Think hard drive.
In my experience with low carbing and keeping a steady low blood sugar, I came to discover that what most people interpret as hunger most of the time is the result of a drop in blood sugar levels. When you’re consistently low carbing, you no longer get that feeling.
You do get hungry though - it tends to come at longer intervals than blood sugar based hunger, but it’s a different feeling, and more intense in my experience.
So your idea wouldn’t work to stave off hunger based on blood sugar levels.