Paleolithic diet

[NU_nutrition_TS]

This is the issue I take with people who tend to lean primarily on the calorie equation, and how that relates to their bulking/cutting goals, who then comment "oh, I can overeat on low carb foods like cheese, etc.": if you tend to eat a prescribed amount of calories per day and you binge on cheese or nuts - do you continue to stick to your calorie targets on succeeding days irrespective of whether you are hungry or not? In essence, saying you can over eat something is not necessarily saying you get fat if you make up for it some time later by eating less when you are less hungry - unless you continue to stick to a pre-determined daily calorie target.

Also, with the peanut study, people DID tend to reduce calories elsewhere (spontaneously in one sub-group, as opposed to a deliberate adjustment or replacement) and no-one actually gained the amount of weight that would have been dictated purely by the amount of excess calories consumed. This also indicates some degree of long-term adjustment of intake and/or that calories indeed are not just calories - that different foods result in different absorption/partitioning of the calories they contain.

The authors also note that peanuts may not be fully absorbed but passed out (along with some of the calories).

Almonds are not strictly nuts either but the seed of a 'drupe' - a kind of fruit. Walnuts however are a true nut!

EDIT: Another study on nuts (pistachio): http://www.jacn.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/198?etoc

[NU_nutrition_TS]

Further to my earlier post here: Paleolithic diet

I have posted about this elsewhere but cannot find it. However, I have managed to track down the original study, which I feel is superior to the one ATZ posted (and which I believe was used by James Krieger). The full text can be accessed here: Postprandial Response of Plasma Ghrelin Levels to Various Test Meals in Relation to Food Intake, Plasma Insulin, and Glucose -- Erdmann et al. 89 (6): 3048 -- Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism

The reason I think it is superior is because it used test meals of varying types of foods and macronutrient ratios which the subjects were able to eat ad libitum until comfortably satiated rather than at a fixed caloric value, which means some foods must be served at much bigger portion sizes than others. In the case of this study, all meals were supplied in quantities that were at least 50% in excess of what the subjects finally ate in order to feel satiated. Pre-weighted meals were given and any uneaten remainder was weighed to determine the exact amount consumed. From this a caloric value could also be determined. In this way subjects were not limited to fixed caloric values and could eat as much of each food that they required in order to leave them satiated. You will note that the amount of calories consumed to reach satiation with bread was 658 kcals (equivalent to just over 8 large slices), yet the study quoted by ATZ only allowed 240 kcal portions (equivalent to just 3 large slices). As I stated in my last post, the least satiating food on that study was croissant but, because of it's caloric density the subjects only got a 59g portion (which is 1 medium croissant) while the subjects getting 240 kcals worth of boiled potatoes (assuming no skins) were getting around 280g. clearly the subjects getting the greater bulk of food were going to feel more satiated and for longer.

The sample meals were meat and fat based (for high protein and high fat options), bread, fruit and veg based (for carbohydrate and fibre). Subjective appraisal of satiety was obtained from the subjects - as in the other study - and after 2 hours a standard test meal (of a ham sandwich) was offered and the amount eaten by each subject was recorded as a means of identifying which of the prior test meals had actually reduced subsequent hunger and food intake the most. The ham sandwich mimicked the kind of macronutrient breakdown typical of the average western diet. (see details in the full text).

Here is a link to one of the tables that shows how much of each test meal was required for the subjects to reach satiety (given both as absolute amount in grams and calories) compared with subsequent intake of the ham sandwich meal: JCEM -- Erdmann et al. 89 (6): 3048 Table 1

You will note that, calorically, subjects consumed pretty much the same amount of both the protein-rich and the fat-rich meal to feel satiated. Bread required the most amount of calories to be consumed in order to satiate the subjects, while fruit then veg required progressively lesser calories to achieve satiety but at a much greater bulk in grams due to their relative lack of caloric-density.

What is most interesting though is the amount of subsequent meal ingestion after each test meal. Fat-rich meals resulted in much less subsequent intake, followed by protein, and then carbs/fibre in the form of bread, veg and fruit.

[Clarky_X]

Hi. Why would you need a fibre sup if you are eating lots of vegetables that are full of fibre?

S

[NU_nutrition_TS]

You shouldn't!