Interesting news item just published today:

"Their research has found calorie intake increases as people eat less protein in proportion to other nutrients such as fat and carbohydrates."

So with the modern plethora of high carb snacks and foods people "searching" for protein tend to overeat all the other stuff, particularly poorer people. Makes sense.

It's widely accepted that obesity is a socioeconomic thing - recent TV show had Mexico as the most obese nation on the planet, soon to be followed by Brazil.

what do you mean "searching" for protein?

It's a pretty simple case of you can really only have an excessive calorie intake when you're eating a lot of carbs and fats.

Coincidentally cheap foods lack protein, which is why obesity is a socioeconomic thing like you noted.

I don't know. I can eat crazy amounts of lean protein... and I think more than I need. Mixing it with a little bit of fat (especially less obviously fatty-fat, like gravy vs olive oil or sour cream vs butter) doesn't do much to decrease my consumption--but more obvious forms of fat, olive oil, butter, in larger amounts, does decrease my consumption.




Interesting speculation. But suppose the study had been about carbohydrate, and the conclusion, "that the drive for carbohydrate might inhibit the feedback provided by the consumption of proteins and fats,"--wouldn't we see this (especially on this board) as evidence that carbohydrate was fattening?

Again on a personal note, at 60-80 grams of protein a day, if I eat enough butter on top of that, I'm not hungry.

A pound of cheese is about two thousand calories, if I make that my day's food, I'll be hungry at the end of the day. Just eating plain cheese makes me hungry. If I butter it heavily enough, it does the opposite, it's satiating. I will eat less calories as butter with cheese than I will as cheese alone. Protein leverage as a "unified theory of appetite" seems to fail me at this point.

The idea that we tend towards savoury foods if we have less protein in the diet--specific appetite for adequate protein is a sensible idea, and one I buy into--but just because something has a legitimate purpose in the body, doesn't mean it can't be derailed. If excess appetite for carbohydrate or fat can be suspect, then why can't excess appetite for protein?

Considering how fat has been vilified, I think they've got the wrong target. I think we are looking for fat.
There was a condition that Indians who were on a diet of mostly rabbit would get. They called it rabbit starvation. They had plenty of rabbit to eat, but they were lean.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-rabbit-starvation.htm

I do wish this was a more widely discussed issue. Ihave been pondering about it since I heard it on main stream news because I had already noticed the low quality food among the most needy families in my town. And upon discussion with a friend that is nutrition concsious AND a councelor ( Masters), we both feel the situation is a no win situation.

A few posters missed the point of the conclusion of this study. Bottom line is that we keep eating because the body is craving proteins because it is not getting enough to meet its needs. If we could se a study on protein consumption, a surprizing portion of our population does not get enough quality protein every day, and others are glutonous, so an average is not a valueable number. One must look at your oqn actual consumption-- it should be 75-100g a day.

I see school age kids fill up on high carb- high sugar - often high fat foods. In my school district ( where my kids go to school) the food director reported that 100 calories serving iyems in the vending machines results in students purchasing multiple packages. Meaning the serving size of 100 calories is a joke. IT is not meeting the metabolic needs of the body.

THe study noted by the OP indicates to me that an individual will continue to seek out food until the minimal meat level( protein level) is met and in leu of available meat continues to eat high carb- high sugar- high fat foods.

When food dollars are short in our house, I shop with my kids emphasizing meats and vegetables are the best buys NUTRITIONALLY!! Pure meats, no fillers. Perhaps hamburger, perhaps the meat on sale. Look at vegies--especially frozen vegies like peas or corn, and fresh vegies like baby leaf lettuce.

IMO if the dollars spend on cheap carb foods were reallocated to include a quality protein source and low carb vegies, the obesity issue would take care of it self.

And for those that keep harping on the problems of producing animal protein, they need to consider that most people of the world still have the ability to keep a few chickens, or ducks or rabbits. ALL very good users of scrap foods to make meat or eggs economically.

We need to ehlp in our communities to over come these issues of low consumption of animal proteins and good vegies.

( Sorry for my rant-- this has become my pet peeve.)

Ms Ariella, based on my personal experience growing up in a home where there was often not enough money for meat, I agree with your observations.

Protein and fat sate hunger. I can eat beans and rice until the cows come home and still remain desperately munchy.

I saw a video series on YouTube a few years ago of an elderly lady demonstrating how they cooked during the Depression. Their staple was fried potatoes. She noted that they were all fat as pigs.

It looks to me like protein and fat = no hunger. But high carbs with fat = malnutrition and hunger AND obesity.

I don't really see anybody missing the point of the conclusion of the study--I see some debate about what it all really means. For my part, I don't doubt that deficient protein could increase appetite. I was just pointing out that for me, once my protein needs are met, increasing protein actually seems to increase my appetite, while fat is more satiating. On a very high fat diet, I seem to be able to nibble moderately at a handful of nuts or peanuts--when I was targeting protein around 160 grams a day, I experienced uncontrolled binges.

this is not possible in some high density areas due to zoning regulations. Most areas of Los Angeles, for example, prohibit the keeping of livestock. This is a GOOD law, to my mind, as it reduces noxious odors and noise pollution. I have lived in a suburb where it is permissible to keep poultry. some of my neighbors had roosters, and let me tell you, those sons of a cluck start their crowing WELL BEFORE DAWN - like 4 AM. I can well imagine what my neighborhood would be like with dogs and cats and coyotes hunting down goats, chickens, ducks, bunnies and piglets that manage to get loose...and the ensuing lawsuits! Oh my, it wouldn't be pretty...

no, I still think it a valid concern of government as to how we would feed our population if we admitted that a diet based on fat and meat is preferable to a diet based on "healthy, whole grains".
.

And the rest of us have the ability to buy them from local farmers. Win-win all around!

Roosters will crow at any time during the night if they are disturbed by noise or light. That I know from long experience!

If the people who raise backyard animals are careful to properly cage or fence their critters, there are few problems with predators. Tho I have lost cats to coyotes and a few chickens to hawks and one to a bear (I think), that's over many years so the events aren't common. The worst problem I've ever had is with neighbors who let their dogs run free.

The best back-yard food source I know of is rabbits; quiet, don't smell (if cages kept clean), provide good manure for garden, and are inexpensive. The problem a lot of low-carb people have with rabbit is that it is a very low-fat meat. However, one doesn't have to eat it alone. This morning I had bunny sausage, 2 eggs and cream. Yummy, filling, and all but the cream produced at home. I wish I had the pasture for a cow and pigs, then I'd be much closer to being self-sufficient.

We don't actually need massive amounts of protein, just sufficient amounts. Excess protein can be reassembled into glucose and that just prevents us from burning fat.... Lean proteins tend to be the most expensive as well....compare boneless chicken breast to whole legs for example, and for the purposes of "low carb, high fat" which is the plan I'm following chicken thighs are better for me than the lean breast meat. As well, regular ground beef is cheaper than lean, also better for me. Another great low cost option is a can of sardines..just watch out for what they are packed in - avoid cheap oils such as soybean or cottonseed, or sugary options such as mustard or tomato sauce. Best to buy sardines packed in 100% olive oil or just water and add your own olive oil (actually I add a tablespoon of lemon flavored fish oil for extra Omega 3's)!

I agree. When I was eating no more than 25 grams of fat a day, I was crazy hungry, all the time. Every week or so I broke down and had a burger and fries... you could have surrounded it with machine guns and I probably still would have.

Bet I was also low on protein, considering how much I eat now compared to then. But of course, in the 1980's, the only nutrient they worried you were short of was those HEALTHY WHOLE GRAINS.

Therein lies the rub. What is sufficient? What is excess? The estimates of what we need vary wildly.

duplicate post

I'm re-reading Dr. Bernstein's Diabetes Solution. Dr. Bernstein gives a figure of 1-1.2 grams of protein per pound of "ideal" body weight. That seems to be a pretty standard number. It's actually pretty close to what I've been keeping my protein intake at. I see 1.5 given as an upper limit a lot of places.

For me--if I eat 100+ grams of protein, my morning blood glucose ranges from the mid 80's to the high 90's. Between 60-80 grams, more like high 70's to the mid 80's. Ketones on urine strips follows--with the lower protein, I get a "small" in the morning and at least a "moderate" but just as often a "large" at bedtime. Not everybody's blood glucose and urine ketones will be as responsive to such slight changes in the diet as mine, I guess, but that seems like a good place to start. Measure something, adjust, measure again.

I don't think ketones really deserve their bad rep. Atkins thought they were useful. I understand he turned out to be right about a lot of other stuff.