Can appetite be heightened by an imbalance of nutrients?

[Humble]

I've always wondered if a person were to get the optimum levels of every nutrient that they needed, if they would be more lean then some one that does not have optimum levels of nutrients.

 

My theory/idea is that you have a tendency to keep eating and eating because you need more of a certain nutrient.

For example, if you unintentionally had a low protein diet(or lack of any nutrient) greatly below what you need you would have an increased appetite because your 'body' requires more protein and by increasing your hunger it will increase the chance that the next meal will meet those protein requirements and therefore you consumed more calories then you actually needed and hence became more fat.

Which could be a reason why 'junk' food could increase the chance of someone becoming overweight.

[Pseudonym]

It's true that protein keeps you feeling full longer than a lot of carbs do. But I'm not sure whether that's caused by protein triggering some chemical messages to the brain, or whether it simply takes longer to digest. Good question.

Macro-nutrients aside, I wonder to what extent the micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) play a role in the rate of your progress? And does it make a difference if you're bulking or cutting?

My gut feeling is that lacking a certain micronutrient (say, zinc) is probably more of a hinderance to bulking, than it would be to cutting. But that's just a hunch.

[Leeroid]

I heard that being deficient in a certain nutrient causes you to want to eat ice and dirt. I can't remember what it was exactly but if that was true that would certainly lend credence to your theory

[Leeroid]

Just did quick search, the disorder is called pica and suspected to be caused by iron deficiency although there is conflicting evidence for the cause. http://www.babycenter.com/404_what-causes-pica-craving-and-consuming-non-food-items-during_1186643.bc

[Dinahlady]

I've often heard an approach to obesity that suggests that it's a disease of "malnourishment". In other words people that have poor diets lacking in any real nutritional value (e.g mainly rifined sugar and corn syrup/flour) continue to want to eat and/or more likely to store fat. I'm not sure if this is supposd to have real scientific/mechanistic backing or be more of a reference to the fact that obesity is more of an epidemic in families of lower deciles in western countries. 

[Leeroid]

As the concentrations of either protein or carbohydrate decreased in the diet, chronic food intake increased. This pattern of increasing food intake as nutrient concentrations fall in the food is consistent with compensatory feeding for these macronutrients controlled by nutrient-specific regulatory feedbacks (Sørensen et al., 2008). Regulatory feeding effects were most evident for dietary protein and less marked for dietary carbohydrate. In contrast, fat content in the diet was largely unregulated and thus had negligible influence on food intake (Figures 1A and 1B). Note that both protein and carbohydrate intakes decelerated as their proportions rose in the diet, whereas fat intake continued to increase as the proportion of dietary fat increased (Figure 1B, red lines show the values where half the maximal nutrient intake is reached). Food intake was reduced with high-protein-content diets once protein intake exceeded about 10 kJ/day, whereas carbohydrate intake decelerated once carbohydrate intake exceeded about 15 kJ/day. High-fat diets had minimal impact on food intake.

The above is from the study that was used to write the article that said high protein was as dangerous as smoking. The goal of the study was to determine the effect of different macronutrient ratios on the health and longetivity of mice.

 

While appetite is suppressed once the carbohydrate and protein requirements have been met, it seems that the effect is a lot weaker on fat. As a result, mice who had diets low in protein and carbohydrate while being high in fat had the highest daily calorie intake as compensatory overeating was not counterbalanced by the appetite suppression from the high fat.

 

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2814%2900065-5

 

 

[Rebel101]

 

I've always wondered if a person were to get the optimum levels of every nutrient that they needed, if they would be more lean then some one that does not have optimum levels of nutrients.

 

My theory/idea is that you have a tendency to keep eating and eating because you need more of a certain nutrient.

For example, if you unintentionally had a low protein diet(or lack of any nutrient) greatly below what you need you would have an increased appetite because your 'body' requires more protein and by increasing your hunger it will increase the chance that the next meal will meet those protein requirements and therefore you consumed more calories then you actually needed and hence became more fat.

Which could be a reason why 'junk' food could increase the chance of someone becoming overweight.

Being a little more specific here and considering junk foods high in sugars eg coke and the likes alot of the damage is done by fructose which actually bypasses the mechanisms that let our bodies know we have eaten enough.

In a book Sweet Poison Quit Plan by David Gillespie the role that sugar plays is talked about in some depth.

Fructose is found as a component of sugar and corn syrup amongst many other products (just read the nutritional breakdown of goods)

Fructose is particularly harmful in two ways firstly it bypasses the normal metabolic pathways for glucose and is far more likely to be stored as fat, secondly it also bypasses the normal saiety response (the response that tells our brains that we are satisfied and have had enough). Hence the sweet drinks are adding to the general publics obesity levels.

So in this instance you are not eating more because you need more nutrients but because your body does not know it has had enough.

[rebuff]

Rebel101 wrote:

Fructose is particularly harmful in two ways firstly it bypasses the normal metabolic pathways for glucose and is far more likely to be stored as fat, secondly it also bypasses the normal saiety response (the response that tells our brains that we are satisfied and have had enough). Hence the sweet drinks are adding to the general publics obesity levels.

Hey Rebel,

I think that it is an over simplification to single out fructose like this. It's true that fructose bypasses metabolic pathways, however, in commercial foods fructose is almost always coupled with glucose (think sucrose, for example which is 50:50). In this form it will always ellicit insulin and appetite supression response, so that is not a problem.

Furthermore, fructose is of course a naturally occuring sugar in fruit. In this case, it is always consumed along with fiber, which is well known to contribute to satiety. 

So I don't think fructose deserves to be singled out like this at all. For all that, I agree with the conclusion of your point above though, that sweet drinks are a major contributor to obesity. But not because they contain fructose; rather because they contain extra calories from sugar (in general) and nothing else: no fat, protein, or fibre to make a person feel full. In the case of the average person who doesn't know nor care about nutrition, they go on to eat what they would have normally eaten to feel full that day and never realise the vast quantity of surplus energy in their diet that is coming from pointless drinks.

[rebuff]

Also, speaking from personal experience in more direct relation to the OP, I can say that protein + fibre goes a long long way to making me feel full. I did a rapid fat loss diet for 2 weeks to try and deal with a post-surgery bodyfat bloom. I basically ate 1g protein / lb of LBM and as much green fibre-dense vegetables as I wanted (think oodles of broccoli and green beans) and still felt pretty full. Cals were low as too, even though I didn't feel that hungry. I don't particularly recommend the diet (though you can read more about it on Lyle Macdonald's website), but the point is that protein and fibre fill people up amazingly, yet these are the 2 most obviously missing parts of the average person's diet.

[Rebel101]

I am not making any points about the roll of fibre or protein in this equation.

And without personally paying for scienticfic testing I am quoting from the book "Sweet Poison Quit Plan" who claim that conventional table sugar is 25% glucose / 75% fructose.

One of the problems is that sugary drinks are consummed without fibre or protein to moderate the absortion of sugar.

My point was that there are other pathways that can cause over consumption of food such as fructose type products that by pass the saiety response. It is not simply a lack of adequate nutrition that causes people to over eat.

[AZIDE]

'massive' is dat you?

[rebuff]

'massive' is dat you?

was it my toughguy asian stare that gave it away?

[rebuff]

I am not making any points about the roll of fibre or protein in this equation.

And without personally paying for scienticfic testing I am quoting from the book "Sweet Poison Quit Plan" who claim that conventional table sugar is 25% glucose / 75% fructose.

One of the problems is that sugary drinks are consummed without fibre or protein to moderate the absortion of sugar.

My point was that there are other pathways that can cause over consumption of food such as fructose type products that by pass the saiety response. It is not simply a lack of adequate nutrition that causes people to over eat.

Yeah, I think for the most part I completely agree with you Rebel. I just don't like to see single foods or nutrients held up as evil. I singling out things thinking leads to unneccessary, perhaps even harmful nutritional practices, whereas a greater emphasis on the diet as a whole leads to healthier physical and mental nutritional practices. 

As for fructose, I eat plenty of it everyday with loads of fruit and it helps me train hard and think well at work. I'll also have a sugary drink on occasion when I need a sugar hit; but only in the context of my wider diet that day.

[Rebel101]

There are many pros and cons of all foods and the greatest frustration is that seems to be acceptable one day is not the next. And it is also true that while we consider what is a healthy diet for an athlete / weight trainer is quite different for a person leading a sedentary life.

You are correct diet as a whole is important but the general public have such a poor understanding of nutrition as a whole that obesity is rising at an alarming rate.

I spoke to a specialist recently who runs a natural health clinic and his feeeling were that there are three main scourges in the general publics diet milk, sugar, and flour. This concept is huge and the considerations massive.

Personally I am intolerant of grains and milk, so that impacts substantially on my nuitritional choices. Given then that I also limit my exposure to sugars makes it really difficult. However all that being said I still make gains and train hard.

[Kalidane]

There are many pros and cons of all foods and the greatest frustration is that seems to be acceptable one day is not the next. And it is also true that while we consider what is a healthy diet for an athlete / weight trainer is quite different for a person leading a sedentary life.

You are correct diet as a whole is important but the general public have such a poor understanding of nutrition as a whole that obesity is rising at an alarming rate.

I spoke to a specialist recently who runs a natural health clinic and his feeeling were that there are three main scourges in the general publics diet milk, sugar, and flour. This concept is huge and the considerations massive.

Personally I am intolerant of grains and milk, so that impacts substantially on my nuitritional choices. Given then that I also limit my exposure to sugars makes it really difficult. However all that being said I still make gains and train hard.

 

 

Nutrition science and human physiology (i.e. what is acceptable) does not change.  Tabloid headlines do.  Simply choose which you want to learn.

 

A healthy diet is essentially the same for everyone (lacking medical conditions); athletes just need moah.

 

That "specialist" would be baffled by the lean gains I made on a diet that included over a litre of milk, 130g+ whey protein, 13-16 pieces of toast slice bread, 1-2 moro bars, often 1.5l soft drink and 200g-320g of strawberry jam on weekdays.  Deadly foods according to many authors.  Although, science is wholly accepting of this.

 

Blue pill or red pill bro.

[Leeroid]

Kalidane I think you're confusing muscle gains with being healthy. Having a low bodyfat percentage and above average muscle mass does not mean you are healthy. I doubt that diet is going to be conducive to longetivity.

[Rebel101]

Kalidane the comment made by the specialist was in reference to the "general public" serious weightlifters/body builders/gym goers are not with in the scope of "the general public".

And a healthy diet is not the same for everyone eg as in myself I cannot have wheat, grains, pasta, white rice, in these instances a heathly diet can vary hugely from individual to individual.

Many people can eat "over a litre of milk, 130g+ whey protein, 13-16 pieces of toast slice bread, 1-2 moro bars, often 1.5l soft drink and 200g-320g of strawberry jam on weekdays" and remain healthy but not everybody.

[Kalidane]

Kalidane I think you're confusing muscle gains with being healthy. Having a low bodyfat percentage and above average muscle mass does not mean you are healthy. I doubt that diet is going to be conducive to longetivity.

 

Yeah okay I think you're right there.  No one should do that long term.  3 months was fine and I certainly felt great (that labouring fitness).

 

If I had the money there would have been produce but it was all about calories per dollar!  Strong multi/10 hehe

 

I'm just a bit sensitive to hearing that this is bad and that is bad.  We are probably all familiar with a bunch of myths that mis-represent the actual science.  I don't think any of us have a book to sell so we should be all about reality.

 

Overeating and sedentary lifestyle are the problems of the average Joe.  If all simple carbs magically vanished from the earth, would obesity go with it?  No, Joe would just overeat other foods. 

 

A 'good' diet for most simply means eating maintenance calories, a wide variety of foods that provide the necessary fats and protein, micros and fibre.  It's very basic.  There's often room for cheesecake huzzah!

 

But who can sell a book that is so simple, and short, when it is just common sense, with a scientific underpinning.  Seeking a complex answer to a simple problem is... not constructive.

[Leeroid]

I agree with you but you realise that it's a lot easier to overeat simple carbs. It's hard to eat chicken breast and broccoli until you're bursting, I don't think I ever have, but I sure have gorged myself full of cookies and pizza on multiple occasions