Appetite is 100% linked to calories needed. You still enjoy food, but the moment you swallow enough calories for whatever you did since the last time you ate, you have zero appetite and anything put in front of you loses all appeal.
Terrible for survival situations, great for modern life where an abundance of food is a bigger problem than a scarcity.
Being able to tell how much food you need in advance would be better, so that instead of thinking that you’re really hungry and piling your plate, you only buy or prepare as much food as you need. That would cut down on food waste too.
Maybe it could be based on the average daily calories used each day over the past month to replenish exactly what’s been used plus predict ahead until the next meal time?
My appetite is at least 90% based on calories needed, since I was around 25, I 'm over 50 now. My kids laugh at me when I sometimes say I’m still full 6 hours after eating, but sometimes I am. Or eat, then eat ten minutes later. And usually I stay at the same weight unless intentionally bulking or cutting.
One exception - I lose appetite when stressed, and rarely but but sometimes have anxiety around eating still. But most of the time, my appetite just follows my calorie expenditure. Can’t be the only person like that, it seems a normal state?
I am sorry, that sounds dreadful. Always you have had hunger? Eating does not cause satiation? I also can feel empty without being hungry sometimes, it’s honestly a good feeling and best state to fall asleep.
Yes the tuned appetite should be universal.
In the interest of full disclosure - I did reach it coming out of anorexia so not overweight but underweight, but it has settled out to keep me at a healthy size as an adult. Except for a few very stressful years in my early 40s I lost some but bounced back. I think more people, at least in the US, are coming from the other side and I don’t have experience with that.
Always. Haven’t always been overweight though, that started in my late 20s. When I was young, I could eat nonstop and stayed skinny mostly because I was riding a bicycle nearly every waking moment.
The ability not to pee myself every time I sneeze, run or jump after giving birth vaginally would be pretty nice. Even without doing any physical therapy.
Nah, that’s just with stuff like alli. What your guts absorb goes into your blood stream, you’d piss it out if your liver doesn’t process it into fat… For reasons we don’t fully understand, our gut microbiome stays in our gut.
If you mess with absorption, that happens… If you mess with the fat creation pathways, you just pee out sugars that would’ve been turned into fat
Only for half of protein and carbohydrates that can go into the gluconeogenesis pathway. That'll increase uti incidence, shred your kidneys with proteinurea, and lead to ketoacidosis when you're dealing with the other half of the proteins and all the other lipids, which before it kills you will allow you to excrete that waste from you lungs while you smell like you've been huffing nail polish remover. I think the out the butt option is generally preferable.
Source? Garcinia Cambodia seems like an all around win, but I’m willing to do some serious reading on the subject… The effects are relatively small but statistically significant in clinical trials with almost no side effects, and I recommend it left and right.
I’ve certainly never smelled like acetone (I’m extremely sensitive to smells) but you seem like you have a cohesive opinion on the topic, I feel like we might both be right and there might be a learning opportunity here
And if I am making a trade off with my health, I’d like to know
It's all about degree. Essentially what I'm talking about is severe dysregulation of lipid/protein metabolism that is generally only seen in type 1 diabetics, but it's the natural extension of extreme lipid and protein metabolism. I'm not familiar with that supplement, however.
As far as you watching yourself for it, don't worry, you'd notice being acidotic. I've seen it plenty of times at the hospital and you'd be huffing and puffing the acid off with terrible stomach pain and be generally having a bad day. While that supplement is associated with urine acetone increases, it's not quite the degree that I'm taking about.
Essentially, inhibiting fat production and storage and eliminating it result in very different effects. Insulin, by the way, is a very important mediator in fat production and storage. It's why so many new diagnosis type 1 diabetic children are often underweight.
So… I’m confused. Inhibition of turning sugars to fat in your liver is very different from diabetes. In my understanding, that’s absorption of sugar into your cells
Is there a weight loss drug out there that mimics diabetes?
That's a complicated question, because yes there are weight loss drugs that mimic certain aspects of diabetes, but through different mechanisms of action. A good example is a SGLT2 inhibitor medication, which explicitly creates glycosuria in a non-diabetic person, which is kind of a defining feature of diabetes mellitus. While that's a generally very effective drug and should be used more for obesity control, it will also increase incidence of UTI and (due to a loss of sugar and thus forcing metabolism of fats/proteins) ketoacidosis.
The insulin/glucagon relationship is why diabetic ketoacidosis only shows up in type 1 diabetics and not type 2 (they get what's called hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state), and is an important part of liver fat production. Ketoacidosis is generally associated with that but is also present in starvation and alcoholics that don't eat actual food.
The greater point I was making wasn't about carbohydrates turning into fats. It's that most fats and about half of proteins cannot be turned into carbohydrates. They must be metabolized into ketones and then acetone. If you absorb them and cannot store them like in the OP's hypothetical, you'll end up having to immediately metabolize them and will end up with ketoacidosis.
I’m not an evolutionary biology expert, but my armchair thought process says that this trait might not survive the evolutionary pressure. The burden of child rearing is quite high (specially these days).
Oh totally. Absolutely would decimate the human population on earth. And that wouldn’t be a bad thing if it meant people only had kids they could actually take care of.
No more accidentally biting my tongue or the inside of my cheek while eating. Sometimes I’m just excited for some good food and it just gets completely ruined :(
This. The list of medical issues that would go away if the immune system were properly tuned is enormous. But since it isn’t, it errs on the side of attack to keep us alive… and in the process sometimes kills us or just makes us miserable.
On that note, can we make teeth less fragile in general? Mine are all messed up from grinding them at night and from brushing way too hard as a kid. :/
Appendix not coming from the factory is a big one. A slightly better immune system that can get through the blood/brain barrier and kill rabies/amoebas, and other brain infections like TB (without shredding brain tissue) too. If a virus like rabies gets past that barrier, you are 1 0 0 % B O N E D as your immune system is largely locked out.
Wider uterus/vagina too. Human babies have massive heads that don’t fit through too well. It’s like an orange on a toothpick. Making a smaller baby could be a possibility, but survivability would potentially go down.
For very tall people: a larger and stronger heart organ. A second one acting like a smaller turbo would also help. Heh. Failover cluster hearts. You’d probably have to have stronger veins and tissues as a result though.
Add comment