Tuesday, 10 February 2015

Appetite Balance

Theoretically food is food or at least, energy is energy. However our bodies are designed with energy dense foods in mind as the centre-piece of our dietary intake.

It's entirely possible, I'd say likely, that we're designed with a certain percentage of major nutrients- fat, carb, protein in mind. Obviously that has to be reassessed and maybe overridden in the case of congenital defects or chronic disorder/ illness.

It's just occurred, is the paleo fad a reaction to following recommendations and guidelines to reduce the overall percentage of fat in the diet? Irrespective of health-fattening has coincided with a lessening of cardiovascular mortality, so despite claims thus far outcome doesn't appear support this being a necessary harbinger of harm.

I know many paleo types assert what I call the carb monkey hypothesis, i.e. that "too much" carbohydrate monkey's with your insulin and (apparently) causes people to fatten. I've never been particularly convinced. I'm disinterested in diet as the pathway for metabolic manipulation. Now I'm wondering if my dismissal of paleo hype may have been about not finding the explanation/s particularly convincing.

What though if the IMH just uses a biochemical model to explain what's happening physiologically as tends to be au courant?

What I'm thinking is if about 33% intake of dietary fat is about right-its a pretty universal percentage-leaving aside environmental issues. Can reducing it (much) below that in itself, provoke bodies to make good that loss by upping the fat percentage via bloodstream and/or storing it in our bodies?

Is this partly why some report feeling better and/or losing weight on a higher fat diet-their appetite and therefore their intake is simply a more suitable balance?

No comments:

Post a Comment