Anything that states that an entire macronutrient is more satiating than another macronutrient is crank science and you should dismiss it. High fibre "carbs" for example are incredibly satiating.
I'm pretty sure that is one of those things that varies by person, or perhaps bt gut flora. Which foods spike blood sugar can vary widely by person. One lady in study became an outlier because the way her gut processed a normal tomato made her bloodsugar react like she had been doing shots of HFCS. I eat a wholesome bowl of steelcut oats and immediately crave carbs and sugar, I'm assuming because my bloodsugar spikes and crashes. But if I have a fried egg on some broccoli I'll be full for hours. I don't do keto. But fiber alone doesn't make me feel satiated because the signal saying my insides are full is getting overridden by the one saying my blood sugar is low. I'm not diabetic or hypoglycemic either, or at least the doc says I'm not.
This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low.
Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety
Simultaneously:
lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger
This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.
galangalalgol|3 years ago
evol262|3 years ago
This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low.
Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety
Simultaneously:
lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger
This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.