I think this is important, and that the food industry has been progressively making food more and more yummy over the past few decades. So far I really don't have a good answer for how to reduce consumption without reducing pleasure, at least in the short term. Developing a taste for food that isn't designed to be addictive, probably requires a long term change of habits.
Good one, with that comes increased water intake due to increased thirst, therefore quicker satiation due to being full quicker.
Restaurants like salt because customers won't order water (even though tap water is free here in NL it makes one look as too much of a cheapskate); they'll order a drink like wine which they can upsell and already has large profit margins.
Nephrologists won't be happy though (although it does generate them more customers, they probably got more than enough as it is).
My suggestion would be: less salt + umami + herbs.
Herbs is a bit vague, it really depends on the dish (and there's more than herbs; look at things like garlic, ginger, and turmeric you can buy these dried as well, in same tins or glasses as herbs are).
Personally, I'm a fan of the Italian spices as well as mixes like baharat and ras el hanout even though I don't have a background in any related culture (I'm Dutch).
You can achieve umami in various ways: yeast extract, Vetsin, E621, MSG, etc. In the end its all the same, but I put the one consumers fear the least first in the list wink
The reason why our satiety mechanisms don't work is because carbs upregulate insulin, which supresses leptin [1]. Leptin and ghrelin are the two main hunger hormones; leptin tells our brain we're full. The signal doesn't work too well in the presence of high insulin, and gets worse with insulin resistance, causing people to have a "second stomach" for sweet foods.
I find a great substitute is olive oil where I'd use butter for non-cooking (eg. instead of butter on pasta or instead of butter on bread). It's not quite as tasty but still a huge improvement over dry, and it's healthier.
For cooking, I understand olive oil is unhealthy (I think you create carcinogens as a side-effect), as are many other oils, but that coconut oil doesn't do this because of its different melting temperature.
> For cooking, I understand olive oil is unhealthy (I think you create carcinogens as a side-effect), as are many other oils, but that coconut oil doesn't do this because of its different melting temperature.
I believe the situation with oil is a bit more complicated than that, and you're generally fine with olive oil unless you make it smoke, which is fairly non-trivial to do, despite its low smoking point. There seems to be some debate on the topic: http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/03/cooking-with-olive-oil-fa...
Coconut oil in particular actually has a low smoking point. If you want to be safe, you want Avocado oil.
I encourage you to try some top-shelf olive oil, if you haven't already -- I find that it blows butter out of the water in most cases.
I initially felt the same way as you wrt tastiness, but had a friend bring me back a tin of oil from Italy recently and whoooo boy it's just the most phenomenal thing. Add a bit of salt & pepper to a shallow bowl of oil for dipping bread.
You can click the comment permalink (the age indicator) and on that page you have the option to vouch for the person /comment if it seems appropriate. I did so and they appear to be visible again. I've seen it take two vouch operations before though.
It is a study of 14 people that self reported how hungry they were and how much they ate on their own. I don't think we can get to advice stating "most people" should do anything from that. It is an example of how bad science gets translated to bad advice and bad behavior. Not picking on you, you are responding rationally to a headline or blurb about the study. But it is a worthless study.
Yes, that was probably a lot of it. I have no doubt that my caloric intake decreased more than just from butter, and next on the list would most likely be carbs. I started eating more of some other things such as lean meats and beans.
There is _no_ amount of butter (or fat, in general) that you can eat that will make you gain weight, provided there is no sugar in your diet. You will physically not be able to eat more than your body can deal with, this is because fat, unlike sugar, triggers the i-am-full hormones which make food impossible to eat.
No, that is plain wrong. Calories count, no matter where they are from.
Ketogenic diets might increase your metabolism and reduce your appetite and hunger, which makes weight loss easier, but you'll still gain weight if you eat too many fat calories each day. Even if you cut out carbs entirely.
This has been thoroughly disproven for ages -- starting with the naive assumption that you can just eat X amounts of anything and it doesn't affect anything else in your health/apetite/metabolism.
I know we like to one up each other on HN, but you're just talking past the main point.
Calories matter. If you eat too many, you get fat. Some calories might be "better" than others, but they are a standard of unit of energy for a reason. A calorie is a calorie.
Would you like to try the butter diet? I can guarantee you you'll get fat.
To illustrate the point: dietary fiber, which contains a lot of calories, is not digestible. Eat as much as you can, but you will not get one calorie of energy from it. So just based on that, where calories come from matters.
There is a difference between fat metabolism and sugar metabolism. They use different metabolic pathways, in other words the process by which a fatty acid molecule becomes ATP (the ultimate source of cellular energy) is very different from how fructose (which has to first be converted to glucose in the liver) becomes ATP.
No, the article is saying that people are getting obese and diabetic because of sugar.
Its further pointing out that there are calories ("sugars") which make it much easier to gain weight. I didn't disagree there either.
The article never claims that you can eat any amount of calories as long as you leave carbs from the table. And thats the only thing i pointed out. Because thats just plain wrong. If you eat too many calories, you will gain weight. And if you're predisposed to obesity, you will eat more calories when you're flavouring stuff with sugar.
This will, as the author pointed out, cause you to get even more obese and eventually get diabetes.
This is exactly what puzzles me. Increasing your metabolism should increase your body temperature, all other things being equal. I still suspect that sheer reduction of calories is the main driver of weight loss, and if anything, fine-tuning one's metabolism plays a minor role.
I'm just talking anecdotally here but yes, the body temperature does increase significantly. Keto wasn't for me, especially because of the increased food budget, but it sure did help with my chronically cold feet/hands.
But I'd still agree with your second assessment: the biggest contributor is the decreased hunger/appetite after the first few weeks.
By cutting butter, he's also effectively cut an unnecessary carb-heavy between-meal snack, since he doesn't want the baguette without the butter.