For a long time scientists thought ghrelin levels fluctuated in response to nutrients that the ghrelin met in the stomach. So put in a big meal, ghrelin responds one way; put in a small snack and it responds another way.
If you believed you were drinking the indulgent shake, she says, your body responded as if you had consumed much more.
“The ghrelin levels dropped about three times more when people were consuming the indulgent shake (or thought they were consuming the indulgent shake),” she says, compared to the people who drank the sensible shake (or thought that’s what they were drinking).
But what lesson can we draw from the cautionary tales of eggs and trans fats? We would surely be slow learners if we didn’t approach other well-established, oft-repeated, endlessly recycled nuggets of nutritional correctness with a rather jaundiced eye. Let’s start with calories. After all, we’ve been told that counting them is the foundation for dietetic rectitude, but it’s beginning to look like a monumental waste of time. Slowly but surely, nutrition researchers are shifting their focus to the concept of “satiety”, that is, how well certain foods satisfy our appetites. In this regard, protein and fat are emerging as the two most useful macronutrients. The penny has dropped that starving yourself on a calorie-restricted diet of crackers and crudités isn’t any answer to the obesity epidemic.
Let’s not jump so quickly to conclusions. As a commenter noted:
Conclusion from the abstract: Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.
Which is not the same as saying “now we reckon polyunsaturated fats are good for you”. It means, current evidence is (statistically) inconclusive.
I guess if you’re dead, you won’t care if you’re skinny. J/K. Here’s the relevant part of the study that Jezebel quoted:
A type of natural sugar called agavins come from the agave plant, which can be used to make tequila. These sugars (which are not the same as in the more commonly known agave syrup) are non-digestible and do not raise blood sugar, according to Mexican researchers.
In new research, the team of scientists fed mice a standard diet, and added agavins to some of their water. They discovered that the mice who consumed agavins ate less overall and had lower blood glucose levels. The effects were stronger than other artificial sweeteners like aspartame and agave syrup. The mice consuming agavins also produced a hormone called GLP-1 that keeps the stomach full longer and produces insulin, which is another reason it could be beneficial for people with diabetes and weight issues.
If tequila science isn’t appealing for you, chocolate has become another magical ingredient for weightloss. All thanks to the fabulous microbes I posted about earlier.
Thanks, science! BUT WHEN WILL YOU VINDICATE CHEETOS?!?