Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

1

I've been experimenting with different breakfast foods while on the leptin reset. According to the nutrition label, pork rinds should be very satiating as they are high in protein and fat. However, I ate half a bag (approximately 30 grams of protein) for breakfast this morning along with 4 eggs, and I was hungry two hours later. What's going on? When I eat 30 grams of protein in the form of steak, I feel full until dinner. I'm perplexed. Has anyone had a similar experience?

flag	asked Oct 28 2011 at 0:31 Farmer's Daughter 1,051●3●14

	It's the salt, grease, the frying, which induce crispiness, crunchiness, easy swallowing. Seth Roberts says hyperpalatility stems from a melange of sugar/salt, easy texture plus spice/fat/grease help. This has no sugar but the palatability is incroyable. Try Seth's experiment: have a tablespoon of EVOO and H2O in lieu of pork rinds. You'll be overcome by the blandness and lose, not gain, pounds. Gueyenet is right: it's in between your ears, not in insulin. This is all fat, and you're not having any insulin response. So why would you feel hungry for mo pork rinds if Taubes is right? Oink. – Namby Pamby Oct 29 2011 at 6:51
	The hunger u feel is not for any other food but for more pork rinds. It's a conditioned response that seems to prove the food reward / hyperpalatability theory of obesity, and disprove carb/insulin hypothesis. I feel full when I have a sip of bone broth; with pork rinds, I'm not done until I've wolfed down 2 bags. Both are fat and protein only, zero carbs. Why is the response so different? One is bland, the other is hyperpalatable with impunity. – Namby Pamby Oct 29 2011 at 6:56

citrusfire · Answer 1 · 2011-10-28 00:43:13Z UTC

3

Notice how they (typically) say "Not a significant source of protein" on the back even though the gram amount is high? There's something about the actual protein (i.e. amino acids) in pork rinds that your body does not absorb it.

answered Oct 28 2011 at 0:43

citrusfire
2,888●6●18

	HAH! That must be it. Fascinating. Too bad though. That was by far the cheapest form of protein I've found. $1 for 60 grams. What a shame. – Farmer's Daughter Oct 28 2011 at 1:07
	Same kind of protein as gelatin. I.E. Not significantly bio-available. They are delicious, but don't count the protein in them. – Cody Oct 28 2011 at 19:02

Nance · Answer 2 · 2011-10-28 00:38:57Z UTC

The ones I've had have been way too dry; if you could fry your own up fresh, I'm sure they'd be highly satiating. In fact, I make my own crisp-fried poultry skins all the time. To enjoy commercial pork rinds, I'd need to heat/fry them in a healthy animal fat. But why bother?

BTW, the steak was satiating because it has a healthy fat content.

Kasra · Answer 3 · 2011-10-28 01:15:14Z UTC

2

I'm convinced food reward plays a larger role than macronutrient composition in satiation.

answered Oct 28 2011 at 1:15

Kasra
1

Namby Pamby has some insight on this exact topic. Maybe he/she will weigh in. Some discussion here: paleohacks.com/questions/69999/… – Tom R. Oct 28 2011 at 13:16

Evelyn aka CarbSane · Answer 4 · 2011-10-28 10:53:52Z UTC

1

Here's the nutritiondata.com link: http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/snacks/5362/2

The protein appears to be low in tryptophan (of the 9 essential aminos).
A quick search on tryptophan and satiety yields many links!: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?gcx=c&q=tryptophan%20satiety&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=ws

edited Oct 28 2011 at 10:53

answered Oct 28 2011 at 10:43

Evelyn aka CarbSane
7,916●8●31

2

The liquid protein diet that killed a few people in the 80s was made of horse and cow skin, it's rumored; I read somewhere a long time ago that this form of protein is not very usable. Maybe all these skin products are deficient in a similar way. – Rose Oct 28 2011 at 13:28

1

lol the ones I buy have a warning on them that says "not a complete source of protein" maybe someone tried to survive on them and died???? – Bread-Eating Beelzebub Oct 28 2011 at 15:49

My whey protein powder also says that it is not suitable for (full) meal replacement b/c it lacks sufficient tryptophan. – Evelyn aka CarbSane Oct 28 2011 at 16:41

Phazo · Answer 5 · 2011-10-28 00:49:29Z UTC

0

If you only ate them once with breakfast, give it more time before you assume they're not filling. Just my .02.

answered Oct 28 2011 at 0:49

Phazo
2,930●5●18

Huey · Answer 6 · 2011-10-28 15:40:13Z UTC

I've never found them to be filling. I tend to overeat them for the salt content, since I'm on a ultra-low salt diet, then I remind myself I can just take a pinch from the salt shaker and be done with it. They're damn dry without salsa. But the crumbs are good for sopping up meat juice on the plate. I save the hard unchewable ones for when I make pork hocks, I do them like bone broth, and the hard rinds add nice texture. Don't cook the rinds, just add them afterwards. Delicious.

Maybe the salt is what fires up your appetite?

Edit:

Try taking a pinch of salt, see if that cures your craving.

Why aren’t pork rinds more satiating?

6 Answers