Blog

5

I've been experimenting with pork rinds to see what effect, if any, they have on my weight setpoint. I was pretty consistently at 155-159 eating 150-200g of carbs (usually yams and sweet potatoes, some parsnips, and lentils).

I started eating 1-2 bags per day of Frito Lay's Baken-ETS. One bag of Baken-ETS has 800 calories: 0g net carbs, 50g fat (25g SAFa, probably 20g MUFA and 5g PUFA), 70g protein (surprisingly high), and 3,000mg sodium. That's about 60% fat and 40% protein, despite the nutrition label indicating 45% calories from fat.

http://www.fritolay.com/our-snacks/baken-ets-traditional.html

I soon found these pork rinds to be irresistible. Whereas I would find my bone broth soup to be very filling, I couldn't get enough of these pork rinds. I gained 5 lbs. after a week. My weight range went up to 160-165 and the fat accumulated around my abdominal area, tightening my pants.

First, pork rinds aren't really an ideal Paleo snack: even though there aren't any artificial ingredients, they're fried in grease with a ton of sodium. It would have been very unusual for any ancestral diet to have included fried pork skins (or fried anything, for that matter). But they're not supposed to be glycemic: there are no carbs nor sugar and there should be no insulin response. Then, why the irresistibility?

Perhaps Stephan Guyenet and Seth Roberts are right about food reward and hyperpalatability. Even though many, irresistible snacks (like pop tarts, candy bars, soft drinks, Doritos, and pretzels) are full of sugar, salt, HFCS, and grease, they're irresistible not due to insulin elevation but due to something else that's triggering the brain. In other words, they're "hyperpalatable."

What is meant by hyperpalatability? Seth Roberts explains this best in his interview with Jimmy Moore.

http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/the-llvlc-show-episode-506-uk-paleo-physician-dr-sarah-myhill-and-shangri-la-diet-author-seth-roberts/11951

Seth talks about having sugar water or olive oil with water and how this can lead to weight loss because of the monotony of eating something bland. It's not really sugar or carbs; it's the blandness of our ancestral dishes which does not stimulate the pleasure centers of our brains -- where eating becomes necessary to live, not the other way around. Foodies need not apply; eatings is for fuel.

I experienced something similar: when I leaned out to about 152 lbs. (my all time lowest weight), I was mainly eating 1 meal a day (breakfast) plus boiled yams and green tea. The monotony of eating yams and green tea probably resulted in lower overall calories; I never overate and never had any cravings for anything else. Even though yams are moderately glycemic, the monotony of more yams and green tea prevented them from being "hyperpalatable."

So what is the breakthrough here? If you can point to an all-fat/protein snack that's hyperpalatable, doesn't that lessen the carb/insulin theory of obesity? Some people point to nuts. I'm sorry, but I've never been able to overeat raw nuts that have no added sugar nor salt (that includes macadamia nuts). In fact, I used to conduct appetite suppression experiments with these types of nuts:

http://www.planters.com/varieties/nutrition-information.aspx?Product=2900007906

These redskin Spanish peanuts are incredibly filling, even though they have added salt (sea salt) and grease (sodium and cottonseed oil). Is it the fiber in the red skin? Don't think so, there's very few. Protein? Protein is only 17% of total calories, while fat is 78%. Sugar is endogenous and only 1g.

In other words, hyperpalatability seems to stem from something else. Seth seems to think it's sugar/salt/grease and/or spices. Plus the smell. I think he's correct. But there seems to be another dimension: the texture, shape, and amorphous nature of these manufactured comfort foods. Our ancestors never encountered something like pork rinds or Doritos before. Eating anything required work: shelling, cleaning, removing the skin, sorting, fermenting, removing the debris. To eat pork rinds, you just have to open the bag and the pieces literally melt in your mouth. And the random, amorphous shape of these rinds seems to convey something "subliminiminal", as Dubya would put it.

Plus the sound of crunching these rinds. Those who do not believe that Rice Krispies are appetizing (my favorite cereal when growing up) because of Snap, Crackle, and Pop do not understand the susceptibility of human nature -- it's the admixture of olfactory, auditory and tactile sensations which enhances the overall palatability of something you eat, the overall experience.

This doesn't mean that the carb/insulin theory is wrong; I know exactly how appetizing a hoagie sandwich or a pasta dish is. Hyperpalatability simply adds a layer to the phenomenon of obesity from another angle. For example, if I added a bag or 2 of pork rinds when very-low-carbing, would I have gained weight? The answer is probably yes, but not as much. Eating 150-200g of safe starch carbs may have made me an easy target for pork rind addiction, if they resulted in chronic and meaningful insulin elevation.

Also, there is more to it than just added ingredients such as sugar, salt, and grease, which induce powerful food cravings when mixed in right doses. Robert Lustig points out that soft drinks generate sales by mixing sugar (HFCS) with salt (Na), making you thirsty for more. Seth points to your nostrils.

But it's not that simple. There's more to it than meets the nose. It's the eyes and ears, too. And throw in your unconscious. Obesity is a phenomenon that defies consensus. It's not that it's "complex"; it's too subjective. Get used to it: we're not getting any closer to solving obesity. It will remain a riddle.

flag
6 
 Funny~ I find pork rinds to be totally unpalatable, yet I love bacon. – Dragonfly Oct 31 2011 at 18:10
+1 - Interesting thoughts. – mtalipova Oct 31 2011 at 18:36
1 
 Get used to it: we're not getting any closer to solving obesity. It will remain a riddle. - I AGREE! – sherpamelissa Oct 31 2011 at 18:40
2 
 +1 dragonfly, me too. I think they are disgusting and smell terrible. – The Loon Oct 31 2011 at 18:44
2 
 Not if it is produced in excess. – majkinetor Nov 1 2011 at 12:16
show 2 more comments

6 Answers

8

Note the "not a significant source of protein" asterisk on the ingredients.

That's because the protein in pork rind is basically 100% collagen, which is mostly made of four amino acids...glycine, proline, hydroxyproline, and hydroxylysine. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Collagen#Chemistry_of_Collagen

So it's not just incomplete protein, it's nutritionally almost useless. Thus the federally required asterisk. And thus the inability of pork rinds to produce satiation or satiety: nutritionally they're basically just fat and salt.

I'll risk a charge of self-promotion by pointing out that you will most likely have a clearer picture of hunger, and the current state of the science that explains it, after reading my series which starts here: http://www.gnolls.org/2304/why-are-we-hungry-part-1-what-is-hunger-liking-vs-wanting-satiation-vs-satiety/

JS

link|flag
That is an interesting point about the amino acids composition. – Matt Nov 1 2011 at 10:02
3

I don't know that this is relevant either way to the carb/insulin theory of obesity. I do think it has merits re food reward tho ... eating non-natural foodstuffs that are chock full of salt and devoid of water break our normal appetite regulatory systems. This ties into J. Stanton's difference between satiety and satiation over at gnolls.org.

link|flag
I do drink water when eating pork rinds, as they do make you thirsty, just like sodas do. Actuially I drink kombucha with pork rinds. Chalk up sodium in unnatural doses, another way in which appetite can run amok. – Namby Pamby Oct 31 2011 at 20:16
Yes, but you can eat pork rinds and drink water much faster than you would have been able to eat them in their natural state. So you can eat many more before you feel full and/or satisfied. – Beth-WeightMaven Oct 31 2011 at 23:30
Absolutely true. Sometimes I would nearly choke and remind myself I gotta get some water in me so it would go down easier. Beer seemed like a good alternative, except I'm gluten-free and I don't drink anymore. – Namby Pamby Nov 1 2011 at 3:40
3

I may be missing something, but you added 50-100g of fat to your diet and it resulted in a gain of body fat. There's nothing really surprising about that at all. Your body will store 450-900 extra calories of fat as body fat without hesitation, and since the thermic effect of fat is something like 0-3%, it is by far the easiest way to increase body fat. As such, fat calories count far more than those from carbs (thermic effect of about 5-10%), protein (TE of about 20-30%) or alcohol (TE of about 10-30%).

Even if the pork rinds have protein, the manufacture of them makes it far different than that of, say steak, so they would confer very little in the way of satiety.

Additionally, the not insubstantial amount of added sodium would have definitely resulted in a gain of water weight.

link|flag
IIRC most bags of pork rinds put an asterisk next to the protein count which refers to a statement that the food is "not a significant source of protein," despite the protein count being something 7g per serving. – tonysolo Oct 31 2011 at 18:40
I knew pork rinds would make me gain weight if I ate enough. The Q is why are they irresistible? Why don't they induce satiety when there are no carbs and no insulin elevation? Why can't I control them? Why don't they behave more like raw nuts with no added salt/sugar (I know some people find them addictive; I don't). Why do they behave more like carb-heavy snacks that are high-glycemic, w/o the BG response? You point to protein being shells; perhaps that's one of the reasons. – Namby Pamby Oct 31 2011 at 18:50
I've never had a pork rind before, but I imagine that the mastication of a dessicated protein would result in so much more surface area than would occur with the consumption of proper meat that the satiety would be greatly reduced, just as protein powder is not as filling as an equivalent amount of protein from meat. – Travis Culp♦ Oct 31 2011 at 21:38
I don't know what desiccated protein is but if it's in powder form, it would fit the Andrew Weil criteria of instant elevation, i.e., instant absorption into the bloodstream as if it's liquid because of the "infinite surface area" in which the powder makes contact. But then why would powder form of protein be less, not more, satiating? Assuming the rate of protein absorption induces satiety, wouldn't this make you less hungry, not insatiable? – Namby Pamby Nov 1 2011 at 3:44
That doesn't explain addiction. – majkinetor Nov 1 2011 at 10:25
2

I can't figure out who I want to smack harder: Taubes fanboys who cling almost viscerally to the carb-insulin theory of obesity in contravention of substantial evidence of its failings, or the "There's Gotta Be Somethin Goin On Here" folks who seem to be bending over backward to make the obesity theory of the moment work in their minds.

With all this bickering, it's no wonder people are inclined to listen to she-hulks like Jillian Michaels and her talking treadmills.

link|flag
6 
 You somehow managed to just insult the majority of PHers in one, single sentence. Impressive. (Oh and Taubes has fan"girls" too and I am one of them...and I smack back!) – Shari Bambino Oct 31 2011 at 20:13
They're both partly correct but incomplete. And the missing piece is way too subjective and beguiling that we'll never reach any kind of consensus. As if everyone didn't already have strong opinions about why we're fat and getting fatter. Growing up in the 80s, I strongly felt it was due to all-you-can eateries like Bob's Big Boy. Well, they went out of bidness and u can only find all-u-can-eat joints in Vegas these days. And we have even more fat people. Why would that be? – Namby Pamby Nov 1 2011 at 3:50
The answer is any restaurateur will go out of bizness quickly if they ever brought back all-u-can venues. – Namby Pamby Nov 1 2011 at 3:55
we have all you can eat joints on almost every block, the next townover has like 100 china buffets – cliff Nov 1 2011 at 10:03
Well, let's start excepting Chinese all-u-can-eat parlors, which are not around where I am. I'm talking about joints with some semblance of table service. How many joints like that exist today, except in Vegas? The point is 2/3s of us are obese/overweight and walk around with chrnoically elevated insulin, and are thus insatiably hungry. Chapter 11 awaits any biznessman that wants to offer eat to satiety with these people. – Namby Pamby Nov 1 2011 at 17:13
2

they're irresistible not due to insulin elevation but due to something else that's triggering the brain - I have a problem with this statement - fundamentally they are not irresistible, you chose/are choosing to eat them.

Our ability to stop eating at will, no matter what endocrinology is involved, is continually being glossed over in all our palatability discussions. The choice to eat anything is crucial, this is why people can and do lose weight by using 100-calorie snack packs of fauxfood.

The real discussion is simply about a food's flavor/texture (I suppose something like eating experience might capture what we're looking for) and how that might make one more or less likely to choose to eat it or continue to eat it.

Ultimately there is always still simply the choice to eat it. Alcoholics can stop drinking, they just have to focus and work to do it. People who really love bigmacs can stop eating them, they just have to focus and work to do it.

link|flag
You're ignoring the ease of ingestion and what people might call "food delivery" that drive people to eat more. Ultimately the decision is up to the eater; however, when you haven't made up a decision whether to eat more or not, that decision is made for you through the ease of food delivery, how easy it is to pull the trigger. If I had to go down 5 floors to the kitchen and prepare something for 30 minutes, would I pull the trigger? No. If I had to just unzip the bag, I would be very inclined to. Most people are in the same boat: that is, we're not like AA members that have made firm ... – Namby Pamby Nov 1 2011 at 17:23
commitment to stop drinking. You have to eat something, and unless you've committed yourself to a particular diet, you have the discretion to choose to eat or not. This discretionary choice is influenced by the ease of access to food, convenient storage, agreeable crunching sounds, and soft texture. U flatten the paths to resistance to consume, and you end up with an addictive eater who'll reach for more. – Namby Pamby Nov 1 2011 at 17:27
nice comments namby. I suppose I am ignoring those things. I guess my answer was only lamenting the lack of inclusion of choice in our discussions. I suppose I feel that many of us are making it more difficult than it is. Despite all the theorizing re insulin-theory, palatability, etc one thing that has never failed to make someone lose bodyfat (although they may indeed lose bone and lean mass to some extent too, granted) is consuming less calories than they are now. That is a choice that one has to make. No matter how tasty something is, how easy to is to munch and crunch away om. – ben61820 Nov 1 2011 at 18:02
Both the insulin-based and the palatability-based theories have this problematic issue of willpower. Both are trying to explain excessive drive to eat. The problem with willpower arguments is that under certain conditions you are intensely physiologically driven to eat, and you can only fight against this survival mechanism for so long. Some people an withstand it longer than others, but starvation literally drives people insane. Your body senses the need and that effects your brain. Both of these theories are at least in part trying to explain mechanisms that override will. – Ambimorph Nov 1 2011 at 18:40
I agree it's a subtle issue. Denying the gluttony/sloth paradigm is not the same as saying we don't have free will. But free will is a continuum. Your brain is not always under your command. – Ambimorph Nov 1 2011 at 18:44
show 3 more comments
1

I don't think it could be explained totally via Stanton's explanation, as Namby already has complete protein sources and this was addition. If it was all she ate then it would be good explanation.

They might be irresistible because there are additional ingredients not listed by the manufacturer or not required to be listed as natural ingredients. Few come to my mind, for instance cannabinoids. Also, salt improves palatability.

Now, skin is more rich in PUFA as it is closer to lower environment temperatures and require greater flexibility. PUFA fatty acid AA rises anandamide, endocannabinoid which promotes eating (carb particularly)

Endocannabinoid signal in the gut controls dietary fat intake

link|flag

Your Answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.