On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 12:43:42 -0700, Wally Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Hate to belabor this, but can the energy difference be
>satisfied using either carbs or fats?

I would say the energy can be satisfied by any fuel except protein.
Fat or carb, plus the necessary katalyzing enzymes and coenzymes.
Of course protein also acts as fuel as glucose or pyruvate or AcetylCoA,
depending on which amino acid. Many here in the list think that protein
energy is even better utilizable (slower digested, most not resulting in
glucose, and meat is always accompanied with some vitamins at least).
But if the excretion of the split-off nitrogen part of protein is the
problem of course anything more must be avoided.

But that's theory. I think there are few places on earth where someone could
tell the real answer by testing it. But here on the list are people who can.
Many are on a ketogenic diet. Some (I recall Philip Thrift) has reported
about suchalike intoxication.

So if someone on a ketogenic diet would try to eat from 240g up to 300 grams
of protein *whitout* much fat or carb (rabbits or other wild game), he could
tell.
Maybe Ray, who's eating rabbits. What happens if you eat 3 lbs of rabbit per
day? Did you try?

Btw: I don't think that adding fat (or carb) would help against the
intoxication. It would just give more energy.

Disclaimer: I don't think it's wise to try this, so please don't blame me
for the effects if someone tries it. Maybe someone already *has* tried it
and could tell more about.

Btw: 300g or 240g protein may be a ceiling- for a healthy person.
Maybe only for a trained person (with enlarged kidneys).
It looks like long before this point a antipaty against more protein
comes or even nausea. That was even so for the expert Stephansson (18%
protein).
If you recall what I said about vegetarians and meat-eaters
and how they eat energy. Meat eaters can come along eating zero-protein
energy (sugar), because the meat already had much protein.
As far as theres a effect of nausea or antipathy to add more protein (after
the 270g meat) that would even be a urge to eat zero protein energy.
Increasing "my" effect.

>If it can be
>only satisfied using fats, then I would tend to call
>it fat-hunger.

I think this fat-hunger could occur independently, either in very low-fat
diets or in very high fat diets, when the SFA and MUFA part is very high and
so the EFA's are displaced in some functions.

regards

Amadeus