I am not interested in knowing whether fat or protein cuts the most hunger for the amount of calories it contains. I know quite well that protein cuts more hunger per calorie. What I want to know is, per gram of fat and per gram of protein, which will cut hunger the most?
If fat, are there types of fat that cut hunger more than other types of fat?
If protein, are there types of protein that cut hunger more than other types of protein? I do not mean “lean protein” because that just means protein with little fat. I am looking to distinguish between different types of fat and protein.
If you know that protein cuts more hunger per calorie (don’t know how you know this, but let’s assume it’s true), and you know that protein has a lower energy density than fat (4kcal/g vs 9kcal/g), then what you need to know is whether the ratio of ‘hunger units’ cut by each calorie of protein vs fat is exceeds this 4:9 ratio.
Definitely protein. It is a well established fact that for a given number of calories, protein is more satiating than either carbohydrate or fat, even though protein consumption “wastes” a substantial portion of its calories due to its thermogenic effect.
I noticed that they only looked at two different ratios of protein and fat; either high protein/carbohydrate or high fat; what about a high fat/protein diet? Or just high in protein, fat, or carbohydrate, as much as possible to reduce the influence of the other two. I know that many people say that carbohydrates leave them hungry after a short time compared to fat and protein.
But Surreal the op was specifically not asking about “for a given number of calories” but on a gram for gram basis, thus the answer given by ReuvanB was as on the money as is possible, if only there was a reliable “hunger unit.”
The question is complicated by deciding how to even define cutting hunger:
Immediate lack of hunger? Still satisfied two hours later? Four hours later? Measured intake with free access to highly palatable foods over the next six hours?
That one is per calorie though. The question is per gram of food. And I think **DSeid **is correct, the definition of hunger is going to be the sticking point. In the modern world the concept of hunger can be as much tied to patterms of eating as physical need.
See, that’s weird. Potato are mainly starch, which is a carb. It’s more satieting than simple carb but I wouldn’t have expected it to be more satieting than beef or fish. Too bad it didn’t compare boiled potatoes to chicken or turkey.
Yeah, I was looking them up on nutrition websites and I was surprised to see that they have less than 1 calories per gram which I don’t remember seeing in other foods.
Also, earlier I said I wanted to know about satiety per gram. I was inaccurate. What I wanted was to avoid 10 replies saying “protein cuts hunger better than fat per calorie” which I already know. If somepony has info that goes beyond that, even if it includes carbs, I’m eager to know.
The studies I’ve looked at have all given protein the edge. However, Alan Aragon has written that in his experience over the years with many clients is that the answer is highly individual. Some people feel more full with higher fat intake then higher protein intake, but overall protein sates more than fat.
This seems to be a decent review. Bottom line does seem to that it is complicated.
And there’s the rub. Real meals are mixed bags. Fiber is well established to provide high satiety both soon after a meal (a physical fullness, holding water and stretching the stomach and intestines) and hours later (by its fermentation resulting in various short chain fatty acids, SCFAs, like butyrate, that feedback to the upper gut and the brain). Texture may also play a role.
And it seems that one study on fats I found may not be the complete story. I’ve found more like this.