Choco... I was responding directly to your supposition that "Lack of nutrition and real food was affecting how you responded in regard to satiety" and and that use of "bread, pasta, cake and sweets as examples of carbohydrate" was where I went wrong and caused my own troubles.
None of those things were true.
I ALSO restated that my N=1 is that consuming fat causes satiety for me...
And that eating all of those low fat foods did nothing for satiety.
I prefer coffee with cream in the morning.
Fatty meat with a side of vegetables or salad in the evening.
Plain and simple.
No VOLUME necessary.
Also part of my problem as stated very plainly earlier was you telling someone directly that their N=1 was wrong.
If LF works for you great.
But stop telling other people that LF must also work for them when they say it doesn't.
Or telling them that it didn't because they did it wrong.
HF satiety works for some people.
[QUOTE=cori93437;1103726]. No VOLUME necessary.[/QUOTE]Exactly. I think the whole physical feeling of fullness needs to be distinguished from actual satiety. I think we have been conditioned to believe that we need that "stuffed" feeling in order to feel satiated.
I am finding on a mostly animal products diet that I am enjoying the lack of volume involved. It is a mindset shift.
IMO a smaller volume of fatty protein>>a larger volume of dry chicken boobs and a pile of vegetation as far as true satiety that lasts.
[quote]Exactly. I think the whole physical feeling of fullness needs to be distinguished from actual satiety. I think we have been conditioned to believe that we need that "stuffed" feeling in order to feel satiated.[/quote]
I agree, and I even notice myself sometimes looking forward to veggies like broccoli or kale or whatever because part of me is like, "Yay, I can eat AS MUCH AS I WANT and be STUFFED." There's a binge-eating-switch that gets flipped in the brain somewhere along the line growing up eating SAD that's hard to turn off. Binging isn't healthy psychologically; even though the high volume of broccoli isn't making a caloric dent in my day, it's still exercising bad behavior.
"Filled up" and "sated" are different. A giant plate of chicken breast, broccoli, and potatoes would fill me up so much it would be difficult for me to finish it, but I know from experience that I would not feel sated, and would be looking for more food soon afterward. So, if the OP is asking about suppressing appetite, I don't think lean protein, fiber, and water are the answer. Or at least, they certainly aren't for me.
However, neither did I have success controlling my appetite when I was eating no-holds-barred Primal and not watching my calories. Eating as much as I wanted of steak, bacon, stuff like bulletproof coffee--fat, essentially--kept my appetite in check better than SAD, but I was still hungry a lot. And I couldn't lose weight. I've found that for me personally, reining in my calories is essential. I find it easier to rein in my calories when a higher percentage of those calories are from fat.
For me, the silver bullet in appetite suppression has been the oil shots, aka the shangri-la diet. I've been a bottomless pit of hunger since I was 12 years old, and suddenly... I'm not. But even when I'm slacking on the oil shots, I do notice that eating more fat helps a lot with appetite suppression.
I can't wrap my head around starches being more satiating than other foods. I nearly lost my damn mind with a mix of anxiety/hunger/rage, like a panicked hunger, for the three days I attempted the potato hack. I guess starch keeps other people full, but not me.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1103734]Exactly. I think the whole physical feeling of fullness needs to be distinguished from actual satiety. I think we have been conditioned to believe that we need that "stuffed" feeling in order to feel satiated.[/quote]
Yeah, this is spot on. We're defining "satiety" or "appetite suppression" in a couple different ways and so are apparently arguing when we (Choco included) really agree on just about all the relevant facts.
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1103734]I am finding on a mostly animal products diet that I am enjoying the lack of volume involved. It is a mindset shift.
IMO a smaller volume of fatty protein>>a larger volume of dry chicken boobs and a pile of vegetation as far as true satiety that lasts.[/QUOTE]
Couldn't agree more. There's a day or two where it feels like a slight paradigm shift, but once you're deconditioned to the need for the physical sensation of volume, and can "hear" the true satiety signals that come from being actually nourished, all the lemon and rosemary in the world don't make chicken = ribeye to me.
So the answer to the OP is you have to experiment and find what works for you. I know people who are pretty totally primal but don't feel good on my version, and I know I don't feel good on theirs.
Although the eggs suggestion is probably a good place to start. I don't know when I could stuff another bite in my face after eating 6 scrambled eggs.
Coffee with cream also keeps me from being hungry for ages.
But def fats and protein.
I have done low fat higher carb, ie lean chicken and brown rice, and spinach, and 6 times a day of these type of meals, and I was ALWAYS hungry.
So yes fats keep me satisfied for AGES
I find white rice is the most appetite suppressing food for me. Which is weird - I can [I]devour[/I] a KG (that's 1000g) of potatoes with chilli in a sitting and still have room for dessert, but 150g uncooked white rice? Struggle to get it down.
Each to their own, I guess.
Though I suspect if you eat a piece of raw liver with mashed banana, raw eggs and cabbage topped with a sprinkle of chilli pepper and a squirt of lemon juice, that would damn well kill anyone's appetite.
Hey Choco, how do you prepare your round steak?
There is another thread here with a link to a long story about how junk food companies make food addictive.
This is from the scientists trying to work out how to make soldiers field rations more appealing:
“They liked flavorful foods like turkey tetrazzini, but only at first; they quickly grew tired of them. On the other hand, mundane foods like white bread would never get them too excited, but they could eat lots and lots of it without feeling they’d had enough.”
This contradiction is known as “sensory-specific satiety.” In lay terms, it is the tendency for big, distinct flavors to overwhelm the brain, which responds by depressing your desire to have more. Sensory-specific satiety also became a guiding principle for the processed-food industry. The biggest hits — be they Coca-Cola or Doritos — owe their success to complex formulas that pique the taste buds enough to be alluring but don’t have a distinct, overriding single flavor that tells the brain to stop eating.[/I]
I reckon that is why I overeat when I eat boring food, but eat less when the food is yummy. It makes sense that not everyone experiences this reaction to the same extent.
Though I suspect if you eat a piece of raw liver with mashed banana, raw eggs and cabbage topped with a sprinkle of chilli pepper and a squirt of lemon juice, that would damn well kill anyone's appetite.[/QUOTE]
I'm not even kidding..... this actually sounds kinda tasty.
Guiness. Can't eat anything after three Guiness. Not sure if I would base a diet around it however ;)