I find hard-boiled eggs to be more filling than scrambled, poached, fried, etc. Is there a scientific reasoning behind this?
I think it would depend on the amount of fat added when cooking scrambled or fried, but I do agree that I find hard- and soft-boiled eggs much more filling than scrambled and poached. Maybe it has something to do with the density of the product. Whisking up a few eggs results in a scramble that looks (well, to me) smaller than if I boiled a few eggs and peeled them. It's the same with poached, as the white wraps around the yolk and, again, to me looks smaller. Perhaps an "eating with your eyes" phenomenon. If no fat is added in other methods, then nutritionally I believe they should be the same. Interesting question!
I think it has a lot to do with the fact that more of the egg protein gets denatured when frying as opposed to boiling. Remember, your body has a lower tolerance for protein than fat, so will more quickly fill up on it. This is why people on high-protein diets can eat less and still feel full. They, however, miss out on the superior nutritional value of fat as compared to protein when it comes to sustained energy as well as micronutrient absorption.
Some foods turn off the appetite in a way that has nothing to do with satiety. The boiled egg is the perfect anti-appetite food- well more perfect would be to get a nose-clip and make sure you didn't taste the food at all, so your body couldn't associate the flavor with calories, but a boiled egg is pretty close. I came to this conclusion because I originally started out with the Shangri-La diet. Here is some background. I found, for instance, that after eating a banana I'd be hungry again within two hours, but brisket could keep food off my mind for eight hours. The boiled egg thing was particularly interesting because it actually feels like a turn-off, rather than with something like brisket, which feels good to eat. I like eggs made in other ways, and I can eat boiled eggs just fine, but I prefer them with a good dollop of ghee or something- and they still seem to turn the appetite off for far longer than they should.
Maybe they've maintained more of the nutrients and water since it is cooked in the shell? I think they also might be more satisfying because you have to spend a bit more time chewing. All guesses, I really have no idea but I agree with you that they are more filling.
Good question. I never thought about it, but you're totally right. I can down a pile of scrambled eggs the size of my head, but after 3-4 hard boiled eggs I'm done for several hours.
Thanks for bringing this up; I've been trying to get more calories in PWO and at the moment I'm doing hard boiled eggs with sweet potato but for the next week I think I'll try scrambled and see how it goes.
The longer an egg has cooked, the longer it stays in the stomach to be digested. Found this quote:
A soft boiled or poached egg (at 70% albumin coagulation) is digested much easier as opposed to a fried or hard boiled egg. Soft boiled/poached eggs spend less than 2 hours in the stomach being digested, where as 2 fried/hard boiled eggs spend over 3 hours in the stomach. Although fried/hard cooked eggs can be digested as completely as soft cooked eggs, it takes longer for them to be completely digested and can pass through the digestive system before being completely assimilated. Often a cause of bad gas along with low levels of protein digesting stomach enzymes or acids.