Someone mentioned that pork rinds are unsatiating despite being high in protein and fat.
Any other paleo/pseudo-paleo foods that are surpringly unsatiating?
This probably varies from person to person, but when I first went Paleo I was eating a ton of nuts and they never seemed to fill me up. I could eat cups of those things no problem (2 cups of almonds is 1000 calories). Then I learned about Omega-6's and phytic acid. Now I eat meat, fat, veggies, and a few potatoes.
It's pretty simple - staples (meat, fat & veggies) are hard to overeat. All those Paleo "outlier" foods - eggs, nuts, chocolate - tend to be higher-calorie/lower satiety. Keep the staples staples and keep the rest as side dishes. Happy eating!
I want to mildly disagree with Ben: I think that some responses on this thread show that fat is indeed satiating -- just not when eaten by itself.
Of course I think the same thing about rice by itself. I find it totally unsatisfying, and kind of pointless as a result. I always eat my starch with fat.
And in fact I usually mix my starch with fat and protein. I mix them all at a meal, and that's what fills me up.
I could never overeat rice or sweet potato by themselves, and I also find them unsatisfying. But in the old days I could compulsively eat pretzels. I think this shows that high reward implies low satiety but low satiety does not imply high reward.
I also as a result of all this find Stephan's ideas about separating foods to be odd. For me at least the removal of spices certainly lowers reward, but the separation of foods, while perhaps lowering reward in some sense, lowers satiety so much that it's a little self-defeating.
I haven't found that to be true about pork rinds. They aren't something I have regularly, but once I was driving unprepared in the middle of nowhere and needed something to tide me over so I grabbed a bag of them. After one handful I couldn't have touched another one. I was fine for the rest of my drive.
However, I could eat a mountain of nuts and seeds. I don't find them satiating at all. I generally only eat them on something. Never as a snack by themselves.
I think it must just vary from person to person.
From the responses so far it certainly seems that fat is not as satiating as it is usually claimed.
Interestingly I've always thought the same. Eating gobs of extra fat never made me feel fuller than anything else. It makes sense physically I think too: fat is more calorically dense (and it's usually liquid) so less edible material is actually physically entering your mouth and stomach.
I have found starch is very satiating and I wonder if its connected. You are actually physically taking in more food material than you are with fat, if eating equal calories.
Is food monotony helpful for weight loss? 10 Answers
Shangri La diet 6 Answers
Why is food reward short lived? 4 Answers