Why do carbs keep me full and satiated as opposed to proteins and fats?

Sloth2016

Well certainly any data points not fitting the null hypothesis that fat is satiating would need to be discarded.

Francl27

I wanted to add - having an apple at the end of my meals typically keeps me full one hour longer. Go figure. Go carbs!

goldthistime

Fibre (which apples have lots of), affects the discussion of satiety in fats vs carbs greatly. I'm curious as to whether the study I posted (suggesting fats give greater satiety than carbs) had only low fibre carbs. I can't check into this right now but if someone else did I'd be grateful, otherwise I'll try to have a look later in the week.

Francl27

goldthistime wrote: »

Fibre (which apples have lots of), affects the discussion of satiety in fats vs carbs greatly. I'm curious as to whether the study I posted (suggesting fats give greater satiety than carbs) had only low fibre carbs. I can't check into this right now but if someone else did I'd be grateful, otherwise I'll try to have a look later in the week.

Yep, that's why so many people say to eat whole grains instead of white stuff. I notice a huge difference when I make pancakes/crepes with whole wheat pastry flour vs all purpose flour, for example (and it tastes great too).

lemurcat12

You can't pull out one study and think it determines definitively what macros or foods are most satiety-providing, obviously. Studies are all over the place and the one thing that seems clear is that that on average protein helps with satiety. That said, the study cited to support a claim that fat leads to more satiety doesn't actually seem to conclude that at all, but to say there's no difference.

(Also -- again -- that something is true on average (which a study might mention) doesn't mean it is for individuals, so I don't know why someone would ever pull out a single study and claim that it means that someone's personal experience isn't valid for them or can't relate to actual satiety. If that's not what's being attempted here, I am misunderstanding and apologize.)

So back to the cited study, which is kind of interesting, although IMO limited when it comes to the actual reasons people perceive hunger or want to eat (which again I think is largely environmental), as well as possible differences between specific foods within the macro categories.

On the study:

The only participants with a BMI of around 30 were used, 5 men and 11 women. They don't seem to have looked at IR.

The study explains: "Research on the nutritional aspects of appetite control has focused considerable attention on the effects of fat and carbohydrate (26). Fat is often regarded as having a much weaker action on satiety than carbohydrate (27)."

Note: this acknowledges the many findings that suggest it does, something these researchers want to test, among other things, specifically: "to clarify the action of ghrelin, GLP-1, and PYY in the immediate postmeal period, by comparing their natural physiological profiles after the delivery of isoenergetic nutrient meals containing comparable amounts of protein but varying in fat and carbohydrate content."

The meals used were quite extreme for the low fat one: high fat was over 50% fat (38% carb), but low fat was less than 4% fat (and 84% carb). They were measured in some way to determine that they were equally pleasant. Protein was the same, as were calories (590) and volume. They consisted of yogurt, fruit, honey, plus coffee or tea, so not too much fiber, but some -- I'd assume relatively low fiber to keep volume steady, or else I can't see how it works. (Worth noting that people who eat extreme high carb low fat diets -- quite unusual -- in real life typically end up eating a ton of fiber.)

The high-fat, low-carb breakfast caused less increase in insulin and glucose levels -- no surprise there.

There was no difference in the effect on ghrelin, but ghrelin did end up being correlated with hunger.

The higher fat meal caused a greater increase in PYY and GLP-1 levels, which was believed by the researchers to correlate with satiety, but the study seemed to suggest that they were not, particularly.

Specifically, the study concluded:

There was no effect of macronutrient condition on changes in hunger levels throughout the morning.

There was no difference in ad libitum energy intake at the standard lunch meal after either the high-fat/low-carbohydrate or high-carbohydrate/low-fat breakfasts. (There were further studies of different meal sizes.)

From the study: "The 2 semisolid meals differed markedly in fat and carbohydrate content but were of equal energy value, weight, and protein content and of similar perceived palatability. Glucose and insulin profiles clearly demonstrated different metabolic responses to the meals and reflected the different macronutrient composition. The high-carbohydrate (and therefore low-fat) breakfast resulted in a greater response in both glucose and insulin. The meals did not differ in their effects on the postprandial profiles of hunger or fullness or in the amount of food consumed at the test meal. These meals therefore had similar actions on the phases of satiety and on satiation (meal size)."

psuLemon

Different proteins have an impact on me. If I eat lean proteins (chicken, pork chops, sirloin), I tend to get real full around the 15oz mark, but if if it's fatty cuts, it's more like 24oz or so. Fat really doesn't fill me up. Starches (especially potatoes) do.

goldthistime

lemurcat12 wrote: »

You can't pull out one study and think it determines definitively what macros or foods are most satiety-providing, obviously. Studies are all over the place and the one thing that seems clear is that that on average protein helps with satiety. That said, the study cited to support a claim that fat leads to more satiety doesn't actually seem to conclude that at all, but to say there's no difference.

(Also -- again -- that something is true on average (which a study might mention) doesn't mean it is for individuals, so I don't know why someone would ever pull out a single study and claim that it means that someone's personal experience isn't valid for them or can't relate to actual satiety. If that's not what's being attempted here, I am misunderstanding and apologize.)

So back to the cited study, which is kind of interesting, although IMO limited when it comes to the actual reasons people perceive hunger or want to eat (which again I think is largely environmental), as well as possible differences between specific foods within the macro categories.

On the study:

The only participants with a BMI of around 30 were used, 5 men and 11 women. They don't seem to have looked at IR.

The study explains: "Research on the nutritional aspects of appetite control has focused considerable attention on the effects of fat and carbohydrate (26). Fat is often regarded as having a much weaker action on satiety than carbohydrate (27)."

Note: this acknowledges the many findings that suggest it does, something these researchers want to test, among other things, specifically: "to clarify the action of ghrelin, GLP-1, and PYY in the immediate postmeal period, by comparing their natural physiological profiles after the delivery of isoenergetic nutrient meals containing comparable amounts of protein but varying in fat and carbohydrate content."

The meals used were quite extreme for the low fat one: high fat was over 50% fat (38% carb), but low fat was less than 4% fat (and 84% carb). They were measured in some way to determine that they were equally pleasant. Protein was the same, as were calories (590) and volume. They consisted of yogurt, fruit, honey, plus coffee or tea, so not too much fiber, but some -- I'd assume relatively low fiber to keep volume steady, or else I can't see how it works. (Worth noting that people who eat extreme high carb low fat diets -- quite unusual -- in real life typically end up eating a ton of fiber.)

The high-fat, low-carb breakfast caused less increase in insulin and glucose levels -- no surprise there.

There was no difference in the effect on ghrelin, but ghrelin did end up being correlated with hunger.

The higher fat meal caused a greater increase in PYY and GLP-1 levels, which was believed by the researchers to correlate with satiety, but the study seemed to suggest that they were not, particularly.

Specifically, the study concluded:

There was no effect of macronutrient condition on changes in hunger levels throughout the morning.

There was no difference in ad libitum energy intake at the standard lunch meal after either the high-fat/low-carbohydrate or high-carbohydrate/low-fat breakfasts. (There were further studies of different meal sizes.)

From the study: "The 2 semisolid meals differed markedly in fat and carbohydrate content but were of equal energy value, weight, and protein content and of similar perceived palatability. Glucose and insulin profiles clearly demonstrated different metabolic responses to the meals and reflected the different macronutrient composition. The high-carbohydrate (and therefore low-fat) breakfast resulted in a greater response in both glucose and insulin. The meals did not differ in their effects on the postprandial profiles of hunger or fullness or in the amount of food consumed at the test meal. These meals therefore had similar actions on the phases of satiety and on satiation (meal size)."

Just want to pop in to say thank you for taking the time to review the study. I still hold the opinion that fat will keep me feeling full for longer than a carb (although I probably now need to qualify that as a carb that is devoid of fibre), and I did hold up this study to support my view. I'm hoping that holding up one study to support a viewpoint isn't considered offensive, because this stuff is time consuming. Further to that, the abstracted version gave information that led me to a different conclusion, than the authors came to in the detailed version apparently. I just want to point out that I didn't purposely misrepresent anything. You made several points that I'd like to discuss further but timewise I just can't atm. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to look at the study in detail.

lemurcat12

goldthistime wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

You can't pull out one study and think it determines definitively what macros or foods are most satiety-providing, obviously. Studies are all over the place and the one thing that seems clear is that that on average protein helps with satiety. That said, the study cited to support a claim that fat leads to more satiety doesn't actually seem to conclude that at all, but to say there's no difference.

(Also -- again -- that something is true on average (which a study might mention) doesn't mean it is for individuals, so I don't know why someone would ever pull out a single study and claim that it means that someone's personal experience isn't valid for them or can't relate to actual satiety. If that's not what's being attempted here, I am misunderstanding and apologize.)

So back to the cited study, which is kind of interesting, although IMO limited when it comes to the actual reasons people perceive hunger or want to eat (which again I think is largely environmental), as well as possible differences between specific foods within the macro categories.

On the study:

The only participants with a BMI of around 30 were used, 5 men and 11 women. They don't seem to have looked at IR.

The study explains: "Research on the nutritional aspects of appetite control has focused considerable attention on the effects of fat and carbohydrate (26). Fat is often regarded as having a much weaker action on satiety than carbohydrate (27)."

Note: this acknowledges the many findings that suggest it does, something these researchers want to test, among other things, specifically: "to clarify the action of ghrelin, GLP-1, and PYY in the immediate postmeal period, by comparing their natural physiological profiles after the delivery of isoenergetic nutrient meals containing comparable amounts of protein but varying in fat and carbohydrate content."

The meals used were quite extreme for the low fat one: high fat was over 50% fat (38% carb), but low fat was less than 4% fat (and 84% carb). They were measured in some way to determine that they were equally pleasant. Protein was the same, as were calories (590) and volume. They consisted of yogurt, fruit, honey, plus coffee or tea, so not too much fiber, but some -- I'd assume relatively low fiber to keep volume steady, or else I can't see how it works. (Worth noting that people who eat extreme high carb low fat diets -- quite unusual -- in real life typically end up eating a ton of fiber.)

The high-fat, low-carb breakfast caused less increase in insulin and glucose levels -- no surprise there.

There was no difference in the effect on ghrelin, but ghrelin did end up being correlated with hunger.

The higher fat meal caused a greater increase in PYY and GLP-1 levels, which was believed by the researchers to correlate with satiety, but the study seemed to suggest that they were not, particularly.

Specifically, the study concluded:

There was no effect of macronutrient condition on changes in hunger levels throughout the morning.

There was no difference in ad libitum energy intake at the standard lunch meal after either the high-fat/low-carbohydrate or high-carbohydrate/low-fat breakfasts. (There were further studies of different meal sizes.)

From the study: "The 2 semisolid meals differed markedly in fat and carbohydrate content but were of equal energy value, weight, and protein content and of similar perceived palatability. Glucose and insulin profiles clearly demonstrated different metabolic responses to the meals and reflected the different macronutrient composition. The high-carbohydrate (and therefore low-fat) breakfast resulted in a greater response in both glucose and insulin. The meals did not differ in their effects on the postprandial profiles of hunger or fullness or in the amount of food consumed at the test meal. These meals therefore had similar actions on the phases of satiety and on satiation (meal size)."

Just want to pop in to say thank you for taking the time to review the study. I still hold the opinion that fat will keep me feeling full for longer than a carb (although I probably now need to qualify that as a carb that is devoid of fibre), and I did hold up this study to support my view.

To be clear, I don't think anyone needs to hold up a study to justify their own perception of satiety (what I understood you to be doing is claiming that others could not accurately perceive carbs to be more filling, because of one study). There are lots of studies that indicate things on average -- for example, that people eat less with breakfast or with lots of small meals -- that don't apply to everyone, so I think it's more important to focus on your own experiences.

I find that fat doesn't fill me up at all, and some carbs do (and that satiety isn't really that important, because I usually don't overeat because of hunger). But I of course believe people who say that for them fat IS helpful for satiety. I just don't like it when people insist that fat must be helpful for satiety for EVERYONE.

Definitely not offended.

annaskiski

In with the...carbs keep me more full crowd...

CorneliusPhoton

Satiety is pretty complicated, I think. And highly subjective. How do you all define satiety?  Is it the warm full feeling in your stomach right after a filling meal when it is stretched?  Does something just tell you to stop eating? Or is satiety more of the lack of feeling hungry between meals or how long before you start thinking about food after you eat? 

Sometimes, I can eat a small meal and be fine for hours. I believe that macronutrients figure heavily into that, with protein and fat for example triggering satiety hormones (cholecystokinin, leptin, etc).   

Sometimes when I eat a bulky meal, my stomach stretches and I feel "full." Other times though, no matter how much I eat, I feel that I "need" to have something sweet or starchy at the end to finally feel satiated.

I have been reading quite a bit about our gut flora and how it can affect our drive to eat. I think that this is what I have experienced because those sweet cravings come and go depending on my diet. If I stop eating the sweets, cravings for sweets eventually stop. It's quite interesting.
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/08/116526/do-gut-bacteria-rule-our-minds
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4270213/
I understand that there are some social and habitual factors that go into this as well, not to mention boredom! It's complicated.
ETA: the bolded part

zyxst

CorneliusPhoton wrote: »

Satiety is pretty complicated, I think. And highly subjective. How do you all define satiety?  Is it the warm full feeling in your stomach right after a filling meal when it is stretched?  Does something just tell you to stop eating? Or is satiety more of the lack of feeling hungry between meals or how long before you start thinking about food after you eat? 

That's why I started using "not hungry" for when I've eaten food but will want to eat again in an hour or so; and "satisfied" for when I've eaten food that won't have me looking to eat again for 4-5 hours. My breakfast and lunch today were "satisfying". I'm not thinking about food or how long until supper.

yirara

KrazyKrissyy wrote: »

Everywhere I read in groups, forums, testimonies, and online blogs swear by protein and/or fats being the best type of foods for hunger problems and cravings, and state that carbs will make hunger and cravings worse. But for some reason its the complete opposite for me. High fats and/or proteins spark my hunger and cause my cravings. Carbs don't. I've even done experimenting. For example, a big omelette will hold me off for maybe 2 hours before I'm hungry again. A stack of pancakes or big bowl of oatmeal (equal calories to the omelette) will hold me off for 5 hours before I'm hungry again. Similar with dinner. High carb dinner = no midnight cravings. I've tried different eating lifestyles; low-carb, keto, Paleo, and a balance of each macro. But the only thing that ended up stopping my cravings, binges, tiredness, frequent hunger and snacking is a high carb, low fat diet (even though the calories haven't changed). Can someone explain? Not that I'm complaining. I'm just confused because so many others suggest to cut carbs and increase fats when it comes to hunger problems, satiety and fatigue. Another thing; when I was eating higher fats+protein while lower carbs, I had bloating issues. My stomach didn't flatten until high carb, low fat (another thing that's contradictory). Is there something wrong with my body? lol

I'm absolutely fine with carbs. They do keep me full and energized. I love normal pasta, white rice or or all sorts of breads, especially things like a simple white baguette or Arab flatbread. Adding protein to a bread doesn't do too much for me apart from taste. Fats on the other hand are fairly useless for me. I don't seem to digest them well. No tummy pain or anything. They just arrive again at the other end; and don't work really against hunger. I can eat a whole pack of proper fatty crisps and it pretty much works against hunger similar than the amount of carbs in them eaten as bread or rice. Yes, I finally want to know why and will go to a doctor, but it's never been different for me.

Oh, not wanting to make people envious. I had a period where I ate crisps every day next to my my normal everyday food. I hardly gained any weight. Some other time I had a period where I ate masses of hard candy (Nimm2, if anyone knows them. Glad I can't get them here). I gained masses of weight. And I can still eat a bag of crisps each day and go over my calorie allowance and not gain.

tanyaltrl

Check out Dr. McDougall either on youtube or his books The Starch Solution or McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss. In both he talks about how we need carbs more than any other nutrient and you actually keep weight off more naturally without calorie counting. The high protein claims are actually funded and pushed by meat and dairy industry. So he promotes a high carb low fat diet similar to the one you said makes you feel best

CorneliusPhoton

What do you consider a "high protein" claim?

fishshark

at the end of the day.. regardless of the whole "there are so special snowflakes" Ones perception of satiety does differ. Just like taste. It doesnt matter what any study says. No study on earth can tell me im wrong on what satisfies me both mentally and physically. The arguments will go round and roung... YOUR WRONG... not but YOUR WRONG.
everyone is wrong and everyone is right.

GottaBurnEmAll

goldthistime wrote: »

That index was developed by quizzing/testing at 15 minute intervals over 2 hours. I would consider the first hour at least to be satisfying not satiating. i have to check your link again later when I have time. At first glance it looked to me as though it was considered a statement of fact at that time, not as proof itself. It's an older article.

I get what you're saying, I really do... but here's my issue with it...

Why? Why does this have to be the same for all people? Why does it have to be a difference between "satisfying" and "sating"?

There are people in this thread who have posted that they've eaten pancakes and have been satisfied AND sated for hours. They show on a small scale that there's room for individual difference here on the whole issue.

coffeethencardio

I follow a Whole Food Plant Based Diet. All I eat are carbs and plant based proteins and plant based fats. I made the switch 4Aug2014 and I am down 70 pounds with 7 to go. Sure, I could be further along but I fell off the rails a few times. Carbs and starches are what our brains run on. After omitting meat, eggs, and dairy from my diet along with refined and processed foods my body can use starch as its main source of calories more efficiently. I've never been healthier or stronger. No more migraines or joint pain either. IMHO, carbs and starches aren't bad. When paired with animal products and fats our bodies can't process them efficiently.

Forgot to say No, there is nothing wrong with you.

Michael190lbs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGLABm7jJ-Y

Francl27

psulemon wrote: »

Different proteins have an impact on me. If I eat lean proteins (chicken, pork chops, sirloin), I tend to get real full around the 15oz mark, but if if it's fatty cuts, it's more like 24oz or so. Fat really doesn't fill me up. Starches (especially potatoes) do.

.... that's a lot of meat.

psuLemon

Francl27 wrote: »

psulemon wrote: »

Different proteins have an impact on me. If I eat lean proteins (chicken, pork chops, sirloin), I tend to get real full around the 15oz mark, but if if it's fatty cuts, it's more like 24oz or so. Fat really doesn't fill me up. Starches (especially potatoes) do.

.... that's a lot of meat.

Go big or go home


I typically eat 9 oz with a bunch of veggies, unless I go out.