Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is protein truly more satiating?
magnusthenerd
Posts: 1,207 Member
in Debate Club
Just read this from Menno Henselmans:
https://mennohenselmans.com/protein-is-not-more-satiating-than-carbs-and-fats
It seems and interesting nuance to the protein satiety claim: protein is more satiating when the diet is already low in it, but it loses the effect for high protein diets that meet and exceed protein needs.
https://mennohenselmans.com/protein-is-not-more-satiating-than-carbs-and-fats
It seems and interesting nuance to the protein satiety claim: protein is more satiating when the diet is already low in it, but it loses the effect for high protein diets that meet and exceed protein needs.
8
Replies
-
Well... most research shows that on a per calorie unit basis... yes...6
-
psychod787 wrote: »Well... most research shows that on a per calorie unit basis... yes...
Does it though? The article says the research is mixed and posits that it only shows as high when intake is already low.1 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Well... most research shows that on a per calorie unit basis... yes...
Does it though? The article says the research is mixed and posits that it only shows as high when intake is already low.
What's your definition of low? USDA? Whole foods vegan? Ect...0 -
psychod787 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Well... most research shows that on a per calorie unit basis... yes...
Does it though? The article says the research is mixed and posits that it only shows as high when intake is already low.
What's your definition of low? USDA? Whole foods vegan? Ect...
Below 15-20% of dietary intake is the range the article uses.3 -
I increasingly find that satiety is more complicated for me than just macros. There are breakfasts I find filling and those I do not, lunches I do and lunches I do not, and I used to think the difference was protein, but have come to see it's not. Not for me, anyway. It is food choice, but not protein amount (my diet isn't low protein, although it's lower in protein than it used to be).
As I just mentioned in another thread, it's possible to find potato sating and not bread, or beef (or shrimp) but not a protein shake.14 -
I increasingly find that satiety is more complicated for me than just macros. There are breakfasts I find filling and those I do not, lunches I do and lunches I do not, and I used to think the difference was protein, but have come to see it's not. Not for me, anyway. It is food choice, but not protein amount (my diet isn't low protein, although it's lower in protein than it used to be).
As I just mentioned in another thread, it's possible to find potato sating and not bread, or beef (or shrimp) but not a protein shake.
Personal preference is important, but there are some studies that point to certain food qualities that TEND to make some foods more satisfying than others. Protein is one. Well old Henselman is interesting, but it goes against most research. I won't lie that fat is very satisfying to most people, but on a per calorie basis, protein seems to be king...3 -
I think that there's complexity to this topic that can't be reduced to a Yes/No answer. Everyone's body is different. Everyone's nutritional needs, environmental factors, and genetic history are different. Just as an example, my husband finds protein to be the most important macro. He's tall, male, and works a physical job. It's also what satiates him. Meanwhile I am average height, female, and work a sedentary job. I don't NEED a lot of protein and I don't want a lot. I find that balance is the most satiating for me whereas he would find my diet severely lacking in tasty foods.
I do find that if I'm hungry and feeling faint, a boiled egg or slice of cheese take the edge off way better than a bag of chips. But so do cucumbers and strawberries, which are high in fiber and water and low in protein. So protein helps, and it's an important consideration and crucial macro. So does fiber. But I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all answer here.5 -
psychod787 wrote: »I increasingly find that satiety is more complicated for me than just macros. There are breakfasts I find filling and those I do not, lunches I do and lunches I do not, and I used to think the difference was protein, but have come to see it's not. Not for me, anyway. It is food choice, but not protein amount (my diet isn't low protein, although it's lower in protein than it used to be).
As I just mentioned in another thread, it's possible to find potato sating and not bread, or beef (or shrimp) but not a protein shake.
Personal preference is important, but there are some studies that point to certain food qualities that TEND to make some foods more satisfying than others. Protein is one. Well old Henselman is interesting, but it goes against most research. I won't lie that fat is very satisfying to most people, but on a per calorie basis, protein seems to be king...
I'm aware of those studies, but I'm just saying I think there's more to it. For example, potato scoring high on satiety studies.
I wasn't talking about personal preference (although I also think people differ on what is sating to them), but it being more complicated.1 -
psychod787 wrote: »I increasingly find that satiety is more complicated for me than just macros. There are breakfasts I find filling and those I do not, lunches I do and lunches I do not, and I used to think the difference was protein, but have come to see it's not. Not for me, anyway. It is food choice, but not protein amount (my diet isn't low protein, although it's lower in protein than it used to be).
As I just mentioned in another thread, it's possible to find potato sating and not bread, or beef (or shrimp) but not a protein shake.
Personal preference is important, but there are some studies that point to certain food qualities that TEND to make some foods more satisfying than others. Protein is one. Well old Henselman is interesting, but it goes against most research. I won't lie that fat is very satisfying to most people, but on a per calorie basis, protein seems to be king...
I'm aware of those studies, but I'm just saying I think there's more to it. For example, potato scoring high on satiety studies.
I wasn't talking about personal preference (although I also think people differ on what is sating to them), but it being more complicated.
I think... personally, it's the energy density and palatablility that helps the lowly boiled potato be so satisfying. I will tell you as an n=1 here.... a PLAIN boiled potato will sit in my stomach like a box of rocks! Lol0 -
All protein is not created equal, imo. I will certainly find 30 grams of chicken protein far more satiating than 30 grams of whey powder protein, for instance.The same with calories, I find 150 calories of eggs more satiating than 150 calories of almonds. Studies don't mean anything, figure out what works for you, for your body, and forget anything else.6
-
psychod787 wrote: »I increasingly find that satiety is more complicated for me than just macros. There are breakfasts I find filling and those I do not, lunches I do and lunches I do not, and I used to think the difference was protein, but have come to see it's not. Not for me, anyway. It is food choice, but not protein amount (my diet isn't low protein, although it's lower in protein than it used to be).
As I just mentioned in another thread, it's possible to find potato sating and not bread, or beef (or shrimp) but not a protein shake.
Personal preference is important, but there are some studies that point to certain food qualities that TEND to make some foods more satisfying than others. Protein is one. Well old Henselman is interesting, but it goes against most research. I won't lie that fat is very satisfying to most people, but on a per calorie basis, protein seems to be king...
I'm not sure it does go against most research.
He links an analysis of 38 studies for the idea that the satiety effect doesn't exist past the 15-20% range.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/101/6/1320S/4564492
If protein is more satiating in the low range, it doesn't go against most research to say it isn't the most satiating outside of that range.1 -
Even in a context where I believe satiation is very, very individual, I'd expect there'd be some central tendencies in any sensible studies across decent-sized populations, whether the point being examined was one macro vs. others, or specific food choices. Those two things (individuality and common tendencies) are really not in tension with one another. We're all unique . . . but not to the point of flat-lining normal curves.
I appreciate what the article is saying.
But I don't think there's any obvious major guidance toward one's n = 1 answer, without running n =1 experiments. The studies may give us some higher-probability starting points for experiments, and that's about it, IMO.2 -
Satiety is in constant fluctuation, so this makes sense. Not only are we unique, but this uniqueness is compounded within time. What satiates you today may not be what satiates you tomorrow or a decade from now.
Much like "intuitive eating" there's a fundamental flaw in the logic as if there is a constant and if we could just figure this out then everyone would be healthy.3 -
There’s nothing more satiating than leafy greens to me, because I dislike every mouthful even tho I eat them daily.1
-
nonscientifically: it's not just protein. i need fat too.
i do think ymmv. i think i find fat the most satiating. cheese/dairy0 -
I find fat the most satiating, too, protein definitely not as much. I find carbs very satiating but only for a very short time.0
-
Thank you for this interesting discussion point. I have tried different approaches for all meals of the day. I have always been a "small breakfast" eater, usually start eating some food towards lunch time. I have tried a spoon of wheat bran dissolved in hot water once in a while and that gives me a full feeling (satiated?) for hours and hours - don't even want to think about food until dinner time. Certainly not a healthy meal plan, just a (unhealthy?) observation...0
-
Thanks for the great article in the OP!
"A review of 38 studies concluded protein is more satiating than carbs and fats in the 10-20% of energy intake range but not above that, indicating the average satiety sweet spot is a protein intake of 20% of energy intake, corresponding to about 1.2 g/kg/d for non-strength training individuals. The effect was far stronger for self-reported satiety than actual eating behavior: ad libitum energy intake didn’t reliably decrease even at lower protein intakes. The optimum protein intake for satiety was closely in line with the optimal protein intake for body recomposition and health (1.2 – 1.6 g/kg/d)."
Haha, that pretty much sums my protein percentage up!
I've been logging everything in MFP over 4 years, (lost 35 kg and have maintained 3 years) and never really pay any attention to trying to hit macros, and they have consistently been an average of 20% protein, 30% fat, 50% carbs the whole time.
I love how I was about to say through most of it, but what about fibre? Yep, at the end, he says how fruit and veg are good at filling you up.
You can use them to bulk up your plate and stomach with volume for very few calories.
And I find now that a 300 kilojoule piece of fruit is satiating and lets me stop eating whereas an 800 kilojoule biscuit/cookie makes me want another.
Sometimes, of course, I'm happy to use my calorie limit on a couple of biscuits. That's a form of satiation too.
Other days, too, I'll have a 400 kilojoule choc protein bar if I can sort of feel I need it.
I learned a good word last week:
"Interoception"
https://theconversation.com/understanding-body-signals-could-be-a-key-factor-in-eating-disorders-111559
"Research has begun to explore how our [lack of] awareness and perception of our body signals (known as interoception) contribute to disordered eating. Interoception includes perceiving various internal sensations from the body. It means noticing things like how quickly your heart is beating, how heavily you are breathing, how hot or cold you are, and whether you are feeling hungry or full."
It's risky just following the "intuitive eating" idea - but not if you're also using a logical knowledge of the caloric content of food you can choose to eat.
3 -
I remember used to be on a strict low carb diet years ago, and I was very dedicated, and really stuck to it. I lost 30 pounds pretty darn quick. My go to every morning was this restaurant that was close to the company I worked for. We would walk next door every AM and get a loaded omelet (the works!). It has eggs, cheese, bacon, sausage, onion, bell peppers, spinach, touch of salsa. It was huge! It was yummy! It was so filling! I could go for hours way past lunch into the early afternoon before I started getting hungry. Nothing else really does it for me in the AM. This was a nice reminder to try that again.
So, for me, definitely, I am definitely more satisfied and feelll fuller longer with protein. If I eat carby/sugary stuff, I want more. Give me a bagel and cream chees toasted, and oh, I want another. Give me a loaded omelet (less calories I'm pretty sure), and I'm good to go.1 -
Avocados and Eggs are super satiating for me over a long period of time. Calorie for calorie, you have to choose leafy greens. However duration of satiation is also a factor, and good fats seem to win this battle. Add eggs, avocado and MCT oil to a spinach salad and holy satiation combo. Protein and the length of time it satiates me really depends on the amount processing and the amount of quality fat in the meat. JMHO.1
-
For me, I find increasing protein does not help me stay full.
Years ago, DH wanted us both to try increasing protein while we were training for the warrior dash. Snacks were always protein shakes. I found the taste when mixed with water to be... not the best and mixed with milk the calories were more than I wanted to use on a snack for someone my size. As far as staying full, a serving of dry frosted mini wheats is a lot more filling for a lot longer in comparison to a protein shake, probably due to all the fiber. He was also wanting to have bacon and eggs for breakfast almost every day. Not my favorite thing to eat for breakfast, but I played along. I didn't find it nearly as filling as my now typical breakfast of 40grams oats cooked and add 28grams cheddar and melt/mix in with the oats. I know there is some protein in the oats and cheese but not as much as the bacon and eggs. Maybe it's the combo of carbs/fiber and fats in my cheesie oatmeal that helps me stay full longer. I just stick with what works.
My diet naturally hits pretty close to the MFP defaults for macros without trying, so for me the idea of increased protein only helping when you are protein deficient seems to make sense.0 -
SkinnyShannSoon wrote: »I remember used to be on a strict low carb diet years ago, and I was very dedicated, and really stuck to it. I lost 30 pounds pretty darn quick. My go to every morning was this restaurant that was close to the company I worked for. We would walk next door every AM and get a loaded omelet (the works!). It has eggs, cheese, bacon, sausage, onion, bell peppers, spinach, touch of salsa. It was huge! It was yummy! It was so filling! I could go for hours way past lunch into the early afternoon before I started getting hungry. Nothing else really does it for me in the AM. This was a nice reminder to try that again.
So, for me, definitely, I am definitely more satisfied and feelll fuller longer with protein. If I eat carby/sugary stuff, I want more. Give me a bagel and cream chees toasted, and oh, I want another. Give me a loaded omelet (less calories I'm pretty sure), and I'm good to go.
Was it the protein or the protein-fat combo that did it? the loaded omelet had plenty of both.
Would a plain dry broiled chicken breast, say, leave you as satisfied?1 -
Since our bodies can make glucose and our bodies can make fat, with protein as the only macronutrient we can't make, it is logical to think our bodies will be satisfied with a large protein consumption; and less satisfied with carbs and fat (like a kid unwrapping the 3rd identical toy for a birthday is not at all impressed).
But many of us will likely attest that logical conclusions have little effect on actual satisfaction. Example: I went to a BBQ place yesterday with the intent that I would eat an amount that would fill me up. I don't eat plants, but could buy meat by the pound. So I started with 1 lb. of beef brisket and 1/2 lb. of shredded smoked pork. Still hungry, I got a 1/2 lb. of eye of round beef and a smoked hot roll / sausage (sold per each, and probably .3 lbs. by my estimate). I could have eaten more, but decided to just stop with the roughly 2.3 lbs. of food for $ and time reasons. Back when I ate plants, I know in that same time that I could have eaten about 3-5 times as many calories with carb-heavy foods and probably left with just as much or more appetite remaining. But that is my experience and I'm sure some here will say they consume 3-5 times less when eating carb-heavy food vs. protein and/or fat-heavy food.1 -
Fiber, defintely.0
-
I have never heard protein called "satiating"...I have heard fat called that but not protein.
Protein due to it's make up takes longer to digest than carbs. Helps keep you feeling fuller longer.3 -
Examine.com published an article recently, "5 little-known facts about protein", which includes the following...Protein increases satiety more than carbohydrate and fat do, by increasing thermogenesis and through the direct effect of its constituent amino acids (notably leucine) on the brain.
Lot's more details in the article. Seems pertinent to this discussion so am sharing...3 -
Probably going to get wooed, but... Different strokes for different folks. I tend to stay fuller longer by eating higher carbs. Maybe I'm just kidding myself, but it seems to work for me so, I'd say it's a person-to-person kind of thing.0
-
"Yet outside the lab in free-living prospective studies, the consumption of high protein foods is not consistently associated with fat loss [2]."
This next article is about those kind of studies: http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/06/white-meat-as-bad-as-red-meat-for-cholesterol/
Cutting to the nut: The so-called 'study' of free-living food choices are not worth a cup of spit.2 -
I feel like a number of people have missed the link that was the start of this thread.
In it, Menno gives an hypothesis based on the research on protein and satiety so far: that protein is highly satiating in a narrow dietary percentage. Once it goes over that percentage, it becomes the least satiating, and that other characteristics beyond macronutrients matter for food satiety predictions.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »I feel like a number of people have missed the link that was the start of this thread.
In it, Menno gives an hypothesis based on the research on protein and satiety so far: that protein is highly satiating in a narrow dietary percentage. Once it goes over that percentage, it becomes the least satiating, and that other characteristics beyond macronutrients matter for food satiety predictions.
I understand. His conclusions may be compelling, but his data are not repeatable.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions