Is protein truly more satiating?

lemurcat2

Worth looking at (discussed by Menno in the linked piece): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139559

lemurcat2

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

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.

To what are you referring when you say his data is not repeatable?

heybales

Is it because protein too raises insulin, and for some folks leads to low blood sugar - feeling hungrier later?

Or the fact if more than needed and converted to glucose raises insulin also, same effect?

AnnPT77

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Worth looking at (discussed by Menno in the linked piece): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139559

Admittedly, I read only the abstract, not full text.

I see there that they controlled for "lifestyle factors" but wonder how one would control for the potential that being able to afford higher levels of meat protein correlates with being able to afford and indulge "better" (richer) foods generally?

Since that's an issue of personal priorities and discretionary income at the margin, not simply total income, it's hard to see how one would account for that possibility in a meta.

OTOH, I've read other things correlating financial comfort with lower body weight . . . .

JeromeBarry1

lemurcat2 wrote: »

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

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.

To what are you referring when you say his data is not repeatable?

See my earlier comment. The first quoted sentence is from the OP linked article. I had read the second article earlier today and the topic was on my mind.

lemurcat2

AnnPT77 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

Worth looking at (discussed by Menno in the linked piece): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21139559

Admittedly, I read only the abstract, not full text.

I see there that they controlled for "lifestyle factors" but wonder how one would control for the potential that being able to afford higher levels of meat protein correlates with being able to afford and indulge "better" (richer) foods generally?

Since that's an issue of personal priorities and discretionary income at the margin, not simply total income, it's hard to see how one would account for that possibility in a meta.

OTOH, I've read other things correlating financial comfort with lower body weight . . . .

I think they are debunking the idea that merely eating higher amounts of protein will cause a lower body fat level, not really examining causation or claiming that eating LESS protein would have positive effects.

lemurcat2

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

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.

To what are you referring when you say his data is not repeatable?

See my earlier comment. The first quoted sentence is from the OP linked article. I had read the second article earlier today and the topic was on my mind.

The one with the linked Zoe Harcombe piece? It didn't seem to have anything to do with the original article.

Re: "Yet outside the lab in free-living prospective studies, the consumption of high protein foods is not consistently associated with fat loss [2]." supposedly not being worth anything, for the average person not counting calories, "outside the lab in free-living" is useful information to consider when it comes to possible interventions that might lead to eating fewer cals.