Not according to this study.
Dietary fat and appetite: similarities and differences in the satiating effect of meals supplemented with either fat or carbohydrate.
This is in contrast to to what I believed about the satiating effects of fat.
This study found no difference -
Meals with similar energy densities but rich in protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol have different effects on energy expenditure and substrate metabolism but not on appetite and energy intake.
or for full article
I have been critical of people posting studies on PH before, however, my question is does this follow what people have found in practice, as it is not what I thought to be true?
Update to Question
1st Study -
Too hard to upload but if you are interested email me at djmaxwell_2 at hotmail . com
2nd study -
Four different test meals rich in protein, carbohydrate, fat, or alcohol, respectively, were tested in a randomized order (Table 2). Dietary fiber content and energy density were identical in all 4 meals. The test meals offered contained 2500 kJ (26% of energy expenditure) for women and 3000 kJ (22% of energy expenditure) for men. The protein-rich meal consisted of crisp bread with cheese, yogurt with muesli, boiled egg, and skim milk. The carbohydrate-rich meal consisted of corn flakes with skim milk, white bread with butter, cheese, jam, and honey. The fat-rich meal consisted of yogurt mixed with double cream and grated apple, honeydew melon, rye bread with butter, cream cheese, and whole milk. The alcohol-rich meal consisted of rye bread and whole-grain bread with butter and cheese, yogurt with muesli, honeydew melon, and orange juice with vodka. Men were given 24 g and women 20 g alcohol. The same time (a maximum of 15 min) was spent on the meal on each test day. At the end of the test day, the subjects were offered a hot lunch meal ad libitum in a dining room at the department. The meal consisted of pasta and meat sauce with vegetables and was offered in 6- and 8-MJ versions for women and men, respectively. The test meal contributed 13.3% of energy as protein, 50.0% of energy as carbohydrate, 36.8% of energy as fat, 0.7 g dietary fiber/MJ, and 8.2 kJ/g. Subjects were instructed to eat as much as they wanted to feel comfortably satiated. The instructor registered the amounts eaten by using a digital food weight. The computer database of foods from the National Food Agency of Denmark (Dankost 2.0) was used in the calculations of energy and nutrient composition of the diets.
Conclusion A higher thermogenic response was observed after a meal rich in alcohol than after meals rich in protein, fat, or carbohydrate with similar energy densities and dietary fiber contents. Despite measurable differences in substrate oxidation, plasma substrates, and hormones, we observed no significant differences in subjective hunger and satiety sensations or in ad libitum energy intake. Our data from compound meals, therefore, do not support the existence of a satiety hierarchy resembling the oxidative hierarchy of the 4 macronutrients. The apparently positive effects of alcohol on energy expenditure should be considered together with the greatly suppressed fat oxidation and leptin concentrations and increased triacylglycerol concentrations after the alcohol meal. The response patterns in a 5-h period may also change if longer measurement periods are used
asked bypeter_5 (5914)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on March 02, 2012
at 01:36 AM
I definitely find protein more satiating than carbs or fat.
on March 03, 2012
at 06:59 AM
I've spent a lot of time researching this particular issue -- and what I've found is that you can "prove" any of the following depending on how you set up the experiment:
- Protein is most satiating
- Fat is most satiating
- Carbohydrate is most satiating
- There is no meaningful difference between them
I've found studies that show each to be true. In practice, the purified ingredients usually used to test these hypotheses have little satiating impact, because satiation is our body's estimate of future satiety, based on the sensory experience of eating, and they're consequently irrelevant to the real-world case of eating actual food.
See When Satiation Fails: Calorie Density, Oral Processing Time, and Rice Cakes vs. Prime Rib (Why Are We Hungry? Part V) for more information on the subject.
on March 02, 2012
at 04:47 PM
The body seems to care about protein independently from total calories. I think the figure was 12%. I know I downloaded that study, but I don't know where I put it and I can't think of how to google for it. Anyway, I'll just stick to what seems to happen to me.
Protein is more satiating than anything else until I get the daily amount my body wants.
Fat is then most satiating- best, fastest way to get to the number of calories my body wants.
Carbohydrate- most likely to make me hungry again in two hours. Most likely to be all eaten up the day I buy it. Obviously not very satiating.
Alcohol- Less problematic than carbs from a satiety veiwpoint. It is very disrupting to sleep, though.
on March 02, 2012
at 04:12 PM
This is a great question and relates to these two posts: (1)Synthesis: Low-Carb and Food Reward/Palatability, and Why Calories Count: http://freetheanimal.com/2012/02/synthesis-low-carb-and-food-rewardpalatability-and-why-calories-count.html (n=1 and people are going bonkers and nerding out in the comment section); (2)Palatability, Satiety and Calorie Intake: http://wholehealthsource.org/ (analysis of a study on satiety and food reward, favoring low energy density, low palatability foods as having higher satiety, i.e., potato). Both seem to support, in part, the first study you've cited above, which I read as favoring carbs for satiety over fat. The study says that "the carbohydrate supplemented breakfast suppressed intake but the fat supplement did not. These results demonstrate that carbohydrate and fat can produce quiet different effects on satiety."
I, for one, am thoroughly baffled by all of this and would love to see a comprehensive analysis of all these studies. I'm going to try to cross post on the other sites and see if one of the dedicated gurus can expound.
EDIT: FWIW, here's a link to Richard's response when I cross-posted. http://freetheanimal.com/2012/02/synthesis-low-carb-and-food-rewardpalatability-and-why-calories-count.html#comment-116080
on March 02, 2012
at 02:13 AM
In my experience, I find fat to be nowhere near as satiating as protein. I recently experimented with a very high fat/moderate protein diet (like Peter at Hyperlipid), using dairy fat (heavy cream, butter, and ghee) as my fat source. I was constantly ravenous, ate 1000+ calories more per day (from 1500 to 2500+, sometimes topping 3000), and was still hungry at bed time. I went back to my previous ratios pretty quickly. Adding more protein back in tamed my hunger immediately.
I don't know if it would be different with non-dairy fats; I've read that dairy has very specific insulinogenic and appetite-increasing properties, so that may have been my issue.
(Interestingly, I did not gain weight with the massive increase in fat and calories; I expected to. The experiment lasted just over a week.)
on March 02, 2012
at 01:40 AM
Cant get the full ones...just the abstract. WHAT fats and WHAT carbohydrates where used? Would be interesting to know the actual makeup rather than just percentages.