1

votes

Lower Reward, High Satiety foods...

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created April 21, 2012 at 3:56 AM

Does anyone know of good list/index of foods and their relative reward values? I've been looking for a good, definitive source and can't find one I really like.

As you might have guess I'm working on my next 30 day experiment.

Do you have any foods which are nutrient dense, especially low-reward and very satiating?

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on May 19, 2012
at 04:11 PM

They are very satiating for sure...

Cccb899526fb5908f64176e0a74ed2d9

(2801)

on May 19, 2012
at 10:36 AM

I bet whole eggs (yolk and white together) are even more satiating because of the combination of protein and fat.

00c8eb3f6e6a1884216044ca29cf868a

on May 05, 2012
at 06:52 AM

The other problem is that combining foods won't produce the same result as eating them separately, for several reasons. Fat, vinegar, and not chewing your food (!) dramatically drop the glycemic index. Fat slows gastric emptying...so even though olive oil isn't sating by itself, adding olive oil to a salad will make the salad much more sating. And so on. === It would be great if 'satiety' could be reduced to a scalar quantity, but digestion and human biology is too complex. It's like trying to reduce 'beauty' to a scalar quantity: too many interdependent variables.

00c8eb3f6e6a1884216044ca29cf868a

on May 05, 2012
at 06:38 AM

I wouldn't put any stock in their "satiety index": that paper is such complete bunk that I used it as an example of bad science nearly a year ago! http://www.gnolls.org/?p=2267 === Seriously: according to their "index", oranges and apples produce more satiety than beef, popcorn produces more satiety than eggs...what? === Here's how they did it: they stopped measuring at two hours. Yes, it's more than two hours between breakfast and lunch...and two hours, not coincidentally, is right when sugar and carbs start to wear off and leave you hungry again. File under "how to get the results you want."

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:08 AM

http://balancedbites.com/2011/04/easy-recipe-mineral-rich-bone-broth.html here's a well loved recipe.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:06 AM

I'm sure people do it all different ways but it's basically boil the crap out of the bones until they're soft and the marrow is all out.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:05 AM

No recipe necessary...get beef, or chicken or pastured pork bones, stick in your slow cooker, add whatever spices and veggies you like, slow cook for 10 hours, and I generally make a second batch from same bones, cook a bit loner (about 15 hours).

A31b063c5866c08aa9968a8f2f1e9949

(1721)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:43 AM

I know I've seen them before, but I can't think of where offhand - any recommendations for good bone broth "recipes"?

  • 77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

    asked by

    (78467)
  • Views
    2.5K
  • Last Activity
    1282D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

6 Answers

5
00c8eb3f6e6a1884216044ca29cf868a

on May 05, 2012
at 07:17 AM

"Reward" isn't a scalar quantity: it's a product of several distinct biochemical motivations, many of which are subjective -- being dependent on the individual's nutritional and metabolic state, and their cultural background -- and many of which aren't dependent on taste at all! I've gone into this in detail before:
http://paleohacks.com/questions/103742/is-the-food-reward-hypothesis-backwards/103748#103748

Trying to assign a scalar value to "reward" is like trying to assign a scalar value to "beauty"...there are too many interdependent variables to make an objective measurement.

That being said, there is enough commonality between individual biochemistry to make some generalizations. Complete, bioavailable protein produces both satiation and satiety ("protein targeting")...so, on average, higher-protein foods will sate more effectively than lower-protein foods. Foods like liver, egg yolks, and many leafy vegetables have a high nutrient-to-calorie ratio ("nutrient-dense"), and therefore tend to produce more satiety.

The problem is that satiety is usually relative to the rest of your diet...for instance, your desire for more lean protein will depend greatly on how much protein you've recently consumed. I'd probably start a project like this by figuring out several days' worth of approximate menus that would get me the most nutrients possible with the least calories (also being careful not to overconsume vitamin A in liver, etc.) while coming close to the balance of fats/protein/carbs you find most satiating (and sating).

In fact, there may be two experiments here: find the most nutrient-dense foods you can, and then experiment to see which proportions of them produce the most satiety for you at various calorie levels. My guess is that the satiating impact of any specific balance of macros will be different if you're consuming 2500 kcal/day worth of them vs. only 1300 kcal/day -- due to protein targeting if nothing else. I would be interested to learn the results!

JS

4
Bf57bcbdc19d4f1728599053acd020ab

(5043)

on May 05, 2012
at 09:12 AM

My (limited) understanding of what constitutes high reward food is that it is often the result of combining fats and carbs. Fat/protein is okay and in any case fairly unavoidable. Think potato (or any other veg) with butter/sauce/sour cream -- you remove the fat component, and it becomes MUCH lower reward. SO if I were going to embark on this kind of thing, I'd do a lot of mono-meal-eating with nutrient dense foods. Like just hard boiled eggs (really, without salt or mayo how many would you want to eat?) or just a steak, just broccoli or some other veg. Maybe you'd have to eat more frequent meals to get adequate calories.

But, like I said, this is just my interpretation of what I've read.

1
Eea6a68f5a7190d13c60e1c72417a581

(1376)

on May 20, 2012
at 03:20 AM

For me fat+ protein+ crunchy veg seems to be very satiating. Here are some of my favorites that hit both marks, low reward and high satiation: Boiled eggs

Raw shredded cabbage w some meat

Shredded cabbage cooked in coconut oil w onions

Boiled lean stew beef

Water canned tuna

Grapefruit

Apples

Dill pickles

Hot black tea

Hot broth

Kale cooked w some fat, garlic ginger

Salad of raw shredded beets, apples, carrot, cabbage. I add homemade tahini dressing, but that ups the reward value.

1
A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:29 AM

Bone broth....kinda dull but gets the job done.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:06 AM

I'm sure people do it all different ways but it's basically boil the crap out of the bones until they're soft and the marrow is all out.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:08 AM

http://balancedbites.com/2011/04/easy-recipe-mineral-rich-bone-broth.html here's a well loved recipe.

A65499f2f8c65602881550fe309cd48c

(3501)

on April 21, 2012
at 05:05 AM

No recipe necessary...get beef, or chicken or pastured pork bones, stick in your slow cooker, add whatever spices and veggies you like, slow cook for 10 hours, and I generally make a second batch from same bones, cook a bit loner (about 15 hours).

A31b063c5866c08aa9968a8f2f1e9949

(1721)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:43 AM

I know I've seen them before, but I can't think of where offhand - any recommendations for good bone broth "recipes"?

0
1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on May 05, 2012
at 05:29 AM

Egg Yolks are high in nutrients.

1a98a40ba8ffdc5aa28d1324d01c6c9f

(20378)

on May 19, 2012
at 04:11 PM

They are very satiating for sure...

Cccb899526fb5908f64176e0a74ed2d9

(2801)

on May 19, 2012
at 10:36 AM

I bet whole eggs (yolk and white together) are even more satiating because of the combination of protein and fat.

0
77877f762c40637911396daa19b53094

(78467)

on April 21, 2012
at 04:16 AM

I will post my research here as I find it...

http://ucsyd.dk/fileadmin/user_upload/om_uc_syddanmark/dokumenter/marianne_markers_kursus_NRO/110228_Holt%20et%20al%20Satiety%20index.pdf -- Limited number of foods but decent info on page 682.

00c8eb3f6e6a1884216044ca29cf868a

on May 05, 2012
at 06:52 AM

The other problem is that combining foods won't produce the same result as eating them separately, for several reasons. Fat, vinegar, and not chewing your food (!) dramatically drop the glycemic index. Fat slows gastric emptying...so even though olive oil isn't sating by itself, adding olive oil to a salad will make the salad much more sating. And so on. === It would be great if 'satiety' could be reduced to a scalar quantity, but digestion and human biology is too complex. It's like trying to reduce 'beauty' to a scalar quantity: too many interdependent variables.

00c8eb3f6e6a1884216044ca29cf868a

on May 05, 2012
at 06:38 AM

I wouldn't put any stock in their "satiety index": that paper is such complete bunk that I used it as an example of bad science nearly a year ago! http://www.gnolls.org/?p=2267 === Seriously: according to their "index", oranges and apples produce more satiety than beef, popcorn produces more satiety than eggs...what? === Here's how they did it: they stopped measuring at two hours. Yes, it's more than two hours between breakfast and lunch...and two hours, not coincidentally, is right when sugar and carbs start to wear off and leave you hungry again. File under "how to get the results you want."

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!