7 ms·

I tried eating a meat-only diet for a few months, and have mostly continued with some veg added. What I've found is that this is the most satiating diet I've ev

I tried eating a meat-only diet for a few months, and have mostly continued with some veg added. What I've found is that this is the most satiating diet I've ever tried after five decades of trying. I've also done a lot of high fat paleo, so I'm sure that for me the satiating element is the protein. I've also been a raw vegan and about everything else in between. Protein fills me up and makes me stop eating far faster than the other macro nutrients. So I'm not worried about getting too much. Unlike with say low quality carbs, high quality proteins are self limiting. My body just tells me no more! If I want to know if I'm genuinely hungry I just ask myself if I want some meat. If not, I'm not. IMHO, after a lifetime of mostly failed experimentation, (for those of us who can afford it) putting high quality high protein foods at the center of your diet is the most effective way to control and reverse obesity.

stef25 8y ago
I think the satiating element is the fat rather than the protein, no?
- hirundo 8y ago
  I've performed that experiment repeatedly ad nauseum. For me the protein makes me push the plate away faster than the fat and leaves me not hungry for longer.
- graeme 8y ago
  Protein is considered to be the most satiating. This review article calls it "fairly well established" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224414002386 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441...
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    However, like carbohydrates, protein does trigger ghrelin response whereas fats do not. At least in my case, a high-protein diet did nothing for my cravings.
e4325f 8y ago
satiating, what a silly way of saying satisfying..
- hirundo 8y ago
  I think it's different. I can be highly satisfied with a bannana split ice cream, but hungry again far sooner than after eating steak.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
  "Satiating" has a very specific definition when it comes to appetite, and it's used correctly here. I don't see the problem.
m_eiman 8y ago
Have you tried a high-protein vegetable based variant of the diet? Curious if it’s protein in general that works, or specifically meat.
moltar 8y ago
Exactly same experience. Tried vegetarian, vegan, paleo, strict paleo, carnivore. My actual best was eating beef only. I lost 6kg in a month without trying to lose weight. I had almost no hunger. I ate at 6pm my first meal on a couple of occasions, and normally wouldn’t feel any hunger until 1-2 pm.
- adriand 8y ago
  No judgment here (do what you need to do) but this is both bad for the environment and bad for your health (cancer, heart disease, etc.)
  - justtopost 8y ago
    That is judgy as hell, and untrue. Come back with facts or stop pushing your agenda.
    - adriand 8y ago
      The scientific basis for links between red meat production and environmental harm due to greenhouse gases, and between red meat consumption and harm to individual health, is well established. I’m not here to criticize the choices of one individual - I genuinely don’t care - but civilizationally a reliance on beef for the majority of our protein requirements would be a singularly poor strategy.
      - graeme 8y ago
        There's one thing I've wondered about beef and greenhouse gases. People say that cows produce co2. They also say that an increase in the human population does not produce co2. It seems that either one claim is wrong, OR cows are somehow different from humans in their effect on the carbon cycle. One notable difference is that cows produce more methane than we do. This has the effect of increasing short term warming as methane has a much more powerful warming effect over 100 years. But other than that, when cow emissions are cited, are people simply adding up the co2 cows breathe? If so, why is this invalid for humans? Or if it is valid for humans, then how are cow emissions determined? I could see land use change being one reason, but that would seem to apply to humans too. Can anyone clarify this? It would seem that either both humans and cows are net co2 contributors, or neither are. (Apart from methane)
JofArnold 8y ago
Meanwhile I eat pure vegetarian (almost vegan) diet that’s low in protein (comparatively), am always sated, have a lot of energy, am strong and slim and rarely sleepy during the day. So one piece of anecdata seems to refute your piece of anecdata. Not to mention I’m willing to bet I’m far less likely to get cancer and kidney problems than you (assuming everything else equal)
- vinceguidry 8y ago
  There's no need to get defensive. Merely sharing one's experience need not be an attack on yours. You didn't have to refute his anecdata.
  - saurik 8y ago
    I did not read that comment as "defensive": it is merely "powerful" (which is good).
    - vinceguidry 8y ago
      Perhaps because you agreed with his sentiment.
  - JofArnold 8y ago
    One has a duty to refute poor advice - especially when OP is making general recommendations based one a single data point and where said recommendations are demonstrably bad for the environment, animals and his own health.
- gnulinux 8y ago
  If we're going to speak in the language of anecdata, I must say that I tried every diet out there tried for months (all vegan, vegetarian (vegan+eggs+cheese+milk), pescetarian (vegan+salmon), rice and bean based, all meat, all meat + avacado....) And vegan diet was by far the worst (makes me feel bad, did consistently ~40% of my performance working out.) I can go on hours to advocate my own favorite diet, but this is essentially horseshit. Also there is no conclusive evidence meat correlates with cancer. Unprocessed meat anyway. Your comment comes of very condescending. I'm sorry, this is not intended directly to you, but this is a problem widely present with vegans. We have 5 people talking about diets, and if one them is vegan, they'll be dominating the whole thing and claim everyone else is unhealthy and clueless. This is not fact based and does not support good discussions.
virtuallynathan 8y ago
I can definitely confirm this, meat only I can go 23h+ without eating and not be hungry, consuming ~2000kcal at a meal.
maliker 8y ago
There's some good evidence that protein is more filling on a per-calorie basis than other foods [1]. But there's also a lot of other foods that are primarily carbohydrates and more filling than meat. Boiled potatoes, oatmeal, apples, and oranges all beat beef, eggs, and lentils in the above study. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 and full text https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Petocz/publication/15701207_A_Satiety_Index_of_common_foods/links/00b495189da413c16d000000/A-Satiety-Index-of-common-foods.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Petocz/publicatio...

stef25 8y ago

I think the satiating element is the fat rather than the protein, no?

hirundo 8y ago
I've performed that experiment repeatedly ad nauseum. For me the protein makes me push the plate away faster than the fat and leaves me not hungry for longer.
graeme 8y ago
Protein is considered to be the most satiating. This review article calls it "fairly well established" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924224414002386 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092422441...
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
  However, like carbohydrates, protein does trigger ghrelin response whereas fats do not. At least in my case, a high-protein diet did nothing for my cravings.

e4325f 8y ago

satiating, what a silly way of saying satisfying..

hirundo 8y ago
I think it's different. I can be highly satisfied with a bannana split ice cream, but hungry again far sooner than after eating steak.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
SmellyGeekBoy 8y ago
"Satiating" has a very specific definition when it comes to appetite, and it's used correctly here. I don't see the problem.

m_eiman 8y ago

Have you tried a high-protein vegetable based variant of the diet? Curious if it’s protein in general that works, or specifically meat.

moltar 8y ago

Exactly same experience. Tried vegetarian, vegan, paleo, strict paleo, carnivore. My actual best was eating beef only. I lost 6kg in a month without trying to lose weight. I had almost no hunger. I ate at 6pm my first meal on a couple of occasions, and normally wouldn’t feel any hunger until 1-2 pm.

adriand 8y ago
No judgment here (do what you need to do) but this is both bad for the environment and bad for your health (cancer, heart disease, etc.)
- justtopost 8y ago
  That is judgy as hell, and untrue. Come back with facts or stop pushing your agenda.
  - adriand 8y ago
    The scientific basis for links between red meat production and environmental harm due to greenhouse gases, and between red meat consumption and harm to individual health, is well established. I’m not here to criticize the choices of one individual - I genuinely don’t care - but civilizationally a reliance on beef for the majority of our protein requirements would be a singularly poor strategy.
    - graeme 8y ago
      There's one thing I've wondered about beef and greenhouse gases. People say that cows produce co2. They also say that an increase in the human population does not produce co2. It seems that either one claim is wrong, OR cows are somehow different from humans in their effect on the carbon cycle. One notable difference is that cows produce more methane than we do. This has the effect of increasing short term warming as methane has a much more powerful warming effect over 100 years. But other than that, when cow emissions are cited, are people simply adding up the co2 cows breathe? If so, why is this invalid for humans? Or if it is valid for humans, then how are cow emissions determined? I could see land use change being one reason, but that would seem to apply to humans too. Can anyone clarify this? It would seem that either both humans and cows are net co2 contributors, or neither are. (Apart from methane)

JofArnold 8y ago

Meanwhile I eat pure vegetarian (almost vegan) diet that’s low in protein (comparatively), am always sated, have a lot of energy, am strong and slim and rarely sleepy during the day. So one piece of anecdata seems to refute your piece of anecdata. Not to mention I’m willing to bet I’m far less likely to get cancer and kidney problems than you (assuming everything else equal)

vinceguidry 8y ago
There's no need to get defensive. Merely sharing one's experience need not be an attack on yours. You didn't have to refute his anecdata.
- saurik 8y ago
  I did not read that comment as "defensive": it is merely "powerful" (which is good).
  - vinceguidry 8y ago
    Perhaps because you agreed with his sentiment.
- JofArnold 8y ago
  One has a duty to refute poor advice - especially when OP is making general recommendations based one a single data point and where said recommendations are demonstrably bad for the environment, animals and his own health.
gnulinux 8y ago
If we're going to speak in the language of anecdata, I must say that I tried every diet out there tried for months (all vegan, vegetarian (vegan+eggs+cheese+milk), pescetarian (vegan+salmon), rice and bean based, all meat, all meat + avacado....) And vegan diet was by far the worst (makes me feel bad, did consistently ~40% of my performance working out.) I can go on hours to advocate my own favorite diet, but this is essentially horseshit. Also there is no conclusive evidence meat correlates with cancer. Unprocessed meat anyway. Your comment comes of very condescending. I'm sorry, this is not intended directly to you, but this is a problem widely present with vegans. We have 5 people talking about diets, and if one them is vegan, they'll be dominating the whole thing and claim everyone else is unhealthy and clueless. This is not fact based and does not support good discussions.

virtuallynathan 8y ago

I can definitely confirm this, meat only I can go 23h+ without eating and not be hungry, consuming ~2000kcal at a meal.

maliker 8y ago

There's some good evidence that protein is more filling on a per-calorie basis than other foods [1]. But there's also a lot of other foods that are primarily carbohydrates and more filling than meat. Boiled potatoes, oatmeal, apples, and oranges all beat beef, eggs, and lentils in the above study. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7498104 and full text https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Petocz/publication/15701207_A_Satiety_Index_of_common_foods/links/00b495189da413c16d000000/A-Satiety-Index-of-common-foods.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Petocz/publicatio...