This article feels all over the place and the only thing I find myself agreeing with is that satiety is highly individual and situation dependent. Their definit

This article feels all over the place and the only thing I find myself agreeing with is that satiety is highly individual and situation dependent. Their definition of satiety has all the same shortcomings as their strawmanning of CICO and is not useful. My attempt: a food is satiating if it has a particularly marked tendency to reduce your desire to consume more food. Solid foods tend to be more satiating than liquid foods (yes dairy is an exception); high-protein foods tend to be more satiating than low-protein foods; high-fiber foods tend to be more satiating than low-fiber foods; the combination of two or more of sweet/salty/fat is particularly palatable (drives eating) and not satiating. They're not perfectly correlated but they're useful heuristics for prioritizing what things to try. It's a phenomenological definition as opposed to a technical one and that is frustrating to many including me because we want to know why. But it gives a direct way to evaluate a food and I say that makes it more useful.