This makes sense when you consider most green vegetables like broccoli are 90% water. A meat like chicken, after cooking is only about 60% water.
So if you eat 400g of broccoli vs 400g of chicken, the one that will make you feel more full is obviously the protein.
What’s more likely, is due to marketing we’ve associated anything that is green in color with being “real, nutritious food” and have convinced ourselves that is what makes us feel full.
It’s like people who claim they “feel better” after eating a salad. The average iceberg lettuce has near zero nutritional value and is 96%+ water.
The only way you’d feel better after eating one is if you were dehydrated.
-- *edit - people seem to be misunderstanding. I'm not saying fast food is healthy. I'm simply refuting the idea that green vegetables are the key to feeling full. If you wanted to feel satiated, green vegetables would be one of the most inefficient ways to do so--due to their 90%+ water content.
You’ll likely feel normal on the chicken day. On the broccoli day you’ll feel like you’re fasting (because on a calorie basis, you literally will be unless you eat 5-7X as much broccoli as you do chicken).
The conversation started about nutrient depleted junk food vs whole foods.
And now you’re comparing two different types of whole foods.
Fiber can certainly help with feeling full as it takes longer to digest, however fiber alone cannot satiate.
Meanwhile, a diet completely devoid of fiber can still make you feel full.
Proteins and fat you mean?
Also, incidentally, water do quench hunger as well. My trick to eat less when i was overweight was to drink a lot during meals.
If I eat at breakfast in the morning 140 g turkey breast + 70 g cashew nuts + 3 sweet potatoes + 1 bell pepper, then I feel perfectly satiated and I feel no hunger until late in the evening, when I have next meal. Deleting either the turkey breast or the cashew nuts from that breakfast menu, makes me hungry much earlier.
On the other hand, if I eat just bread, I have to eat a very large quantity, e.g. 1 kilogram, until I feel satiated due to the full stomach, and then after a few hours I feel hungry again.
There are many kinds of food, like bread, vanilla or cocoa cream and many others, which I like very much, but which do not satiate me unless eaten in huge quantities, so I have given up on eating those kinds of food, because it is much easier to not eat them at all than to stop after eating just a small quantity.
Plain, boiled potatoes cause the most satiety.
Oranges and oatmeal are also good.
Also I think you're being extremely reductionist here. I'm not claiming that I never felt the sensation of fullness in my stomach. Of course I did. Maybe I should rephrase, that I constantly felt like I was craving food even though my stomach was full.
Moreover, to suggest that our brains somehow only understand macronutrients when it comes to regulating our sense of hunger, is ridiculous. You really think that people feeling better after eating broccoli is because they have been brainwashed by the marketing of the vegetable-industrial complex? is it really that outlandish to hypothesize that eating nutritious food makes you feel better?
Of course it would be fallacious to generalize my experience to other people, if only because I myself hardly understand what was going on. But it would be equally fallacious, not to mention arrogant, to dismiss that such an effect might exist, on the grounds that we did some controlled studies and found that hungry people feel more satisfied after eating something substatial.
I can eat one pound of icecream in one go before I feel that I'm done, or 1/3 of that, tell myself I can eat the rest in 15 minutes IF I still feel the need to at that future time, and I usually don't -- sort of like the reverse of telling myself I'll only work 5 minutes on that boring task I don't want to, but usually I work through it all.
My unscientific point being, there's no way the brain can tell I've eaten 1/3 meat and 2/3 salad vs 3/3 meat in the span of 15 minutes; sure, it will digest the salad much faster, but by that time I'm already doing other things that don't involve me stuffing my face with food; I've found that with food, if you can resist the urge to eat more for 15 minutes, and don't have snacks just laying around you, you actually solved 90% of your overeating problem. SO in my experience, eating broccoli/salad, or just drinking water, absolutely do work to make you full/less hungry, for a short while at least, but that short duration should not be underestimated, because a lot of times is all that is required for one to stick to a caloric limit.
Again, I think this is trusting too much in "today's science". Who's to say that your body/brain can't detect whether a food is nutritious? For all we know, some trace nutrients are subconsciously detectable in taste and smell, even if heuristically.
I'm not saying that is what happens, but I don't think we know nearly enough to dismiss such a possibility.
Look in to, at the very least, how chromium and molybdenum help regular homeostasis via insulin sensitivity and macronutrient metabolism.
What’s more likely, is fast food doesn’t make you feel full because its low in protein (the most expensive ingredient typically, so fast food skimps on it) and high in simple carbs.
That's super misleading. The nutrition facts for broccoli here [1] gives 89% water but actually over 1/3rd of broccoli by mass is carbs, fats, proteins or fibers. And comparing raw broccoli to cooked chicken is deceptive - cooking broccoli obviously gets rid of a lot of it's water depending on how you cook. Moreover, comparing gram-to-gram, I'm sure broccoli is less filling, but a lot of people care more about calorie-to-calorie.
[1] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/broccoli#nutrient...
Boiling or steaming broccoli does basically nothing to its water content. Baking it may reduce by 10%. So still 20% more water than the protein.
Anyways, the water point was brought up to give something intuitive to grasp on to.
As said, the main reason eating one chicken breast makes you feel more full than multiple servings of broccoli, is the 55g of protein.
So adding broccoli to your fast food won't suddenly make you feel full. Dumping the fast food altogether and eating a chicken breast instead might.
But the point is, it doesn't matter how much water there is. No one is wondering whether they'll feel more full on 100g of chicken or 100g of broccoli. Anyone trying to control weight would ask about 100 calories of broccoli versus 100g of chicken. I don't know what the answer there is, but they're probably comparable. A head of broccoli is just 205 calories but still contains 17g protein and 16g of fiber. Equivalent calorie chicken breast would be like 40g protein and no fiber. Both are healthy food choices unless you deep fry them or something. You're making lots of fast-and-loose comparisons here that are simply misleading. (Why is the comparison broccoli + fast food versus just chicken? Why do you suddenly switch to talking about iceberg lettuce? Why pretend that broccoli isn't a healthy food that is substantially more satiating than fast food - as is chicken?)
The idea under discussion is that the thing that will make you feel more full is the food that has what you're deficient in. That makes sense, and evolution tends to do things that make sense.
Anecdotally, If I have a deficiency I'll keep snacking/eating until I've found something that satisfies the deficiency or I'm completely full. Eating to fullness 3x per day or more is a great way to gain a ton of weight.