The macronutrient satiety ranking as `csi04` proposed it, and what the measured studies underneath it do and do not show.
What the evidence says
- Protein > Carbohydrates > Fat for satiety per calorie — the hierarchy `csi04` proposed, a 1995 review’s reading of the literature of its day rather than one experiment measuring the three under a single protocol[1]
- The thermic hierarchy runs the same way and is separately measured — protein requires 20–30% of its usable energy to be expended, carbohydrate 5–10%, fat 0–3%. The source that supplies those figures also says the energy differential is “modest, highly variable, and difficult to quantify, and hence, probably has minimal impact on weight loss and weight maintenance” — the hierarchies agreeing is not evidence that the thermic one drives the satiety one[2]
- Fat ranks least satiating of the three; that high-fat foods are therefore easy to overeat is an inference from the hierarchy, not a measured finding[1]
- The fullness does not reliably become eating less, and the paper says so. Of 24 acute feeding trials reviewed, 11 (55%) found increased fullness and only 6 (35%) reduced hunger — the authors call the positive findings “inconsistent across studies,” and greater perceived fullness did not carry through to lower subsequent intake[2]
- There is no meta-analytic evidence behind any of this. The authors state there are no systematic reviews or meta-analyses comparing normal-protein with higher-protein meals on appetite, satiety and subsequent intake[2]
- Protein’s satiety advantage holds in both lean and obese men; fat’s does not[3]
- Obese men appear less sensitive to the satiating effects of fat specifically: in the paper’s own summary, the high-fat meal ”reduced energy intake in lean but not obese subjects”, while the high-protein meal was ”most potent in reducing hunger and energy intake in both lean and obese subjects” — `cps06` is a crossover in 16 lean and 16 obese men, and no women were studied[3]