I've never understood the "not full eating carbs" thing. This isn't the first time I've heard it either.

Myself ... I get full eating food. Carbs, protein, whatever it is. If I eat a lot of it, I'm full.

I guess what I find interesting and the point of my response is that there is clearly a difference from person to person in how their body produces the "full" feeling. Somehow in your case, a belly full of carbs, blocks (or inhibits) that full signal from firing?

This may be related to ones number of copies of the amylase-coding genes.

Put a saltine in your mouth and start chewing it, without swallowing. Note the amount of time required until it starts to taste sweet.

Anecdotally, I never taste sweetness from this test. And I do not feel satiated by high-carb foods. I could eat spaghetti until I'm basically the gluttony murder victim from "Seven". The satiety signal from carbs is almost completely absent. The feeling of fullness only comes from the physical stretching of the stomach, or from other macronutrients.

That's why low-carb diets work better for me. I eat less when only eating foods that make me feel as though I have eaten at all.

That's an interesting theory. I'm curious though -

If you are low in the amylase enzyme then I would actually expect carbohydrates to NOT cause weight gain. Doesn't that enzyme break down complex carbs into consumable (usable) simple sugars?

Both the salivary glands and pancreas produce amylase, but in different isoforms. Salivary amylase is ptyalin, coded by the AMY1 gene. Pancreatic amylase is coded by AMY2. Humans have multiple copies of these genes, and more copies means more amylase is produced. Someone with 4 copies of AMY1 can still digest starch, but someone with 16 copies of AMY1 might have most of their eaten starches reduced to oligosaccharides long before their ptyalin is inactivated in the stomach. More copies of AMY1 is directly correlated to historic populations with higher starch consumption.

Gut biota will also make their own amylases.

An amylase blocker causes carbohydrate malabsorption, and that is about the same as a lactose-intolerant person consuming lactose. The starches end up getting fermented in the intestine. The gut biota will consume most of them, but I suppose it is possible they might drop some on the floor for the intestine to absorb.

My hypothesis is that the slower rate of digestion of starch produces a lesser effect on perceived satiety.

Here's the rub: it's much easier to overeat with carbs and sugar than with protein, fiber and fat. A lot of people wouldn't blink at 80g of carbs from fries or desert but eating four apples in one sitting is much more difficult.

Honestly, hunger and satiety have a surprisingly large physiological component so is I think its some sort of psychosomatic thing based on current trends.

Me? I get full on food, including carbs.

Sometimes on a weekend day for a treat I go to a cafe in the morning. When I'm there I eat a donut and a bagel and that will be the only thing I eat in the whole day, I feel full after eating it and I am plenty satiated for the rest of the day even though "broscience" tells me I should be starving again a half hour later.

But do you get that feeling faster eating a steak than bread or cookies, in terms of total calories consumed?

i myself get that feeling of being full faster from eating carbs. a glass of soda can effectively kill my appetite before a meal

Not just "carbs", but refined carbs & sugar.

If I binge on bananas, fruit, and veggies etc I feel stuffed too. In fact to the point where I lost ~30 lbs in 40 days because I couldn't eat enough calories. The "potato hack" leverages a similar property with starch.

Fiber & fat both make you feel very satiated.

What is the "potato hack"?

Boil white potatoes, then refrigerate them, to cause retrogradation of the starch?

This causes the starch to become more resistant to digestion and lowers the glycemic index of the food. Potatoes are already pretty good for satiety, and retrogradated potatoes are filling and slower to digest.

resistant starch

People might be different, I feel the actual opposite of this. I can easily eat a steak and feel craving for more. A mixed plate that is 1/3 meat and 2/3 carbs satiates me much more completely. I'm often amazed at just how much I can eat when all I'm eating is meat.

It also makes sense that a diet that generates ketosis so that you lose weight quickly (e.g. protein-heavy/carb-light) would be accompanied by feelings of hunger.

On average, people in the US have a high-protein diet relative to the rest of the world.

There is a lot of evidence that periods of food scarcity in childhood have a profound impact on our body chemistry and the way our body feels hungry or metabolizes food.

> On average, people in the US have a high-protein diet relative to the rest of the world.

A problem with this statement is that you're assuming the average is applicable in a uniformly distributed manner. People who are obese (or morbidly obese) and in the lower income quartile could consume little to no protein, and still you could have a higher protein content in Americans' diets. On average.

Assuming the opposite doesn't get us any closer to finding the truth.

Agreed. Carbs and by extension calories are one part of a diet. Protein is another big one.

Apparently half of America is deficient in one or more micronutrients (ie vitamins, minerals, etc) as well. It’s shocking.

Every body is different and we react to different foods in different ways. The only mistake we can make it assuming other people's bodies work like our own. There is tremendous variation.

N=2, agreed.

After even a medium-sized protein shake I don't even want to look at food, but if I skip the protein and mainly build it with fruits and such then I'm hungry much sooner all the while consuming the same (or more) volume of stuff.

Maybe it’s the fat in the meat https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_poisoning