How can pork become less filling?

July 21, 2010 2:45 PM

Please could someone explain to me why, of two meals composed of exactly the same ingredients, one would be far more filling than the other?

So the ingredients in question are minced pork, spices, veg (peas, diced carrots, peppers, onions and tomatoes), and rice. Meal one is chilli con carne (pork and veg simmered for around an hour) with rice, meal two is the pork mince shaped onto a skewer and grilled, with the veg mixed in with the rice.

Meal one is a lot more filling than meal two, why is this?

posted by ellieBOA to Food & Drink (22 answers total)

Best answer: Higher fat content in meal one?
posted by gene_machine at 2:51 PM on July 21, 2010

Best answer: Could it be the spices in the first one? Or were there spices in the second one? Otherwise, I would say it's the method of cooking, where one doesn't lose it's water in grilling?
posted by anniecat at 2:51 PM on July 21, 2010

Best answer: Assuming identical portion sizes, I would guess one has more water content.
posted by axismundi at 2:52 PM on July 21, 2010

Best answer: The liquid in the chili is my guess. You could weight the two dishes and see if one is actually larger than the other.
posted by anti social order at 2:52 PM on July 21, 2010

Response by poster: Spices in both, gene machine, does sauteing meat cause it to be higher in fat than grilling?
posted by ellieBOA at 2:52 PM on July 21, 2010

Best answer: The vegetables (and to a lesser extent, the pork) may absorb quite a bit of water during the simmering stage of meal one that they wouldn't pick up if cooked on a grill.
posted by Uncle Ira at 2:52 PM on July 21, 2010

To clarify, meal two contains grilled meat, which removes a lot of the fat. I don't know if fat content has any bearing on how filling a meal is, it just seems that this is one of the few things that has changed.
posted by gene_machine at 2:53 PM on July 21, 2010

Best answer: I'm guessing the higher water content in the chili.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 2:53 PM on July 21, 2010

Best answer: Primarily would be the additional liquid in meal one, given all else is equal. There is a reason dieters are told to drink a glass of water before eating, it is filling.
posted by batikrose at 2:54 PM on July 21, 2010

Response by poster: Speedy and informative! So the secret to more filling meals is ensuring they retain any water, thanks everyone.
posted by ellieBOA at 2:56 PM on July 21, 2010

Are you weighing your portions? Could it be that you are eating more of one than the other?
posted by Wolfie at 2:56 PM on July 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

I also find hot meals more filling than warm or room-temperature meals, and liquid tends to retain heat better than individual food-objects do.
posted by dreamyshade at 3:03 PM on July 21, 2010

In addition, psychology's probably got a part to play in this too. Do you prefer one dish to the other, is one more reminiscent of what you ate as a child, is recipe by celebrity chef X? etc.
posted by fontophilic at 3:08 PM on July 21, 2010

I've read about experiments where they literally do this - serve the same food dry in a bowl with a cup of water on the side and as "soup" with a cup of water added (no water on the side). People feel fuller after the soup than after the solid food and water, even though it's exactly the same stuff, even down to the water content. Soup is psychologically filling!

Can't find the original cite, sadly, but here's a reference to it. When I saw the short version of your question on the main page I thought, "because one is soup!" even before I clicked through.
posted by mskyle at 3:44 PM on July 21, 2010 [4 favorites]

Best answer: Water is more filling for a short time, but fat -- such as the fat added by sautéeing (you use oil/fat to keep things from sticking and as part of the cooking process), or lost by grilling (it drips) -- definitely makes things more filling, for a longer time. Fat also adds calories, so it's more filling in that sense, too.
posted by amtho at 4:13 PM on July 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Best answer: It's the fat.
posted by notned at 4:32 PM on July 21, 2010

Best answer: I agree that higher water content will have an effect, but the greater greasiness of the chili is, in my experience, even more important. Lots of energy there that makes you feel sated when you eat it, and keeps you going for a long time. When you grill the meat, that grease drips away. What a waste!
posted by bricoleur at 5:40 PM on July 21, 2010

In other words, what amtho and notned said. I came back to this thread too late...
posted by bricoleur at 5:42 PM on July 21, 2010

I am not at all sure this applies, but I just skimmed this post today, and am wondering - could it be the thermic effect?
posted by peagood at 5:50 PM on July 21, 2010

I think you would have to weigh the contents of both meals in order to get a scientific answer, to make sure there really is the same amount of everything in both meals. Meat on a skewer - there may just not be as much meat there as there is in the simmered version.
posted by ErikaB at 6:35 PM on July 21, 2010

Response by poster: The portions would have been near enough exactly the same, the amount of food I had was too big just for one meal, so I divided it in half raw.

Fontophilic, I don't have a particular preference between the two dishes, both came from cookery books and were recipes I'd never tried before.

Dreamyshade, both were piping hot when served.

I'll view the answer as a the water for short term satiety, and the higher fat content long term. Thanks everyone!
posted by ellieBOA at 1:06 AM on July 22, 2010

Also the speed with which you eat it. Chilli can be quite filling because it's just too damn hot (temperature and chili-wise) to eat quickly.
posted by kjs4 at 6:52 PM on July 22, 2010