[cat-dev-null]

There is a greater need for lower calorie (or slightly higher protein), non-compromise, taste-equivalent or better replacements across most food products. If people can't stop eating, lower caloric density seems like the best way to reduce overall caloric intake.

PS: I need to lose 20 lbs myself

[Jach]

On the low caloric density front, diet soda is great if you can't get yourself to kick soda entirely. I can easily drink multiple cans of soda per day if I have some on hand, the simple rule that they have to be diet cuts out at least 500 calories.

On the other side, high caloric density diets (that is, high fat, adequate protein, very low carb diets like the keto diet (r/keto is alright for basic info and motivation)) work pretty well too. I can consume a lot of calories via sugar, and even via complex carbs, but it's much harder for me to consume the same amount if most of those calories are coming from fat. I don't have a strong will when it comes to reducing the amount I eat of something delicious, so I make up for it by restricting what I have available and ready to eat.

[fpgaminer]

Calorie density (calorie/volume) is a useful metric, but as you've discovered it's important to also consider satiation/calorie which sometimes is not proportional to calorie density, as well as calorie/serving which also often differs from calorie density.

Not only are fats satiating, but they satiate quickly and for a long time. When they hit your intestines they immediately signal your body that it is full. This is because fats are calorie dense and are the longest burning category of calorie, so the body benefited from an early warning system to keep its satiation estimate accurate. And, to be honest, while fat itself is obviously the most calorie dense (what was it, like 6 or 8 per g, compared to 4 for protein and sugar?), fatty foods often are not dense in terms of calorie/service. Bacon, for example, while often perceived as a fatty, terrible food, is really low on the calorie/serving metric and the fats boost its satiation metric very high.

There are also some subtleties to satiation/calorie. There's the biological satiation; your body telling your brain that you've consumed enough calories. And then there's mental satiation; your mind being happy with what you just ate. And biological satiation is sometimes inaccurate to the extent that it's really a dual purposed signal. It signals "you're full", but it's interpreted as both "I'm full" and "I have enough calories". Fat is ideal in that it triggers "I'm full" while also providing the calories to back it up. Vegetables will fill you up, but they don't have any energy to back them up, so they can be problematic. They work best as a way to tune the density of a meal. And, of course, they provide much needed fiber, vitamins, and minerals, but I was focusing mostly on the weight-gain aspect of foods.

Just a little food for thought to perhaps enhance the way you quantify various diets.