I'd say satiating meals is a better goal than interesting meals. If you're completely satiated by reasonable portions then your energy levels will be solid and you'll lose/maintain weight without needing to think about calories at all.
We all have different goals, but interesting meals are certainly near the top of my priority list, especially since I eat with my family and meal times are more than just a way to fill a hole.
For most people, I imagine a decent-sized subset of appealing meals can be very satiating at the same time.
p.s. wtvanhest: Not sure what you have against blue cheese. Hopefully not "dietary fat makes you fat because it's calorie dense" because that would again be anomalous 80s thinking that ignores satiety effects and runs with a 1-dimensional model for something as complex as nutrition and aggregate consumption behaviour.
Calorie dense food "hiding" in salad needs small amount of caution.
So long as you're aware of what you're eating it's fine.
If you can't understand why you're still 17 stone you might want to look at whether you're having a blue cheese dressing on a salad but counting that snack as 0 calories, which is something a surprising number of people do. They have their 3 meals, which come to something like 2,000 kCal per day, but they don't count all the other snacks they eat.
Satiety is important, but it's still calories in vs calories out.
Yeah, and that's exactly why "calorie excess" is nowhere near the conversation ender it's so often used as. At best it's a conversation starter to use on those dummies to which it is not self-evident. The thorny part of overconsumption is WHY one is compelled to do so, not simply that one does.
I agree. I for one get a lot of joy and happiness out a great meal. It seems a lot of people in this thread are taking a very utilitarian approach to food, but for a lot of us, food is more than fuel. It's an experience to be enjoyed.
