The following is a sneak-peek draft Answer to a feature Question; for the pending Manuscript entire re-write and rebranding to sufficiently complete. Live-it-forward  ~ AW.

"How do I determine satiety levels through diet?" Two possible methods.

Before proceeding it is noteworthy for us to remind what satiety is. The best way for This Author (AW) to overview is that of its parallel to “Essentiality” or in other words ~ satiety precursors essentiality. “Essentiality”, as defined in This Book despite however subjectively open for others interpretation ~ is the quality of any macronutrient’s uptake for biochemistry utilization (anabolism, catabolism, and methylation) all in the path-of-least-resistance. The bolded latter is perhaps the most important to keep in mind; as we shall recite this train of reasoning amongst fibre intakes.

There are two (2) methodologies, despite subjective in their own accuracy, but nonetheless - they represent the only objective means congruent within our scientific / philosophic theme of exclusion and reinclusions.

1. Calorie Cycling
   This is arguably the most easiest and perhaps advisable for readers new to calorie restrictions and/or simply exclusion protocols in general.
   Establish and determine a baseline experience firstly through TDEE intakes, revise, and adjust. Whatever calorie intake the reader habituate as satiate - that is where hunger responses, and/or cues are maintained indifferently one day to the next, and whatever calorie intake determines and maintains their current weight ~ with as few deviations ~ would generally be loosely accepted as a baseline experience here for us to take note.
2. Macronutrient manipulation
   This may yet be reserved only amongst readers who have already found their “baseline” experience, perhaps through a number of years in-between low carbohydrate and intermittent fasting, for this to be  effective.
   As readers may at some stage transition towards carbohydrate reduction, especially also its cyclical approache/s ~ manipulation of various macronutrients would thus become applicable. Protein in particular would be the priority to adjust as it is arguably the macronutrient most interchangeable, that even in hypocaloric plans in reasonably non-clinical interventions ~ so long as other micronutrient contingents are in place through supplementation - health deprivations would be very unlikely.

Depending on readers’ exclusion and reinclusion experience, #1 ~ calorie cycling would be the most intuitive “starting point” were This Author (AW) be asked over what he would recommend to most dieters beginners and experienced alike. However of course not knowing a reader’s absolute granularity(s) in terms of intolerances, biochemistry, current metabolism etc ~ it is only a hypothetical advice and as far as advices go, time is the only last determining factor.

If there is one macronutrient This Author (AW) would generally not identify as “the” satiety factor that is Fibre intake.

While readers are certainly remain encouraged to experiment and tinker with fibre no differently than other macronutrients, it is not by any means definitively a qualitative-enough macronutrient for it to be considered “essential” because of its impedance at how it affects every other nutrients ~ delivery and uptake that it arguably delays everything, thus adding layers of numerous complexity to scientific enquiring at controlling these confounding factors.

Isolating as much variables therefore is the goal here at determining  what is truly the “essential” amongt macronutrients Consequently we’d examine macromolecules thatwould have 1). Direct calorific value and 2). Direct sort of building (anabolic) and/or supportive features to the physiology.

Of all four macronutrients ~ Proteins, Fats and Carbohydrates qualify in our assessment, for the above regards.  Fibre, on the other hand, arguably is not elligible in our criteria, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, some argue fervently that it is a nutrient for the gut as  precursor to short chain fatty acids. But it remains enzymatically resistant, by definition, for metabolic utilisation other than adding “bulk”, mechanically speaking. Were we to examine fibre, by itself, the indigestible component that is away from its wholefood sources ~ then we should accept that one way or another ~ that it is by itself, in isolation ~ dubious in nutritional value because of how much of it is resistant by our digestive enzymes. 

Another noteworthy reason is the questionably impractical, if not hazardous experiment,  if one were to exclusively, by that we shall mean exclusively ~ attests  on fibre alone in the expense of other macronutrient. Extreme thirst, if fluid intakes are inadequate~would become likely, and thereby prompts a health hazard.

Irrespective, This Author (AW) wishes to console readers once again ~ that Fibre is by no means to be eliminated to absolute abstinence. Unless one is troubleshooting self-scientifically for FODMAP tolerance assessment  - a consensus shall hopefully be drawn here that fibre should be used judiciously, to prompt individual assessment for tolerance by witnessing effects that arise if any, post consumption.

Live it forward,

AW.