I'm not sure where this data will fit in with your taste preferences, but I have been taking this advice to heart lately and it has been working well for me. In particular, I have started eating more peanut butter and nuts, as well as beans and rice. At first it was a little tough, but after adjusting, I find that supplementing in between meals with lower glycemic index snacks, especially peanut butter, causes me to feel less hungry at meal times and less desiring of snacks. I've even felt less hungry from simply adding a packet of zero-calorie sweetener, such as Truvia, to a cup of tea in the afternoon (the reason for this sugar signal is explained in the link above).
I should also mention I am a vegetarian, so I don't know how meat affects this diet. I eat a lot of Indian food because it enables me to add tastes to rice that I enjoy, and thereby I consume more subjective taste experience for fewer calories. I'm still experimenting and learning, but perhaps there's something in there that can benefit you too.
I typically only snack when I've stayed up late enough that I should be eating a fourth meal, and I am infrequently hungry (the main exception to this is when I try and eat some sweet potato in between meals). When I get hungry, it's typically because I like what I'm doing too much to stop it so I can eat, and when I eat I tend to eat to fullness (and sometimes a bit beyond).
I should probably also mention that fat reduction is not a high priority for me. My BMI suggests my body fat percentage is around 15%, and the only real reason I have to push it lower is because at below 10% abs start to really pop out (and I find that rather hot).
So, I know a number of friends on Paleo who recommend it. I recently read through a lot of bulletproofexec, who recommends his own variant of paleo. I care about my health, and so I need to resolve my diet and their advice somehow. Summarized data points:
I find the logic behind paleo questionable. Yes, hunter-gatherers are adapted to a different diet, but fire was first used to cook food 2 million years ago, and appears widespread by 100 kiloyears (ky) ago, with noticeable adaptations in humans (from smaller teeth to resistance to air pollution). Lactose tolerance demonstrates the ability of human biology to adapt to new diets. Civilization dramatically speeds up evolution- it probably took about 25ky for European hunter-gatherers (and later farmers) to go from a mean IQ of 85 to 100, and about 1ky for urban European Jews to go from a mean IQ of 100 to 115. Am I really supposed to believe that there aren't genes floating around that wheat (domesticated 10ky ago) is good for?
My interpretation of this data is that my current diet works well for me, and paleo is unlikely to work better. I am willing to experiment, though- if I will actually live better on a different diet, there is little holding me back besides a lack of information. My values, in descending order of importance, are: brain function, overall health, appearance, mood, and cost. (Note that those are weights- something can improve brain function but be so costly in dollars, prep time, and terrible taste that I'm not interested.)
So my question for you is: Should I try paleo (more likely, the bulletproof diet)? If I do, what data should I collect? Better yet, what data can I collect now to determine if I have any nutritional deficiencies?