Do you need to feel hungry to lose weight?
Options
Replies
-
It has helped me to think of hunger not as an on/off kind of thing, but rather a range. I got to my heaviest weight because I was often glutonous- I ate many meals until I was Thanksgiving-day stuffed. That was my bar for hunger for far too long. Learning and adjusting to what real hunger is has helped. I don't let myself get to a 10. I don't stuff myself to a zero. If I'm only a 2, I tell myself I don't need that snack or meal yet. So are there times I think to myself that I could eat? Yes. But I don't call that hunger any longer. I'm down more than 65 lbs now and getting closer to my goal shape every day.0
-
I can't say I was hungry while I lost...
I get hungry typically right before meals...for example today I started getting hungry at 11:40...I eat lunch at noon...
I never eat until I "full" now...I always eat until I am satisfied...
but there is a difference between actual hunger and appetite.
If you go long enough on too low of a calorie intake for your body it does weird things...like shut off the hormones that signal hunger...
OP you should probably change your goals and eat more food...there is no reason to suffer through weight loss...no need to punish yourself.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?
No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.0 -
The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?
No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.
If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine. Hell I'd give you my doctor's number if I thought he could get through to you at all.
0 -
Nope. I'm on 1200 too. You've got to exercise more than the 10k steps. Look at my diary if you want to see how I manage it. Usual days I have breakfast, dinner and tea with a 11am snack and maybe something in the evening. Never hungry. Losing steadily. Mid february I was 11stone 2lb. Now I'm 9stone 12lb. It works without hunger.0
-
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?
No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.
If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.
did you miss that part of my post.
you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...
as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.
I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...
0 -
Define VLCD, then.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?
No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.
If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.
did you miss that part of my post.
you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...
as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.
I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...
I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.
The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.
ETA:
335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.0 -
Definitely not.
I used to think I had to be miserable and eat nothing but salads to lose weight. Turns out neither are true.0 -
so you just choose to make weight loss difficult for yourself then?
1. Change your goals to lose 1 pound / week or 1.5 pounds / week. Instantly more calories per day for you.
Its a lifestyle change. NOt a quick fad diet where the second you're done, you start eating like you used to before and gain it all back again. If you can't sustain at those calories without complaining that you're feeling hungry or unhappy with it. Then Go slower, and lose the weight over a longer period of time. You could do it as little at 0.5-0.75lbs/week, and while it would take way longer. You wouldn't even think you were dieting / cutting out foods or whatever ,because your calorie limit should still be high enough allowing you to eat a good bit.
3. Eat filling food. Not calorie dense food. There is a difference. Replace some (or all if you're willing) of your cereals, breads, potatoes, etc etc with more lean meat or with vegetables. 200grams of potato for example, is probably over 160-170+ calories. 200 grams of carrots, are under 80 calories. (jarred baby carrots are like 30-40 calories for the 200grams, for example). Or another example would be an extra 120-140grams of chicken breast, which would be around 160-170 calories. And obviously, chicken is more satiating than potato so you'll feel full longer.
3. stop being LAZY. Exercise more. Its not needed for weight loss. Not in the slightest .But if you want to eat more, than exercise more to be able to eat more calories each day. I work with some people, who like me - are on their feet for 9 hours of the day - Yet when they go home, they become even more active than that. One person goes swimming 5 days / week, running a few days a week, HIIT once or twice, and cycling a few times too. Why? Not to lose weight or be fit or anything. She LOVES eating. She eats massive amoutns of junk food and cake and sweets or similar things every day, yet she is extremely fit and athletic looking. Because she 'earns' so many calories from exercising. For no reason other than so she can stuff her face without gaining weight.
4. Carbs, Protein, Fat. Fat is not body fat. You could eat 100grams of fat every day, and not gain a single ounce of body fat, if you were still under your calorie goals. Fat is the most filling of the 3 macronutrients. Then comes Protein. And carbs are the least filling (both at the meal, and for how long they keep you full after a meal too).
(I'm not a no carb or keto person or whatever else. Carbs are not bad. Not in the slightest. But if you want to stay full for longer, Protein and Fat are the way to go regarding food)
5. Don't drink your calories. Drink your Coffee and/or Tea black. Or if you don't like them that way, switch to diet / no calorie drinks. You could drink litres of coffee, tea, sodas, etc, and not feel any bit satiated. They waste calories - which when maintaining or bulking, is fine, spending a few hundred calories on drinks is fine since you'll most likely have plenty to spare. But if you want to lose weight without feeling hungry, then don't drink your calories.
6. Drink more water. Thirst regularly feels the same as hunger. Fill up your belly with water regularly throughout the day. If it was thirst, then the hunger feeling is gone. If it wasn't thirst, then your stomach being full of water might curb some of the hunger for a short period.
some examples of what I had that're filling yet low calorie.
A breakfast I had one day last week:
3 Large eggs, scrambled. - about 210 calories
200g blueberries - about 120 calories
alot of milk and cheese and butter, mixed in with the scrambled eggs, clocking up around 50-70 calories.
under 400 calories. I had eggs and blueberries (ate them separately of course) because I love them. Not because i'm not allowing myself to eat anything else for breakfast.
Lunch today.
2 sandwhiches, filled with lots of thick chicken breast slices, with nice amounts of low cal mayo, and bbq sauce.
382 calories.
A dinner I had last week.
thick big piece of Fillet steak.
Alot of carrots and parsnip mashed together.
a couple of baby potatoes.
Gravy.
443 calories.
I don't even feel hungry by the end of my 3 meals. And most of the time its only 1200-1400 calories used. When I have just under 1700 calories / day. And just to use them up, I eat junk food then, chocolate and whatever, each day. Yet still am losing almost 2 pounds / week.
Weight loss can be difficult and horrible. Or it can be easy and enjoyable. Its whichever way you make it.
I'm 140 pounds now, yet still at 1700 calories / day. And am only 2 pounds from my target. Yet plan on continuing to lose weight at the same right till the end of june. Which before then, I should have a six pack. But it doesn't feel like losing weight to me. I'm still eating chocolate or some type of junk food everyday, and ice cream once or twice a week. Learn to eat satisfying/satiating foods, or foods with low calorie content (like vegetables during dinner), and you can stuff yourself with way more than if you were to eat potatoes or high fat meat or whatever else.0 -
Just an add-on to my long post:
If you were to either lower your weight loss to 1-1.5lbs/week, or increase your exercise. So that you could eat 1500 calories / day. You could still do 3x 400 calorie meals. But also have 3x 100 calorie snacks between them too.
A slice of toast, with low fat cheese melted on top. could be 100 calories. (could replace the cheese, with a thin layer of peanut butter on the toast - mmmm delicious)
An extra large egg, scrambled (or done any other way you prefer), with a bunch of milk and butter to make it fluffy and creamy, could be under 100 calories.
around 160grams of blueberries (which is a good amount), would be around 100 calories. Or grapes, or strawberries. A decent sized banana is 110 calories I think.
Those are all pretty filling snacks, and still clocking in at 100 calories, give or take.
Yet you could eat a snack sized mars bar (one of those miniature/tiny ones that you swallow in half a bite, and would take like 4-6 of them to satisfy a hunger), and that tiny thing would be like 100 calories.
So your entire problem, could probably be fixed by having 1500 calorie limit. and incorporating 3 filling snacks between your meals each day.0 -
Are you drinking enough water? Sometimes thirst feels like hunger.0
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
Hunger is suffering? I think not. Starvation is suffering, but hunger is just part of life.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
Define VLCD, then.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?
No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.
If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.
did you miss that part of my post.
you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...
as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.
I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...
I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.
The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.
ETA:
335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.
VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..
TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...
Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....
I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.
With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...
But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...
and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.0 -
crescentgaia wrote: »Are you drinking enough water? Sometimes thirst feels like hunger.
This can totally be a thing, keep water nearby and sip frequently. But don't overdo it, you can actually get sick from too much water. (though it does take quite a bit)0 -
Ladybird1103 wrote: »Does weight loss have to be uncomfortable? In my experience so far the answer is YES. I am losing 2 pounds a week consistently eating 1200 -1400 calories a day (5'3" female with 50 pounds to lose) and I don't "workout" - but have been getting at least 10,000 steps a day with my fitbit.
The problem is, I am hungry very often. Some days I feel like I'm hungry all of the time, some days its easier. I discuss this with my friend who is also losing weight, and the only conclusion I reach is that you have to suffer a bit to get the weight off. When I feel hungry, I assume my body is going into its stored fat (and carbs and muscle yes) and using that for fuel. I don't have room for any snacks between meals if I want to stay in my calorie goal range. If I were to eat whenever I'm hungry, I don't think I would still lose weight. So do any of you actually lose weight without that nagging hungry feeling as your companion?
2 lbs. per week is a very aggressive weight loss rate. If you're not lifting, then yes, I can see why you're hungry (good for you for walking though!)
Thing to keep is mind is the calorie deficit for the rate of weight loss you're after, whether it's 1 lb. per week. 1.5 lbs. per week, or 2 lbs. per week. At 1 lb. per week, you need a deficit of 500 calories per day, for a 3500 calorie deficit for the week. A 500-calorie per-day deficit is reasonable and won't leave a person very hungry (except maybe just before anticipated meal times). To offset such a deficit, if you're exercising heavily, you can exercise and eat back some calories and still maintain that 500-calorie deficit.
Now, if you're losing 2 lbs. per week, you're doubling that calorie deficit. You're eating 7,000 calories less, per week, and 1,000 calories less per day, than you need for maintenance. So of course you're going to be hungry!
Personally, I don't like being hungry. It leads to spikes in blood sugar and it causes me to make questionable food decisions. So I eat for a 1 lb. per week deficit. A 7,000 calorie deficit is just too much for me, and not worth the effort involved.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
interesting. larger deficit to a smaller deficit.
0 -
If VLCD depends on a few things, on what basis do you assert that I was on a VLCD?DeguelloTex wrote: »
Define VLCD, then.DeguelloTex wrote: »
The fact that I am eating more now and am more hungry certainly plays into it. That a lot of people on this thread alone have said they've been been hungry at more moderate deficits is also a factor.DeguelloTex wrote: »
I wouldn't call it suffering, but I'd rather have twice the hunger pangs for half the time, than have them for twice as long.cwolfman13 wrote: »i rarely had hunger pangs when I was losing weight. why do people think they have to suffer just to lose weight?
What makes you think if you ate more food you would have been hungry?
No one can convince you that how you lost weight was probably not the best idea...so be it...but it wasn't.
According to you, I should still have 40+ pounds to lose rather than than working on maintenance with a bulk to follow shortly. No thanks. I've lost almost everything I want to lose in about a year, rather than the two years you think is the best idea. Again, no thanks.
If you don't think you can convince me, stop trying. You have zero (0) evidence that what I've done is problematic, while I have plenty of evidence that it worked just fine.
did you miss that part of my post.
you have at and bulk up and rebuild all the muscle you lost...but if you think I am gonna let people post about vlcd being great you are wrong...
as for evidence the amount of muscle you lost is enough for me...might not be for you but again have at but let me say it again so it doesn't get missed.
I will not let people post about how VLCD are great and not disagree. If I convince a new user that a reasonable deficit is the way to go, I am happy...
I was going to lose muscle, regardless. You know that, so don't be disingenuous. We had this conversation before and you said anything worse than 72/25 fat/muscle loss was unacceptable and when I told you I was far above that, you moved the goalposts.
The PA at my doctor's office thought my records were wrong where they said 335 the last time I was in and 230 this time. My doctor said he'd put me on a poster if he could. He said it was a fantastic job with amazing results. You, who've never even seen me, disagree. It's not a hard choice as to which one has the facts and which one doesn't. I'm going with my opinion, my family's opinion, the PA's opinion, and my doctor's opinion. You're welcome to your opinion, no matter how baseless it is.
ETA:
335 pounds @ 40% BF to 226 pounds @ 16% BF means I lost 98 pounds of fat and 11 pounds of muscle, an 88.5:11.5 ratio. I can sure as heck live with that, even if the BF numbers are estimates.
VLCD depends on a few things...for me anyway..
TDEE for example..if you have a TDEE of 4500 1500 is too low. TDEE of 2k 1k is too low...
Yes we all lose muscle when we lose weight that is fact. I have lost muscle...but I fought to preserve it by losing slowly, getting in at least 120 grams of protein and lifting....
I still say 72/25 ratio is too high...ideally you don't have to lose any muscle...but if done correctly it will be minimal....and I don't remember moving the goal posts I remember saying what I just did...if you can find where I did I will apologize for moving them as I am sure that wasn't my intent.
With the BF% being estimates you have no idea what your ratio is...esp 16% BF...
But again...if you are happy have at...but I will always disagree that losing weight as fast as possible due to steep deficit is the way to go...
and to add to that I will quit derailing this thread with this discussion with you...or any other thread.
And, yeah, I have some idea what my ratio is. Maybe it's 15% or 17% but it's substantially sub-20%.
Even accepting your assertion from the other thread that 90/10 muscle/fat is the goal, I lost less than a pound and a half more than your ideal in exchange for getting done in a year instead of two years. I'll take that 1.4 pound "penalty" every time if it means I get done a year early.
ETA: "for me a large portion {of weight loss from not from muscle] would be anything over 25%..."
SezxyStef, 4/22/2015 - http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10143634/eating-exercise-calories-or-setting-realistic-calorie-intake/0 -
My hunger fluctuates but for the most part I’m not usually hungry throughout the day unless it’s when I’m usually about to eat (i.e. dinner time) I break up my calories so I can eat small things through the day since I’m a big “grazer” and I’m trying to be smarter about that. If you’re absolutely starving then something is off with your diet. You shouldn’t feel like you’re starving yourself. You won’t get healthy results and you might fall off the wagon and give up. Who wants to feel hungry constantly?0
-
I'm not a big fan of extending this weight loss activity for as long as possible. I've been messing with this stuff for seven months and I'm ready to move on to the next thing. If I still had another seven months to go, I'd probably just give up.
0 -
Ladybird1103 wrote: »So do any of you actually lose weight without that nagging hungry feeling as your companion?
I set my goal to lose 1 lb a week and have not experienced being hungry all the time. I get hungry at my normal meal times, eat to my calorie goal and I am fine. I have lost 23 lbs so far.
I am willing to accept that it will take another year before I am at my goal. Slower weight loss doesn't bother me. It is fairly steady and comfortable progress.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 941 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions