Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Which is more important: eating when hungry or stopping when full?
aniracace
Posts: 39 Member
I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
4
Replies
-
Why does it have to be one or the other??10
-
This is an interesting way to think about intuitive eating. It's hurting my brain. I'll be back.10
-
And I don't think it's that black and white.
Personally, I find it easier to avoid overeating if I eat before I get (very) hungry. A well-timed, well-chosen snack can be kind of magical, even if impromptu.
On the flip side, I've read sources that suggest stopping eating when only partly full, because fullness takes time to register.
Don't get me wrong, I know that many people are successful at intuitive eating . . . but I suspect that they're more, y'know, intuitive about it, not so much analytically think-y.
19 -
I would say it depends. If you eat when you are hungry but you are always hungry then it's not so great. If it takes a lot of food for you to be full then that may not be so great. You could also undereat with either option too. I am an intuitive eater and I would say being calorie aware and knowing how your hunger works is the best key for success.4
-
"Hungry" is a vague thing that can be influenced by a lot of things that aren't actually hunger. I can waaaaaay overeat and then feel "hungry" a couple of hours later. I also tend to feel a lot of other things (spacy, irritable, headache, etc.) before I feel true hunger.
So, I'm going to vote for stopping when full.
Having planned meal/snack times (which would not be necessarily be waiting for "hunger") and eating to slightly less than full at those times can work for me if I am in the right frame of mind.4 -
And I don't think it's that black and white.
Personally, I find it easier to avoid overeating if I eat before I get (very) hungry. A well-timed, well-chosen snack can be kind of magical, even if impromptu.
On the flip side, I've read sources that suggest stopping eating when only partly full, because fullness takes time to register.
Don't get me wrong, I know that many people are successful at intuitive eating . . . but I suspect that they're more, y'know, intuitive about it, not so much analytically think-y.
Yeah ... I love the idea of intuitive eating, but it's just a little TOO intuitive, you understand? The entire point is to move away from rigid eating structures, so trying to fit it into a neat little box isn't working so well.1 -
blueheartrisen wrote: »"Hungry" is a vague thing that can be influenced by a lot of things that aren't actually hunger. I can waaaaaay overeat and then feel "hungry" a couple of hours later. I also tend to feel a lot of other things (spacy, irritable, headache, etc.) before I feel true hunger.
So, I'm going to vote for stopping when full.
Having planned meal/snack times (which would not be necessarily be waiting for "hunger") and eating to slightly less than full at those times can work for me if I am in the right frame of mind.
That's a good point. I guess it all depends on the person. Like for myself, I can feel full off pretty much anything, so going off of hunger would make more sense for my tastes. But going off of hunger would require one to be able to recognize true hunger and not just a swing of the moment craving for a specific food (like those free doughnuts)0 -
I liked the way Eric Helms calls it "habitual eating". Like...I can't imagine intuitive eating after being overweight my whole life. I don't HAVE that. I won't get it all of a sudden. But habits, I've built them. I can imagine creating a habit, diet/calorie wise, that may allow me to maintain my weight.
My intuition is to eat all the time. I'm a tank.11 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »
Not trying to be a smart *kitten*, but I think if you have to ask how to eat intuitively, you're not going to be very successful at it.
I'm just not sure it can become a learned behavior. I might be wrong, and it may differ for individuals, but it seems to me intuitive eating got me to 330+ lbs and that seems to be a common opinion here.12 -
I have gastroparesis so if i only ate when i was hungry and stopped when i was full I'd only be getting maybe 200 calories a day.3
-
I think the question might be wrong, or irrelevant. If you need to lose weight, and this question is on your mind, you'll need another strategy for your eating. Logging and weighing food can teach you how much food is appropriate for you. If you have the discipline to eat regularly and stick to appropriate portions, you'll be able to manage your weight without counting calories. Regular weigh-ins is a good insurance.2
-
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.8 -
If this much thought has to go into it, it's not intuitive eating...11
-
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
I always think about my checkbook in these situations too. It just seems to help them make sense to me.4 -
@5738_Cassiel I read recently of a study out of Japan in which they found that even after controlling for all conceivable factors, the one thing most firmly associated with lower weight and better health was Slow Eating.
Slow Eating. Whodathunk? I hypothesize that the hormones our body produces to signal our satiety are slow, and that while they are slowly being expressed and detected we are able to continue stuffing our faces. The slow eaters manage to meet their satiety signals at the point of sufficiency.9 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
I always think about my checkbook in these situations too. It just seems to help them make sense to me.
Y'know, we're all different. I'm not in love with that analogy.
Even though I'm far (far! far!) from wealthy, I kind of do intuitive spending, and I think it works about the same way intuitive eating works in some who succeed at that. I had a budget and semi-tracked it for a few short months after first buying a house a zillion years back, to get readjusted; and sketched one out when contemplating retirement, as a reality check (but never tracked it). Other than that, I just perk along, with a decent intuition about how much I can spend. Not bankrupt yet!
Can't do it with food, though.4 -
I lost weight with intuitive eating because it became clear very quickly that measuring and logging food was not for me. For me, of the two I'd say only eating when hungry was more important.
But more specifically, not eating for the first time each day until I was really and properly hungry. Because for me, once I start eating I want to keep eating.1 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
I always think about my checkbook in these situations too. It just seems to help them make sense to me.
Y'know, we're all different. I'm not in love with that analogy.
Even though I'm far (far! far!) from wealthy, I kind of do intuitive spending, and I think it works about the same way intuitive eating works in some who succeed at that. I had a budget and semi-tracked it for a few short months after first buying a house a zillion years back, to get readjusted; and sketched one out when contemplating retirement, as a reality check (but never tracked it). Other than that, I just perk along, with a decent intuition about how much I can spend. Not bankrupt yet!
Can't do it with food, though.
I'm the same. I've had a checking about for almost 40 years and I have never balanced my checkbook. Not once.
And who uses checks nowadays anyway?
0 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
Some people can intuitively control their eating.2 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
I always think about my checkbook in these situations too. It just seems to help them make sense to me.
Y'know, we're all different. I'm not in love with that analogy.
Even though I'm far (far! far!) from wealthy, I kind of do intuitive spending, and I think it works about the same way intuitive eating works in some who succeed at that. I had a budget and semi-tracked it for a few short months after first buying a house a zillion years back, to get readjusted; and sketched one out when contemplating retirement, as a reality check (but never tracked it). Other than that, I just perk along, with a decent intuition about how much I can spend. Not bankrupt yet!
Can't do it with food, though.
This is actually why I use the financial analogy. First of all the concept of money is far more abstract than calories, which shows how skewed our perceptions are.
The difference in a checkbook is that when your spending outpaces your earnings the result is immediate. Credit complicates this and increases the risk/reward mitigators. When your caloric intake outpaces your output the results are not immediate and much like credit you can get into trouble...never really insurmountable, but it will take time - months and years to get back to square.1 -
5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
Afterthought: I agree about systems of control . . . but I think there's quite a range of potentially effective systems for almost any management need, and some are much more tightly structured than others. Measurement in some shape or form is likely to be required, but those vary, too.
In the weight loss realm, some get along well with satiation "measurements" perhaps with the fit of clothes as a backstop. Others need a bodyweight scale. Some of us do better logging calories. All "systems", all involving "measurement".1 -
ladyhusker39 wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
I always think about my checkbook in these situations too. It just seems to help them make sense to me.
Y'know, we're all different. I'm not in love with that analogy.
Even though I'm far (far! far!) from wealthy, I kind of do intuitive spending, and I think it works about the same way intuitive eating works in some who succeed at that. I had a budget and semi-tracked it for a few short months after first buying a house a zillion years back, to get readjusted; and sketched one out when contemplating retirement, as a reality check (but never tracked it). Other than that, I just perk along, with a decent intuition about how much I can spend. Not bankrupt yet!
Can't do it with food, though.
This is actually why I use the financial analogy. First of all the concept of money is far more abstract than calories, which shows how skewed our perceptions are.
The difference in a checkbook is that when your spending outpaces your earnings the result is immediate. Credit complicates this and increases the risk/reward mitigators. When your caloric intake outpaces your output the results are not immediate and much like credit you can get into trouble...never really insurmountable, but it will take time - months and years to get back to square.
I disagree pretty much with various aspects of this, if I'm understanding you accurately; but it's seriously off topic for this thread, so I'm not going down that rabbit hole. 0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
Some people can intuitively control their eating.
I lost weight with intuitive eating because it became clear very quickly that measuring and logging food was not for me. For me, of the two I'd say only eating when hungry was more important.
But more specifically, not eating for the first time each day until I was really and properly hungry. Because for me, once I start eating I want to keep eating.
This is not intuitive. You rejected one system of control and replaced it with another.6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
Some people can intuitively control their eating.
I lost weight with intuitive eating because it became clear very quickly that measuring and logging food was not for me. For me, of the two I'd say only eating when hungry was more important.
But more specifically, not eating for the first time each day until I was really and properly hungry. Because for me, once I start eating I want to keep eating.
This is not intuitive. You rejected one system of control and replaced it with another.
I don't give eating or calories conscious thought on a regular basis. How is that not intuitive?3 -
I think that it's a balance of both. You eat when hungry and stop when full. I have two kids and the older one is a grazer, but the younger one eats pretty intuitively. If you give him ice cream, he will throw it out when he's had enough. He doesn't eat just because something is available and often snacks on fruit. His brother, will eat a whole bag of chips mindlessly while watching TV and has to think about food consumption to avoid overeating. Maybe calling it intuitive eating is overbroad, because that sort of implies that everyone has an innate sense of how to eat and I don't think that's true.0
-
marissafit06 wrote: »I think that it's a balance of both. You eat when hungry and stop when full. I have two kids and the older one is a grazer, but the younger one eats pretty intuitively. If you give him ice cream, he will throw it out when he's had enough. He doesn't eat just because something is available and often snacks on fruit. His brother, will eat a whole bag of chips mindlessly while watching TV and has to think about food consumption to avoid overeating. Maybe calling it intuitive eating is overbroad, because that sort of implies that everyone has an innate sense of how to eat and I don't think that's true.
I agree with this completely. Some people just see food and eating differently. Some of it may be habits and learned behaviour, but it would be foolish to dismiss individual metabolic and hormonal differences.
One example of this is just BMR, of course activity levels influence a persons TDEE, but there is still variability in metabolic expenditure from person to person (like the skinny kid who eats three bowls of pasta every night and can't put on weight).
Another variable is ghrelin, as an example when you are overweight and lose some of it, your body up-regulates ghrelin to increase feelings of hunger. A person who has never been overweight will *generally* have less hunger signals/pangs, and therefore making it possible to eat more intuitively.
I think some people can function by focusing on eating only when really hungry and stopping when full enough (I think these things are more likely to co-exist than be mutually exclusive), but many people - and I'd wager most people here will fit this category - are better served by counting, or embedding eating routines, rather than relying on their body's signalling alone.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »5738_Cassiel wrote: »I've been contemplating using intuitive eating for a bit now; or at least lose weight without counting calories. Why am I here? Good question. Anyways moving on. Which is more important: only eating when hungry or stopping when you're full? I would think only eating when hungry because if you overeat it'll take longer for you to become hungry, ya feel?
Walk me through how intuitive spending would work. Then apply this to eating.
There is nothing intuitive about eating. If you want to manage anything you need to build a system of control around it or you will fail.
Some people can intuitively control their eating.
I lost weight with intuitive eating because it became clear very quickly that measuring and logging food was not for me. For me, of the two I'd say only eating when hungry was more important.
But more specifically, not eating for the first time each day until I was really and properly hungry. Because for me, once I start eating I want to keep eating.
This is not intuitive. You rejected one system of control and replaced it with another.
I don't give eating or calories conscious thought on a regular basis. How is that not intuitive?
Not making a statement about what you do, but I think there's a difference between habit-based eating and intuitive eating, and yet in neither case would you necessarily give calories a thought.
I mostly do what I'd call mindful or rules based eating, but "habit based" is probably as good a description as any. When I've been doing it consistently for a while I rarely think about it beyond what I think anyone does (what do I want to eat), because HOW I eat is a habit. For me, that's about just eating breakfast, lunch, dinner, not snacking, being sensible when I go out to eat (most of the time), knowing what portions are going to be what I want (which is usually based on how I usually eat). I tend to be hungry at times I'm used to eating.
If I started trying to think about whether I'm hungry and whether I'm full I'd be thinking about it much more. Eating when I normally eat (or around then if I happen to be too busy, and it's not like I never vary, I often have brunch instead of breakfast and lunch on weekends), and in amounts I normally eat, and according to patterns I like (protein and veg at most meals, that kind of thing, which fits with what I've long understood to be a proper meal so seems most satisfying to me anyway) seems to me easier than overanalyzing (for me) what I really, really want or whatever, and I end up not being hungry.1 -
We all have a different notion of what 'full' means though. For some people, it means not being able to eat another bite, for others it means not being hungry anymore... and yes, it can take a while for your brain to catch up too.
For what it's worth, the whole 'intuitive eating' thing is not going to work for anyone who HAS to look into it as a way of losing weight, because if they have to look into it in the first place, their intuition is off when it comes to being hungry/full in the first place.1 -
For what it's worth, the whole 'intuitive eating' thing is not going to work for anyone who HAS to look into it as a way of losing weight, because if they have to look into it in the first place, their intuition is off when it comes to being hungry/full in the first place.
Not sure I agree with this. Just because you choose to ignore your intuition doesn't mean you don't have it.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions