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?
Replies
-
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 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Doing something without conscious thought is the definition of intuitive.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Doing something without conscious thought is the definition of intuitive.
I think it's different -- habit is learned, not innate. Intuition refers to "pure, untaught knowledge."
IME, people who talk about intuition seem to think (more often than not) that people who focus on things like schedules or habits or whether an amount seems reasonable, and not just "am I hungry" or "do I want that" are doing something else. The idea is that in some impossible natural, unspoiled state, humans would never overeat, and if we can get in touch with that we would not, or something like that.
I see that as not actually how humans work, and I believe in habits and schedules and so on as good ways to avoid overeating, at least for me.
If others find intuitive eating works or want to use it for something more similar to what I do, great. My point is just that there are other ways to avoid having to think about calories/dieting much without it being based solely on "intuition."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
Doing something without conscious thought is the definition of intuitive.
I think it's different -- habit is learned, not innate. Intuition refers to "pure, untaught knowledge."
IME, people who talk about intuition seem to think (more often than not) that people who focus on things like schedules or habits or whether an amount seems reasonable, and not just "am I hungry" or "do I want that" are doing something else. The idea is that in some impossible natural, unspoiled state, humans would never overeat, and if we can get in touch with that we would not, or something like that.
I see that as not actually how humans work, and I believe in habits and schedules and so on as good ways to avoid overeating, at least for me.
If others find intuitive eating works or want to use it for something more similar to what I do, great. My point is just that there are other ways to avoid having to think about calories/dieting much without it being based solely on "intuition."
I would agree with some of that, but that doesn't change the meaning of the word. What people "seem to think" is irrelevant.0 -
I think it's actually the question of whether it's learned or not. Habit is learned, intuition means from something in you, not learned.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's actually the question of whether it's learned or not. Habit is learned, intuition means from something in you, not learned.
Does it? Intuition means following your gut. Doing what you believe to be correct without giving it a lot of conscious thought. Learning develops intuition.
I think this is a good explanation.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-intuition-and-instinct
“Intuition is when your mind takes in massive amounts of information, and processes it so thoroughly, and quickly, that you are unaware of the process, but are left with the answer.”
In other words, intuition is not some mystical bolt blasted into your brain from the ether. You actually HAVE thought things through, you just did it so quickly and so well that you miss the conscious process of it. So you should trust your intuition because it’s not a cheat, and it’s not illogical. Your mind actually has done the work.4 -
I think calories and budgets work as an analogy extremely well.
And interestingly I have a friend who built his business off intuitive eating. It bothers me tremendously that he "specializes" in women's work. i.e. he takes no male clients as far as I know. I know this person from my gym before he moved. I find it fascinating and slightly creepy- but people say his work helps.
Regardless- you CAN manage your weight "intuitively" many people do- I find those people tend to be outdoor- active- have hobbies type people. It works for some people- not for others.
I like numbers- and it helps me. So I use calories.2 -
Stopping before you're full is how to maintain/lose weight IMO0
-
I tried this approach, it was great for maintaining my weight but I was trying to lose it.0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's actually the question of whether it's learned or not. Habit is learned, intuition means from something in you, not learned.
Does it? Intuition means following your gut. Doing what you believe to be correct without giving it a lot of conscious thought. Learning develops intuition.
I think this is a good explanation.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-intuition-and-instinct
“Intuition is when your mind takes in massive amounts of information, and processes it so thoroughly, and quickly, that you are unaware of the process, but are left with the answer.”
In other words, intuition is not some mystical bolt blasted into your brain from the ether. You actually HAVE thought things through, you just did it so quickly and so well that you miss the conscious process of it. So you should trust your intuition because it’s not a cheat, and it’s not illogical. Your mind actually has done the work.
I see the difference between intuition and habit as intuition means it's all innate (not something mystical and not instinct, but still innate). Habit is learned, but learned to the point that it's ingrained, and you don't think about it. When riding a bike or driving a car you may rely on habitual actions, not have to think about them (thinking may be a problem even, as if you overthink how to do a familiar action), but it's NOT innate, it's learned.
The whole POINT behind intuitive eating is that humans will just naturally eat sensibly and healthfully and not too much unless they are somehow messed up, so we need to get back to this state of following out feelings. Focusing on habit is thus, IMO, quite different.
Maybe for you it's intuition, not habit, that's great, whatever, not saying it can't be, and it's clear you really like the term intuitive eating for what you do. But I think habitual eating fits my approach better since in my view humans largely do adopt customary eating habits (ideas about when to eat and what to eat) that are learned and become habit, and they tend to (in most societies) structure how we eat. That I find this a much easier way to structure my own eating is not, IMO, because I am messed up and not eating like I'm in some state of nature (that doesn't exist). And part of getting to this point was not simply deciding to analyze whether I am hungry or full, it was by deciding that I would eat at certain times only and reasonable amounts and finding, hmm, I'm not hungry, and am totally fine not eating more or more often. (Which I expected, since at other times of my life I'd eaten 2-3x per day and been happy with it.)1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I see the difference between intuition and habit as intuition means it's all innate (not something mystical and not instinct, but still innate). Habit is learned, but learned to the point that it's ingrained, and you don't think about it. When riding a bike or driving a car you may rely on habitual actions, not have to think about them (thinking may be a problem even, as if you overthink how to do a familiar action), but it's NOT innate, it's learned.
The whole POINT behind intuitive eating is that humans will just naturally eat sensibly and healthfully and not too much unless they are somehow messed up, so we need to get back to this state of following out feelings. Focusing on habit is thus, IMO, quite different.
Just want to pipe up and say I agree with this definition.
My wife eats intuitively. She eats enough and that's good. Takes her weeks to get through a box of chocolates (hey, she had 2 yesterday). She is in the middle of a healthy BMI.
I'll be happy to get in the habit of eating like her, but it is something I still have to learn and make a habit. If I get there (and no longer have to count calories to maintain) I will still think of it as a learned habit and not intuitive.
6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions