Which is more important: eating when hungry or stopping when full?

connallykatie10

I would say stopping. Hunger is not the enemy. It's ok to be hungry for a while. Doesn't have to be satisfied and often passes because you weren't actually that hungry! Just my humble opinion!

J72FIT

mph323 wrote: »

Why does it have to be one or the other??

FTW!

NorthCascades

CSARdiver wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

ladyhusker39 wrote: »

CSARdiver 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.

Really good comment.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

debrakgoogins

I think it's possible to intuitively eat AND pay attention to calories. If I am hungry and it's the end of the day, I look at my calories and macros to see what I can eat that will keep me within my allotment. Everyone is different but I eat when I'm hungry and try to stop before I am stuffed. Would that be considered intuitive calorie eating?

eosborne

For me eating when hungry. When I am hungry I tend to find whatever is available without thinking it through and eating until I am full. If I have thought my meal through, I will probably have a plate full of low calorie food therefore if I eat when I am full it won't hurt because everything is low in calorie anyway.

DX2JX2

debrakgoogins wrote: »

I think it's possible to intuitively eat AND pay attention to calories. If I am hungry and it's the end of the day, I look at my calories and macros to see what I can eat that will keep me within my allotment. Everyone is different but I eat when I'm hungry and try to stop before I am stuffed. Would that be considered intuitive calorie eating?

According to proponents of intuitive eating, they're mutually exclusive. The very act of paying attention to calories means that you are no longer operating 'intuitively'.

(/flamesuiton).Hey, I don't make the rules. I'm on your side with this. Intuitive eating as a weight control method is the excuse for people who don't want to have to actually face real data.

jondspen

Well, if you eat when you're hungry...and you have problems with controlling your hunger reflex (real or perceived, and at what hunger level to you engage)...you could eat the majority of the time. Eating when I'm hungry would have me eating at 9pm every night...which isn't a good habit.

I would say chewing food, eating slowly, and stopping when you're full is a better throttle on calorie consumption (given that you are eating reasonably healthy). I read years ago that it takes about 15 min for your stomach to signal your brain that you're not hungry anymore. So if you eat fast, you cross the full line but keep eating b/c your body hasn't signaled its time to stop yet. Not sure the source, or accuracy, but I know I've experienced this (got full, then 10 min later started feeling miserable).

Saying that, I agree with others...why can't it be both?