What if I'm just not hungry?

SouthernSweetie74

I've been reading all the posts about eating enough calories and BMR and TDEE. But what if I'm just not hungry? What if I don't eat that many calories? As long as I'm eating healthy, eating 1200 calories, exercising, drinking lots of water... is that okay? I have quite a bit of weight to lose. I understand that I will most likely lose faster at first. Then, I will reach a plateau. And I may have to reassess what I'm doing then. But, when I lose weight, won't my BMR go down?

I've never counted calories before. Hence, the reason I need to count them now. LOL But if I'm not hungry, should I still eat the calories?

TurtleTape

First off: I more or less ignore all the extra numbers everyone throws around. It seems to be the latest obsession and it'll probably move on to something else in another week or two.

Second: As long as you're hitting 1200 net calories I'd say you're good.

Third: When I notice I'm consistently coming in under on calories, I add higher calorie things in throughout the day, like an extra tablespoon of olive oil when I'm cooking or a handful of nuts.

SouthernSweetie74

Thanks!

katiejarr

My calories are also 1200 and I eat around that, 1150, 1148 and so on...I was eating around 1000 because I was just not hungry, well I hit a plateau for 4 weeks...stand still...nothing, I was pissed!!! So I made sure I hit closer to the 1200, I ate higher calorie foods during the day, added 1/4 cup almonds (170 cals) to my oatmeal in the morning, added 1/4 avocado to my salad, etc and as soon as I was closer to my 1200 I lost a pound. I exercise everyday but I don't eat my exercise calories because Im just not that hungry but I do eat my 1200...you really CAN go into starvation mode, I didn't believe it, but it did happen to me, so be careful, your body needs at least the 1200...hope this helps

Kat

Jorra

First off: I more or less ignore all the extra numbers everyone throws around. It seems to be the latest obsession and it'll probably move on to something else in another week or two.

Second: As long as you're hitting 1200 net calories I'd say you're good.

Third: When I notice I'm consistently coming in under on calories, I add higher calorie things in throughout the day, like an extra tablespoon of olive oil when I'm cooking or a handful of nuts.

I really wouldn't say BMR and TDEE are just a fad....

If what you are doing now is working, just keep on going. It sounds healthy enough. It's great that you know things may change and stall. You can reassess when you get there.

marycmeadows

Not just eating 1200 calories works - you have to NET 1200 calories. which means if your goal is at 1200 - and you exercise and burn 400 calories - you need to eat back calories so you NET 1200.

also, I find it hard to believe that people who are overweight (most likely were eating too many calories to get that way) are suddenly unable to eat more than 1200 calories? Doesn't make sense. I think that people get it in their head that calories are bad. calories are the fuel that your body needs. Do not get sucked into the belief that you need to not eat to lose weight. I have lost over 110 lbs since January 2011 -- I eat 1700-2100 calories (on average) a day.

TurtleTape

First off: I more or less ignore all the extra numbers everyone throws around. It seems to be the latest obsession and it'll probably move on to something else in another week or two.

Second: As long as you're hitting 1200 net calories I'd say you're good.

Third: When I notice I'm consistently coming in under on calories, I add higher calorie things in throughout the day, like an extra tablespoon of olive oil when I'm cooking or a handful of nuts.

I really wouldn't say BMR and TDEE are just a fad....

If what you are doing now is working, just keep on going. It sounds healthy enough. It's great that you know things may change and stall. You can reassess when you get there.

I'm not saying they're a fad per se, I'm saying that these forums tend to go through phases of being overly interested in certain things to the point of using scare tactics. When I first joined it was whole wheat, now it's moved onto BMR.

GurleyGirl524

I rarely eat my 1200. I am usually around 1000 total. I eat a lot of protein and am not hungry a lot of the time. I make sure to make healthy nutritous choices. I have lost 63 pounds. I have not starved, I have not been sick. But what works for one, does not work for all.

Kristy_Elizabeth

I think when you switch to eating healthier it is harder to get the 1200 calories down because the quantity of food you eat is much larger than say 1200 calories worth of pizza or candy.

spynoodle

Not just eating 1200 calories works - you have to NET 1200 calories. which means if your goal is at 1200 - and you exercise and burn 400 calories - you need to eat back calories so you NET 1200.

also, I find it hard to believe that people who are overweight (most likely were eating too many calories to get that way) are suddenly unable to eat more than 1200 calories? Doesn't make sense. I think that people get it in their head that calories are bad. calories are the fuel that your body needs. Do not get sucked into the belief that you need to not eat to lose weight. I have lost over 110 lbs since January 2011 -- I eat 1700-2100 calories (on average) a day.

Congratulations! That is a major accomplishment! Your post is probably one of the only things I've read that has made sense all day!!!

dreawest

With a target of 2000 calories that already has a weight loss deficit built in my opinion is that 1200 is way too few. There are days when I am low and eat food just to bring my calories up. The occasional low day is fine but if happens a lot you should introduce some higher cal foods through out the day. You shouldn't consistantly be more than 200 cals under your goal. At our size there is an increased risk for saggy skin if we lose too quickly. Plus think lifestyle change, not diet and I am simply not ready to commit to 1200 calories for life. I love my 2000 plus exercise calories AND consistant weight loss.

goldfinger88

If you eat lots of protein and some good fat, say 30, 40 percent fat and the same in protein, you will not be as hungry as people who eat what the government, and this website, suggest. I don't know if you do or not. But if you're not hungry, you shouldn't eat. That's what's wrong with most people now. But it's good to get at a minimum 1200 calories in a day. So you might take a spoonful of molasses or olive oil, anything that is filling but good for you. I see lots of people here eat under 1,000 and that's dangerous.

rockerbabyy

Not just eating 1200 calories works - you have to NET 1200 calories. which means if your goal is at 1200 - and you exercise and burn 400 calories - you need to eat back calories so you NET 1200.

also, I find it hard to believe that people who are overweight (most likely were eating too many calories to get that way) are suddenly unable to eat more than 1200 calories? Doesn't make sense. I think that people get it in their head that calories are bad. calories are the fuel that your body needs. Do not get sucked into the belief that you need to not eat to lose weight. I have lost over 110 lbs since January 2011 -- I eat 1700-2100 calories (on average) a day.

^^this
i try to net my BMR (1845) - some days i dont, but i never net lower than what my BMR will be at my goal weight (1550ish).
some days i eat as much as 2600 - just depends on my exercise for the day.
i think a lot of people think they have to eat like a rabbit and give up everything they love - and i eat plenty of veggies, but i still eat pizza and burgers and ice cream and bacon... very rarely do i buy fat free/low fat/low cal foods (dressings, cheese, mayo etc).
when i first started counting calories, i hadnt been fueling my body so i NEVER felt hungry - eating was just something i did after we went to the bar most of the time. when i started paying attention to my protein intake and make sure to get enough calories to function, i felt much better and my appetite kicked in again. some days i still feel not hungry (but not because im full - just forgetting to eat kinda thing) but i always make sure to eat enough for my body

sweetheart03622

Let's all be honest folks... we didn't gain the extra weight because we're not hungry.

And yea, BMR/TDEE are not a fad. Those things, unlike this mystical "1,200 minimum", are actually rooted in science.

Best advice - start reading. Read as much and educate yourself as much as possible. Read from nutrition, fitness, and medical professionals. There's far too much so-called "broscience" on MFP. Educate yourself first and foremost. Best of luck!!

chachita7

Bottom line is that you need to find what works for you -- I have done the not eating my calories back, eating my calories back, now I am doing the TDEE... experiment and find what works for you and keep it... as long as you are eating and in no way shape of form trying to exercise more than what you eat you should be fine - my goal has always never to burn more than 300 calories per exercise time... the bigger the number burnt the more deficit the less net calories you are keeping in your body - there is no science that show that a 60 workout is better than a 30 - as long as you are engaging and working it all out you are fine...

mermx

I was allocated 1200 cals when I started this journey and am still allocated 1200 32lbs later...I always eat back my exercise cals as I see those as a little extra...maybe a cube of chocolate, a glass of wine...you know what I mean.

But it is so easy to fill up those extra cals to get to 1200... mine is nuts ( almonds/brazil) great protein and you only need a handful here and there.

You don`t have to feel hungry...you need to fuel your body (and all your organs to be healthy)


good luck x

NoAdditives

I've been reading all the posts about eating enough calories and BMR and TDEE. But what if I'm just not hungry? What if I don't eat that many calories? As long as I'm eating healthy, eating 1200 calories, exercising, drinking lots of water... is that okay? I have quite a bit of weight to lose. I understand that I will most likely lose faster at first. Then, I will reach a plateau. And I may have to reassess what I'm doing then. But, when I lose weight, won't my BMR go down?

I've never counted calories before. Hence, the reason I need to count them now. LOL But if I'm not hungry, should I still eat the calories?

When I started I was eating 400-700 net calories a day. I wasn't hungry. I didn't even realize I was eating so little because I wasn't counting calories. Needing to eat 2-3 times that amount seemed impossible. But once I started eating more I was hungry for the proper amount of food. Retraining my body's hunger signals was hard at first, but now I can rely on them because I know I want the right amount of food.

Allwaysonadiet

I have put on oodles of weight over a long period of time ....but it's not over eating that is my problem...I actually have a fairly healthy palate. (apart from tho odd glass of vino!)
But I too struggle to want to eat 3 meals a day and am not really interested in eating until the evening time.....therefore I believe it 's not to do with what you eat, but regularity and letting your body know that food is not scarce.
So - yes, you can put on weight without eating too much! If you don't eat regularly enough.

opus649

What did cavemen do? Did they think, "well... I'm not really hungry.... but I don't want my basal metabolic rate to go down artificially because I didn't eat the appropriate number of calories today... guess I'll force down these rabbit testicles...." ??

As long as you're not malnourished and you don't have an eating disorder, you're fine. Beyond that, listen to sweetheart036... she knows of what she speaks.

sweetheart03622

What did cavemen do? Did they think, "well... I'm not really hungry.... but I don't want my basal metabolic rate to go down artificially because I didn't eat the appropriate number of calories today... guess I'll force down these rabbit testicles...." ??

As long as you're not malnourished and you don't have an eating disorder, you're fine. Beyond that, listen to sweetheart036... she knows of what she speaks.

:laugh: I don't know about YOUR cavemen ancestors, but MINE were definitely thinking that as they sat around the firepit...

rockerbabyy

What did cavemen do? Did they think, "well... I'm not really hungry.... but I don't want my basal metabolic rate to go down artificially because I didn't eat the appropriate number of calories today... guess I'll force down these rabbit testicles...." ??

As long as you're not malnourished and you don't have an eating disorder, you're fine. Beyond that, listen to sweetheart036... she knows of what she speaks.

and where are cavemen now
i bet they didnt think about going to the doctor either - or getting screened for cancer.

LaurasClimb

I've been reading all the posts about eating enough calories and BMR and TDEE. But what if I'm just not hungry? What if I don't eat that many calories? As long as I'm eating healthy, eating 1200 calories, exercising, drinking lots of water... is that okay? I have quite a bit of weight to lose. I understand that I will most likely lose faster at first. Then, I will reach a plateau. And I may have to reassess what I'm doing then. But, when I lose weight, won't my BMR go down?

I've never counted calories before. Hence, the reason I need to count them now. LOL But if I'm not hungry, should I still eat the calories?

I think you've got the right idea...you will lose quickly at first but will more than likely hit a plateau. As long as you are eating balanced, do what you are doing and reassess when you stall. But be sure to reassess, NOT get frustrated and quit!

Zangpakto

Now this is what irritates me, no your not in starvation mode... that might exist, but no one on here except I'd imagine a few are ever even close or have ever even experienced...

Slow down in BMR is not that, it is just your body adapting, nothing more.

Starvation mode means you would have trouble training, you would be sick and there would be complications OTHER than weight loss you would need to worry about. Namely, your heart muscle being eaten by your body because there is no fat and not enough muscle elsewhere...

Adaptation to lower caloric needs has been proven to extend lifespans, also, 1.2k calories? seriously? So, basically your saying even a baby will be in constant "starvation mode" because let's be realistic here, no way on earth do they eat close to 1000 calories... according to most people here they should be dead!

The truth is, it's a vary varied number, a base of 1.2k can be used as just that, a basis for improvement, not that it HAS to be that.

Same with people saying 2k calories a day, that just isn't true at all. I can't eat usually 1.2k calories even when try... unless I actually add food I hate and are disgustingly unhealthy... I do get over 1.2k calories though, but that is because I drink a lot of vodka or whisky...

So my opinion in the matter? If your not hungry, don't eat, you don't need to force feed yourself because of others. If you feel you can't make even 800 calories for the day, then that is fine too, your body obviously is telling you at that point in time, it is fine. If you have a few days over 2k calories, that is perhaps bad and perhaps need to examine the nutritional content of food a perhaps your body was craving a certain nutrient or mineral etc.

My father is a certified trainer and specialist meaning he can teach trainers and take cases where it is above the means of normal personal trainers and he says eat healthy, you don't need to count too much as eating healthy takes care of it, and if that you find is hard, have a cheat day say on Saturday or a family day, that way you will likely stick more to eating healthy as you know in so many days, you can eat a little bit more, or you can eat that cake etc. Key is eat healthy... MOST of the time.

I know I will likely get bad comments for what I said, but it is the truth, focusing on the science is rubbish, it works, but I'm willing to bet those who calculate all these values etc, they do not eat exactly how they say they do, nor do their nutritional values correspond to a healthy value every day of the year 24/7.

Not mean, I am just saying it like it is. If your not hungry you do not need to eat, if you are, then eat until your satisfied, no need to stuff yourself either, that is also bad. Nobody is perfect and no one here truly follows to the T what they talk about in regards to this BMR TDEE etc etc. I wish those proud admirers of those terms would open their diaries for the public at the least. Training also depletes electrolyte levels, do they rebalance, or hypo hydrate? Or take in excessive salt to compensate? Likely they also overlook that area. The human anatomy is very complicated and to base decisions off of calories/bmr/tdee is undermining the whole complex system of functions the anatomy actually comprises of!

So you go girl, if it is working for you, then keep at it!

mistyladidah

also, I find it hard to believe that people who are overweight (most likely were eating too many calories to get that way) are suddenly unable to eat more than 1200 calories? Doesn't make sense. I think that people get it in their head that calories are bad. calories are the fuel that your body needs. Do not get sucked into the belief that you need to not eat to lose weight. I have lost over 110 lbs since January 2011 -- I eat 1700-2100 calories (on average) a day.

First off, congrats on amazing loss! I just wanted to point out that not everyone EATS all those extra calories when we're gaining... We drink them. I'm going from booze and soda every day to straight water... that's a LOT of calories (sometimes 1000 plus a month ago) that I now have to replace with healthy, filling foods. I have to make myself eat, like the OP. Even netting 1200 is still hard for me if I want to keep my sugars and fats reasonable. So please, just be aware food isn't the only reason some of us are here. :flowerforyou:

Darlingir

What did cavemen do? Did they think, "well... I'm not really hungry.... but I don't want my basal metabolic rate to go down artificially because I didn't eat the appropriate number of calories today... guess I'll force down these rabbit testicles...." ??

As long as you're not malnourished and you don't have an eating disorder, you're fine. Beyond that, listen to sweetheart036... she knows of what she speaks.

lol!

Darlingir

You want to know what I know? ..I'm over thinking EVERYTHING and it's screwing me up....I'm going back to what works and I'm leaving it alone....

sweetheart03622

Now this is what irritates me, no your not in starvation mode... that might exist, but no one on here except I'd imagine a few are ever even close or have ever even experienced...

Slow down in BMR is not that, it is just your body adapting, nothing more.

Starvation mode means you would have trouble training, you would be sick and there would be complications OTHER than weight loss you would need to worry about. Namely, your heart muscle being eaten by your body because there is no fat and not enough muscle elsewhere...

Adaptation to lower caloric needs has been proven to extend lifespans, also, 1.2k calories? seriously? So, basically your saying even a baby will be in constant "starvation mode" because let's be realistic here, no way on earth do they eat close to 1000 calories... according to most people here they should be dead!

The truth is, it's a vary varied number, a base of 1.2k can be used as just that, a basis for improvement, not that it HAS to be that.

Same with people saying 2k calories a day, that just isn't true at all. I can't eat usually 1.2k calories even when try... unless I actually add food I hate and are disgustingly unhealthy... I do get over 1.2k calories though, but that is because I drink a lot of vodka or whisky...

So my opinion in the matter? If your not hungry, don't eat, you don't need to force feed yourself because of others. If you feel you can't make even 800 calories for the day, then that is fine too, your body obviously is telling you at that point in time, it is fine. If you have a few days over 2k calories, that is perhaps bad and perhaps need to examine the nutritional content of food a perhaps your body was craving a certain nutrient or mineral etc.

My father is a certified trainer and specialist meaning he can teach trainers and take cases where it is above the means of normal personal trainers and he says eat healthy, you don't need to count too much as eating healthy takes care of it, and if that you find is hard, have a cheat day say on Saturday or a family day, that way you will likely stick more to eating healthy as you know in so many days, you can eat a little bit more, or you can eat that cake etc. Key is eat healthy... MOST of the time.

I know I will likely get bad comments for what I said, but it is the truth, focusing on the science is rubbish, it works, but I'm willing to bet those who calculate all these values etc, they do not eat exactly how they say they do, nor do their nutritional values correspond to a healthy value every day of the year 24/7.

Not mean, I am just saying it like it is. If your not hungry you do not need to eat, if you are, then eat until your satisfied, no need to stuff yourself either, that is also bad. Nobody is perfect and no one here truly follows to the T what they talk about in regards to this BMR TDEE etc etc. I wish those proud admirers of those terms would open their diaries for the public at the least. Training also depletes electrolyte levels, do they rebalance, or hypo hydrate? Or take in excessive salt to compensate? Likely they also overlook that area. The human anatomy is very complicated and to base decisions off of calories/bmr/tdee is undermining the whole complex system of functions the anatomy actually comprises of!

So you go girl, if it is working for you, then keep at it!

No one mentioned starvation mode, just so you know. Also, coming from someone who's entire profile talks about being "thin thin thin" as opposed to "healthy" I'd have to suggest that anyone who reads this takes it with a grain of salt. There are several people on MFP that are well educated and >try< to live the way they should. Obviously we all slip. However, I'd recommend following and seeking advice of those who advocate health and knowledge vs. simply "thin thin thin!"

WinWinGo

Adaptation to lower caloric needs has been proven to extend lifespans, also, 1.2k calories? seriously? So, basically your saying even a baby will be in constant "starvation mode" because let's be realistic here, no way on earth do they eat close to 1000 calories... according to most people here they should be dead!

>even a baby will be in constant "starvation mode" because let's be realistic here, no way on earth do they eat close to 1000 calories... according to most people here they should be dead!

It would have to be a pretty big baby. In any case, babies eat a lot, given their weight.

>Adaptation to lower caloric needs has been proven to extend lifespans.

Yeah, in rats.

opus649

Yeah, in rats.

And rhesus monkeys...

opus649

Reference: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718227356220229.html

PinkiePie07

, focusing on the science is rubbish

Yup, because no one ever learned ANYTHING about the world by trying to look at and understand the science of it.......