What if I'm just not hungry?
Options
Replies
-
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!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?0 -
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!0 -
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:0 -
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!0 -
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....0
-
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!"0 -
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.0 -
Yeah, in rats.
And rhesus monkeys...0 -
-
, 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.......0 -
[/quote]
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!"
[/quote]
I'm glad you hit on this. There is great advice out there from people focused on health but a focus on thin makes me nervous about the posters own struggles. My goal will never be thin. Sign me up for healthy, whatever that may look like on me :flowerforyou:0 -
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!"
So what if that is my profile page? I have studied, and I do not admit I follow what I did study, not well anyway... And that advice is actually more from my fathers perspective, who like I mentioned is a qualified fitness specialist, that is the general thing he says, sure I added a few things, but in general the whole concept I put forward is 100% accurate according to fitness instructor teachings... Like F.I.T/ACE all of that....
So my profile talks about thin, so what? If that is what I want, then so be it, I do need to be underweight for what I do, again, scientifically proven that for what I do and love, being slightly underweight actually is better. slightly being very close to the thin line between healthy and sick, but the performance gains are there.
Saturday I'm likely running a 32km race, will you be there? Will I see you there? If not, then no your view doesn't correlate to my goals, in I think October there is a double century race for cycling, will I see you there? Likely not.
I'm not saying all your points are bad, I'm saying they are more complicated than the set in stone beliefs people seem to believe in.
And yes, no one mentioned starvation mode, but I bet you someone was thinking it making the replies she must eat more etc... Wait, now that I mention it, there was someone who did mention, saying she believes in it now as she upped calories and lost more (albeit again, not eating back excursive calories).
My advice likely more medically or should I say professionally sound than most, sure my profile might not depict that, but on the other hand, knowledge and choosing to follow is two different aspects, if I use that knowledge to ensure constant weight loss and getting underweight, so so be it, however the same knowledge can be used in more healthy ways too, knowledge is just that, information. How it is used determines it's value when considering it's health merits.
For instance, I don't believe in the cheat days I mentioned, as it cheapens the whole aspect, it is a lifestyle, why should I feel the need to have a cheat day? Milk? Do not need thank you, sugar drinks? Nope it's bad, white pasta, nope has high gi and only really useful within roughly 30m after a race to replenish muscle glycogen stores. I could go on and on about what I don't have vs what I would recommend, point is, I have sound advice, do not make it sound like I am an idiot just because of my profile, you do not know me, nor know what is in my head. There is some stupid things I do, would never advise them, I believe in trying to be healthy as can be within that persons comfort. Not pushing my ideas or values on them as most of MFP has been doing lately(Or since I joined?), I give advice, they can take from it what they want, mine might be sound advice, if they don't want to follow they don't, I won't criticize them as your doing to me now. I respect peoples decisions, just not obsessing about numbers that constantly change, including change depending on HRT and also weight which will fluctuate daily, thus making those BMR/TDEE etc also fluctuate daily.
Sometimes the best advice is the simplest, namely what I said, way healthy most the time, does not have to be all the time.
Also I should add eat less, train more. Those two things are the simplest and no matter how you want to dissect it, I bet if you look at your logs, you would have followed those two without even realizing. I.E. your eating healthier now, your likely training, and your portions have gotten smaller.0 -
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!
Really? My almost 4 month old baby eats about 500 calories a day. I'm not exactly sure what she weighs right now, but it's probably not more than 15 pounds. My 2 and 3 1/2 year olds weigh about 30 pounds and need at least 1000 calories a day. Obviously, one's caloric intake should be proportional to one's size and weight. Also, it's common sense that an adult human body needs more than a toddler. So, adults should be eating more than 1000 calories, regardless of whether or not they are hungry. Hunger signals adapt to the amount of calories one consumes over time. If a person isn't eating enough they won't feel hungry or the right amount of food. But, after consuming the appropriate amount of food the hunger signals "reset".0 -
Actually, let me correct, not the calories one consumes it adapts to, but amount of food really..
Otherwise even though I am rarely hungry, I should be starving constantly due to my drinking pushing my calories so high... Just thought I'd add that
And congrats on the kid 0 -
I worry about that from time to time too b/c people say your body will not fucntion without hittig your BMR number. However, I think if you need to eat, your body will tell you by making you hungry.0
-
I worry about that from time to time too b/c people say your body will not fucntion without hittig your BMR number. However, I think if you need to eat, your body will tell you by making you hungry.
That why the body lowers your BMR if you aren't eating what it expects, that way it still functions
Also, do not worry about it too much, people maybe are misreading what I'm saying, but my race results don't lie, I've lost 43 pounds since end of Jan, and I have been to medical checkups and have been cleared by doctors for racing, albeit I have low blood pressure and HRT, but doctors say it isn't because of my diet, apparently all my training etc causes it, so I'm happy anyway, apparently one of tour de france riders had a HRT of 29, and also low pressure, but he was medically sound and more fit than most people on earth... so yea...
If you can stay healthy within your comfort zone then go for it, ignore others as they aren't doctors they have advice they learn from reading, not from medical studies and personal experience it seems or understanding that comes from listening to a team of doctors looking into your health and explaining everything because you have a crazy idea of running the spartathon... which is kinda my ultimate dream but yea...0 -
If you aren't hungry and aren't feeling weak I wouldn't eat 0
-
Wow.. I didn't mean to cause controversy. LOL. Just asking a question... Thanks everyone for your input. I think I'm still just as confused about it as before. LOL But I do appreciate your willingness to put your 2 cents in.
And... actually, to the poster who said that they found it hard to believe that an overweight person just doesn't feel hungry. The problem that brought me here was not that I was hungry all the time and ate... it was that I would eat when I wasn't hungry. Before I had kids, I made a conscience decision to only eat when I was hungry. I actaully lost a lot of weight doing that because I didn't feel hungry that often. And, yeah, I used to drink my calories. I no longer do that, either.
I'm just taking steps to be healthier both physically, emotionally, and mentally.
I guess it could be a "mental" thing for me too. In the past, I have told myself that I just couldn't eat or that I had to purge it out of my body if I did eat... yes, believe it or not, me the overweight person, had an eating disorder.
Just trying to do this the right way this time...
Thanks again everyone.
Guess I'll talk to my doctor!0 -
That is exactly MY problem! I think entirely too much!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....0 -
Just so long as you stay above 1200. I sometimes have a good 200 or even 300 calories left just because I'm not hungry, but that still puts me above the "Starvation Zone"
Also, I think if it's just a day below 1200 it won't slow your metabolism down, so if your not feeling well I don't think you should try to force yourself to eat. It takes a couple of days of eating like that to put yourself into starvation mode.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions