Being hungry vs. not being hungry

newloafofbread
newloafofbread Posts: 46 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Someone on my facebook page is trying to lose weight as well. She has about as big of a weight loss goal as me, but I find her taking a much different approach to things. Like she doesn't do any exercise other than walking, for starters, which I find frustrating because I do a lot more.

Anyway today she posted a status, "I finally know what being thin feels like. It feels like being hungry. Always hungry."

Does anyone else agree with this? The first month I started trying to lose weight I thought it was helpful to go to bed hungry. I thought the only way I would lose weight was by going to bed with my stomach growling. A few weeks ago I talked to my doctor about it and she told me that it's actually really detrimental to go to bed hungry, and it'll slow down weight loss because your body will hold on to fat. I know about "starvation mode" and all that, but surely being a little hungry is helpful?

Her advice was that if I'm hungry but over my calories, just have something small and filling like half a lunchbox sized apple or a handful of peanuts. So over the past few weeks I have been doing this and I noticed that not only am I a lot more satisfied with what I eat during the day, because I'm not feeling so damn hungry, but I'm also losing weight just as quickly as I was, if not quicker.

That's when I realized that it does make sense that when trying to change your diet, you shouldn't have to be hungry all the time. That's not sustainable and I wouldn't be able to keep that up for the rest of my life. I mean who wants to just go to bed with a growling belly every night?

So does anyone agree with me, or is my friend right, do you have to be hungry to lose weight?

Replies

  • luminajd
    luminajd Posts: 64 Member
    You do not have to be hungry to lose weight.
    If you choose a calorie deficit that is moderate but not crazy (300-500/day in my opinion) and eat filling foods, you shouldnt be hungry.
    If you are trying to lose super fast and have a huge deficit and dont eat filling foods, you probably will be hungry. But it doesnt have to be that way.
    Congrats on your loss so far!
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    I agree with the above. If you are trying to lose weight gradually, then there is no reason to be hungry all the time. That's not to say there won't be times when you are.

    The "starvation mode" comment is a whole other topic all together. I'll just say that your body will not be damaged because you ate dinner at 6:00 and then didn't eat again until 6:00 the next morning. You'd have to go around 72 hours without food before any detrimental effects started.

    ETA: But, I still agree that it's ok to eat something right before bed.
  • LazyGuy91
    LazyGuy91 Posts: 171 Member
    With me it's more of a mental game. "Emotional eating" I think is what you all call it, so planning and exercising to relieve stress does ay a big role for me.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    There is no need to be hungry while dieting. It's better and a LOT more sustainable if your eating and exercise plan isn't self torture. This is a lifestyle change that you have to stick to for life unless you want to gain the weight back again, so the more pleasant your plan is to stick to, the more likely you are to succeed. So a smaller deficit and eating foods that you enjoy (without going over your calories) wins in the long term over a bigger deficit and depriving yourself of foods that you really want.
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Your friend is wrong. I've never gone hungry in 41 lbs. I don't eat until I'm absolutely stuffed anymore, but I definitely never go to bed hungry.

    I don't talk to people IRL about my eating/exercise habits. The few times I have it hasn't gone well.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    The "starvation mode" comment is a whole other topic all together. I'll just say that your body will not be damaged because you ate dinner at 6:00 and then didn't eat again until 6:00 the next morning. You'd have to go around 72 hours without food before any detrimental effects started.

    not disagreeing, just adding something...

    It depends what you mean by detrimental effects.... I don't like the term "starvation mode" (it's misleading and frequently misunderstood) but there are some survival responses to too little food that will kick in before 72 hrs... like extreme hunger and the desire to binge. That's not what people generally mean by starvation mode (usually they mean adaptive thermogenesis and/or the body burning muscle for energy) but they are physiological responses that result in people screwing up their diet. People tend to not be aware of these responses, or think that they're only psychological and blame a lack of willpower or think they have a binge eating problem, rather than realising that it's the direct result of undereating, and they should simply eat properly to prevent futher binges.

    I do agree totally that there's so much hyperbole surrounding starvation mode (like "if I don't eat every 3 hrs I'll go into starvation mode"... errr NO!) it does my head in .....but our evolutionary ancestors didn't know how much or how often to eat, they just ate what they could hunt/gather when they were hungry, and extreme hunger and cravings in response to not eating enough made them put more effort into hunting and gathering. i.e. they're survival responses. Attempting to diet while also fighting these survival responses is an uphill struggle and it's IMO better to eat enough to avoid them kicking in.
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    The "starvation mode" comment is a whole other topic all together. I'll just say that your body will not be damaged because you ate dinner at 6:00 and then didn't eat again until 6:00 the next morning. You'd have to go around 72 hours without food before any detrimental effects started.

    not disagreeing, just adding something...

    It depends what you mean by detrimental effects.... I don't like the term "starvation mode" (it's misleading and frequently misunderstood) but there are some survival responses to too little food that will kick in before 72 hrs... like extreme hunger and the desire to binge. That's not what people generally mean by starvation mode (usually they mean adaptive thermogenesis and/or the body burning muscle for energy) but they are physiological responses that result in people screwing up their diet. People tend to not be aware of these responses, or think that they're only psychological and blame a lack of willpower or think they have a binge eating problem, rather than realising that it's the direct result of undereating, and they should simply eat properly to prevent futher binges.

    I do agree totally that there's so much hyperbole surrounding starvation mode (like "if I don't eat every 3 hrs I'll go into starvation mode"... errr NO!) it does my head in .....but our evolutionary ancestors didn't know how much or how often to eat, they just ate what they could hunt/gather when they were hungry, and extreme hunger and cravings in response to not eating enough made them put more effort into hunting and gathering. i.e. they're survival responses. Attempting to diet while also fighting these survival responses is an uphill struggle and it's IMO better to eat enough to avoid them kicking in.

    I was getting at metabolic adaptation. I think we are talking about the same thing, though. You just said it much better than I could.
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    I'm coming to the conclusion that some people, whether consciously or subconsciously, want weigh loss to be difficult. It justifies why they didn't do it sooner, and excuses them if they fail.

    Personally, with MFPs tools and a basic knowledge, I've found weight loss to be one of the easier things I've done in my life. I just eat, workout, and log the losses every week. And I'm rarely hungry.
  • WBB55
    WBB55 Posts: 4,131 Member
    I never let myself go hungry, if I can at all help it. However, I also try to not misinterpret other things as hunger. If I'm hungry, I eat. I'm down 85 lbs from my highest weight. For me, hunger for too long leads to uncontrolled binges.

    Some people like feeling hungry, though. It's kinda like being a masochist that likes pain. They feel stronger and more in control of their diet if they have that physical reminder that THEY are in control. Their body says "eat" but they don't listen. Therefor, in their own head, they're stronger than other people who "give in" to hunger.

    Meh. Whatever works for you, I'd say.
  • neandermagnon
    neandermagnon Posts: 7,436 Member
    The "starvation mode" comment is a whole other topic all together. I'll just say that your body will not be damaged because you ate dinner at 6:00 and then didn't eat again until 6:00 the next morning. You'd have to go around 72 hours without food before any detrimental effects started.

    not disagreeing, just adding something...

    It depends what you mean by detrimental effects.... I don't like the term "starvation mode" (it's misleading and frequently misunderstood) but there are some survival responses to too little food that will kick in before 72 hrs... like extreme hunger and the desire to binge. That's not what people generally mean by starvation mode (usually they mean adaptive thermogenesis and/or the body burning muscle for energy) but they are physiological responses that result in people screwing up their diet. People tend to not be aware of these responses, or think that they're only psychological and blame a lack of willpower or think they have a binge eating problem, rather than realising that it's the direct result of undereating, and they should simply eat properly to prevent futher binges.

    I do agree totally that there's so much hyperbole surrounding starvation mode (like "if I don't eat every 3 hrs I'll go into starvation mode"... errr NO!) it does my head in .....but our evolutionary ancestors didn't know how much or how often to eat, they just ate what they could hunt/gather when they were hungry, and extreme hunger and cravings in response to not eating enough made them put more effort into hunting and gathering. i.e. they're survival responses. Attempting to diet while also fighting these survival responses is an uphill struggle and it's IMO better to eat enough to avoid them kicking in.

    I was getting at metabolic adaptation. I think we are talking about the same thing, though.

    yes we are. and I agree absolutely about metabolic adaptation.
  • healthygreek
    healthygreek Posts: 2,137 Member
    I've been on "diets" all my life that always left me hungry and so I would eventually binge and gain it all back and more. I got to the point of total disgust with all "diets" and vowed never to "diet" again no matter how fat I got. That was the point I began to lose weight through eating well and exercise.
  • taalcorn
    taalcorn Posts: 6
    I find that when I diet I have the opposite reaction. I'm hardly ever hungry, and I tend to eat too few calories. I signed up and started monitoring my caloric intake, and found that I was averaging only 1400 calories a day. I have upped my intake to a "healthy" 1800-1900 calories a day, at least on non-work days. I still find it hard to always eat all I should with my schedule, so I bought some protein shakes and am trying to keep fruit available all the time now. Not much weight lost so far, but I intend to keep plugging away at it and see where it takes me.
  • newloafofbread
    newloafofbread Posts: 46 Member
    People tend to not be aware of these responses, or think that they're only psychological and blame a lack of willpower or think they have a binge eating problem, rather than realising that it's the direct result of undereating, and they should simply eat properly to prevent futher binges.

    I agree, and I think this might be what my doctor was trying to say. I had big problems with this before I started trying to lose weight. I have reactive hypoglycemia and if I went too long without eating (happened a lot when I worked in retail where food at the register was punishable by death, it seemed like) my blood sugar would get low and then when I got home I would just go CRAZY and binge eat 2000 calories in one sitting. Since I've been eating smaller meals more often and not allowing myself to get super, super hungry, I'm a lot more satisfied, feeling better, and still losing weight.

    It's so frustrating to watch this person skate by and lose weight, though. She has lost the same amount of weight as me in the same amount of time, but seems totally clueless about what it actually means to make a lifestyle change. She's a yo-yo dieter, though, and I think I need to just ignore her from now on.
  • MaiLinna
    MaiLinna Posts: 580 Member
    You should definitely eat some sort of snack before bed, or else you'll just get up at midnight and eat a cake or something. (Too much TV, I know.) Maybe it's different for hypoglycemics, but I have to eat before bed or else I'll wake myself up all night having small seizures.
  • newloafofbread
    newloafofbread Posts: 46 Member
    Some people like feeling hungry, though. It's kinda like being a masochist that likes pain. They feel stronger and more in control of their diet if they have that physical reminder that THEY are in control. Their body says "eat" but they don't listen. Therefor, in their own head, they're stronger than other people who "give in" to hunger.

    I never thought of it this way, but that is a really good point. I think I was doing that a few times when I first started cutting my calories. I'm glad I stopped doing it because I feel a lot more satisfied.
  • IronPlayground
    IronPlayground Posts: 1,594 Member
    It's so frustrating to watch this person skate by and lose weight, though. She has lost the same amount of weight as me in the same amount of time, but seems totally clueless about what it actually means to make a lifestyle change. She's a yo-yo dieter, though, and I think I need to just ignore her from now on.

    Yes, you should do what is best for you. Lead by example. If you think she will eventually fail, then maybe she will turn to you for advice and support. Keep pushing forward so if that time comes, you will be able to provide the support she needs.
  • action_figure
    action_figure Posts: 511 Member
    The first two weeks I changed my eating habits I was hungry all the time. I'd been eating too much, and it was mostly bad food. Now I'm rarely hungry. When I am, I use it as a clue. Sometimes I'm hungry because I'm on my period. I can ignore that ****. That's just hormones. Sometimes I'm not really hungry, I'm having cravings. I can ignore that **** too. Sometimes it means I forgot to drink water, and I can fix that easily and quickly. The last two times that happened though, I was really hungry. Even after making sure I got enough protein, ate the right things, and timed my meals and workouts appropriately. Then I looked at my routine. I'd been lifting weights on the same amount of calories and proteins for four weeks. So, I upped my calories by 140 a day and my protein to 100 grams a day. No more hunger, still losing weight. So, no. I do not think you need to, or even that you should be hungry while losing weight after the first couple of weeks.

Categories