Weight Loss Theory

I've only had a chance to skim read these posts but wanted to say - in case it's not been said before: May observation is that overweight people tend to have pretty poor hunger signalling. Whether that is because the hunger signals are messed up or some people respond to other signals (thirsty, tired) as a hunger trigger I don't know and I don't have any science to back this up - just my observation.

I'd also say that, for me at least, hunger can be Pavlovian, or conditioning based on meal timings (12:00 o'clock = lunchtime and so the stomach starts to rumble).

laurimaki wrote: »

I don't know if there's any science behind this, but I am interested to hear what other people think. Often I read a comment online or a post on MFP with someone complaining about things not keeping them full or mentioning which snacks keep them full longer. My theory is that we are meant to feel hunger, ESPECIALLY if we are trying to lose weight. I mean, if your body adjusts to eating a certain amount of calories when you are at a higher weight, it needs that many calories every day to not feel hungry and sustain said weight. So if you start eating less and feeling hungry, doesn't that hunger mean that you are burning fat? Doesn't that mean there is no food in your stomach being burned up as fuel, so your stomach is shrinking and your body is using fat to sustain itself?

My theory for losing weight has always been that I have to not eat until I'm truly hungry, and going to bed hungry (NOT starving myself, just being a little hungry) after eating dinner a few hours earlier is not a bad sign, but a sign that my body is noticing there is less food, trying to get me to put more food in there, but instead burns fat to keep my body fueled. Thoughts? It is the one major thing among many minor changes that has worked for me to lose the weight I already have lost, and I know it would work to lose the rest I want to lose...it's just always about the battle of will power isn't it? And being hungry is hard haha.

I'm doubtful that I would've lost weight if it involved months and months of routine self-denial and reduced pleasure. I'm too weak a character - too self-indulgent, too undisciplined/flaky, too pleasure-motivated for that. Will power is not the sharpest tool in my tool-box, so I try to avoid needing it, when I can.

I felt hungry when I first established a consistent deficit (losing 2 pounds a week at first), but between adaptation to a new routine, and seeking a different mix of macros, food timing, snack strategies, etc., I was able to find a way to feel pretty satiated and happy until just about time for the next meal. And on those rare occasions when I did feel hungry at an inappropriate time, I learned some tasty snacks I could eat that would tide me over without derailing my daily calorie budget.

So, no, I don't think hunger is necessary for everyone in order to lose weight. And I don't think science is mostly on your side here, either.

Sure, eating and hunger are related, but "full stomach" is only one tiny piece. There's all kinds of whacky hormonal and neurological stuff that evolution's put in place, not to mention the social, psychological, and habitual aspects.

Food has barely even started being digested while it's still in our stomachs, and I believe Cwolfman13 is correct about how it works - your body draws on different energy sources at different times for different reasons, potentially even burning stored fat soon after a solid meal. It's the balance of food & activity over time that determines weight loss.

Some people probably have stronger hunger feelings than others, or different emotional reactions to them. (After all, people have different physical pain thresholds, differing abilities to handle stress, different tolerances (or enthusiasm, even) for risk, and more.) In some cases, the diaries of people complaining of constant hunger tell a story (nutrient deficiencies, too-aggressive deficit, over-use of not-very-filling foods, expectation of "Biggest Loser" double-digit weekly weight loss, sudden adoption of extreme exercise regimens with no gradual phase-in, etc.).

If you find hunger motivating and helpful, and it makes you feel like you're doing the right thing . . . go, you!

Not my idea of an optimal strategy, since it doesn't feel good to me, and I personally found it to be non-essential for success.

BusyRaeNOTBusty wrote: »

I think some people can lose weight and not be "hungry", but I do think that for a lot of us being hungry is just what you have to deal with, maybe not every day, maybe eating certain things can minimize it, but yeah, I know for myself I am going to have to be a little hungry. This is why I usually skip breakfast, I like to keep my "hungry" to one time of the time, the time of the day when I'm best able to ignore it and when eating doesn't really seem to help it anyway.

You practically took the words outta my mouth on this! For some reason, I'm able to cope with hunger better in the morning, so I keep my calories as low as possible until lunch. I drink coffee and water all morning until I have a small (under 200 calories) snack at mid-morning. I basically eat two main meals - lunch and dinner - plus two snacks - mid-morning and bedtime. This seems to work best for me, as long as I am focused and thinking straight, etc. I exercise in the late afternoon and early evening when I'm adequately fed and nourished so I have enough energy to do my thing. It works out well most days.

Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »

I am not saying you are starving yourself i just think that going to bed with your stomach growling isnt really needed. If my stomach was growling i'd go grab a boiled egg out of my fridge and eat it before bed, the noises my stomach makes have no impact on my weight loss, why go to bed and be unable to focus on sleeping when i could shut that down pretty easy and then sleep.

Yes. There's hungry and there's HUNGRY.

One is okay, the other usually backfires.

It's okay to be a little hungry between meals, and I think this is normal for people who have had normal relationships with food.

The other is likely a sign that your deficit is too aggressive and that often leads to egregious overeating that seems out of control.

I also wanted to pick a nit here. Digestion isn't the same thing as your body "burning" food for fuel. It's the first step in the process of food being converted to energy/fat.

Edit: tagging onto the excellent point StealthHealth made, I want to add that messed up hunger signalling is a real confounder, and I've found this to be especially true the more I try to lean out.