Does anyone else need to eat high calories to feel full
takemetosingapore19
Posts: 86 Member
Hi! My total and net calories are very different I’ll start by saying... I don’t eat all my exercise calories back but I eat TOTAL 2500ish calories a day or else I feel starving.. my net works out to about 1200-1600 after all my exercise (training for a half marathon). I’m 19, 5’10” and very active. I have tried having total 2000 calories but I was starving. Even on 2500 total before exercise I still feel borderline hungry. I am losing on this amount. About 0.5lb per week now that the fast initial loss has slowed. I am very happy with this rate. I just worried something could be wrong with me to be this hungry all the time? Is it because I’m young and active? Anyone my age or older eat this much while losing?
3
Replies
-
I doubt that anything is wrong with you. It's relatively common to get hungry when you're training for a half marathon -- running can use a lot of calories.
12 -
It could depend on what you're eating. I feel a lot fuller when I try my best to get proteins, fats, and fiber in me. Eating a bigger percentage of carbs makes me ravenous even if it was the exact same number of calories. For example I normally have a breakfast of hemp seeds and yogurt (such fats! such proteins!) and feel full for hours, but yesterday I had a sweet muffin and could have eaten a small village by noon.
Your mileage may vary!13 -
It does depend on what I eat, I could eat 300 calories of potato chips and be starving an hour later or I can eat 100 calorie yogurt, 150 calorie roasted chicken, and 50 calories in broccoli and that will get me through most of the afternoon8
-
takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Hi! My total and net calories are very different I’ll start by saying... I don’t eat all my exercise calories back but I eat TOTAL 2500ish calories a day or else I feel starving.. my net works out to about 1200-1600 after all my exercise (training for a half marathon). I’m 19, 5’10” and very active. I have tried having total 2000 calories but I was starving. Even on 2500 total before exercise I still feel borderline hungry. I am losing on this amount. About 0.5lb per week now that the fast initial loss has slowed. I am very happy with this rate. I just worried something could be wrong with me to be this hungry all the time? Is it because I’m young and active? Anyone my age or older eat this much while losing?
Sounds like you're doing a ton of heavy exercise and really need to be eating the 2500 calories, if your net is bringing you into the 1200-1600 calorie range. Arguably, on days you are on the low end of that range you could maybe eat more.
But yeah, there are ways to make sure you get the most satisfaction for your calories, and that's going to vary from person to person, just like the other posters say. For me, I can eat carbs and protein until the cows come home but if I don't get a reasonable amount of fat and fiber I find myself ready to eat the paint off the walls. So you might want to play with your eating some: add more vegetables, fruits, fat, protein, etc. See what works for you.3 -
You're young, you're active, and you're likely not fully out of puberty yet. Since you're losing on that amount, stop worrying -- enjoy the fact that you get to eat so much and lose at a decent pace.6
-
Running makes me ravenous! Even a little 3k or so. Definitely normal.1
-
i keep a good balance of fat, protien and fiber.
runner's world cookbook helps me stay full and squeeze as much nutrition out of it as possible.
0 -
Is this hunger or appetite? Appetite is desire for specific foods - sweet/salty/etc. Hunger is your body's need for food, which given your activity level is expected.
When I was going through some of the more demanding training I was tracking calories ~5000 kcals/day and still hungry. It depends on your activity.2 -
You’re young and running a lot—enjoy that metabolism! I’m 34 training for a marathon. I eat 2500-3000 calories a day and am losing about 1/2lb per week. I love to eat so I’m not complaining. Dessert everyday
3 -
I'm old, female and retired. All I do is walk for an hour 3-4 times a week, and I eat 2000-2200 to maintain my weight of 140. I'm 5'8".
I could eat more. I want to eat more. I know I don't need to eat more.10 -
Go by your body and your weight - sounds like you've got a pretty good handle on what all of that is telling you!
I know when I was in my 20's and even my very early 30's, BEFORE I got the dreaded "desk job" it was not uncommon for me (a 5' 7", at that time 128 lb female) to eat 2000-5000 calories a day. If the scale started to creep up to 130, I'd just cut back on fast food/soda/candy bars and be right back to my "happy weight" as I called it.
If you're trying to lose, and have steady losses at the rate you mention, then stick to what you're doing. You may be okay with slowing that a tiny bit and eating at maintenance a couple days a week, too.1 -
Rungry they say. Totes norm.5
-
Uh yeah, I require calories to feel full or satisfied. I think you and me share that in common with all of humanity...perfectly normal.
From your general description sounds like you are doing it right to me....eating more to support activity and netting at a level that has you losing at a reasonable rate. Good job honestly.10 -
Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol4
-
I need a lot of calories to fuel my body. I typically cannot go higher than 0.5lb loss per week. It just doesn't work well for me. I always thought the same way (years ago) that I was eating way too much.. but for me slow and steady is the way to go.
You are young, tall, very active and will need more calories than someone who is older, shorter and sedentary. If you are losing, I say keep doing what you are doing. You can try playing around with your macros...more protein, more fibre, higher volume foods, more water.. and meal timing if you are still feeling hungry at the higher cal amount.7 -
takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol
A 5'10'' 19 year old who is active should certainly not be eating 1200 calories a day. Your numbers are perfectly normal.
I am 6' tall and 39 years old and when I was last dieting to lose weight when I was 36 I was losing about a pound a week eating around 2000-2500 calories a day depending on activity level. I am not at all suprised that an active 5'10'' 19 year old would feel hungry at 2500 cals a day.6 -
Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.4
-
acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.12 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.7 -
At ~49 yo and 5ft 8" I lost a substantial amount of weight at an average rate of 1.39lbs a week for 52 weeks while EATING 2560 Cal a day on average
At ~50 yo, I lost a comparatively small amount of weight at an average rate of 0.21lbs a week for 52 weeks while EATING 2913 Cal a day on average.
More recently I am maintaining while eating on average 2873 Cal a day.
It is NOT only how much you eat. Your TDEE also matters (and ultimately your NET intake). And your NET is probably lower than it should be given your age and height.
If you are continuing to be hungry (in conjunction with your intense training) the hunger level may be negatively impacting your actual training and non training activity level INTENSITIES in relatively imperceptible ways.
Losing at 0.5lbs a week, in my personal experience you may be occasionally hungry, but not totally hungry all of the time if you're choosing a good enough mix of food, and if you haven't been doing this for multiple years.
So, if you're continuously hungry (enough so as to make a post about it), I would actually consider trying to eat more of your exercise calories back over a period of a few weeks to see whether this impacts positively on your activity levels in such a way that you may actually end up losing the same, or more, than you are currently losing while at the same time eating a greater percentage of your estimated/purported TDEE than you are currently eating.
I am assuming, of course, that you're using a trending weight application or some sort of averaging when looking at your weight changes over a sufficiently long period of time...
3 -
I am 5'1", 55 years old, and 118 pounds. I could maintain on 2400 calories, and I'm not training for a half marathon.
OP, your calorie intake isn't surprising at all. You need to fuel your activity.9 -
takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol
We veterans usually jump into the “1200 calories” threads and say unless women are really really short and really really sedentary, they can (and should) eat more than 1200 calories and still lose weight.
2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol
We veterans usually jump into the “1200 calories” threads and say unless women are really really short and really really sedentary, they can (and should) eat more than 1200 calories and still lose weight.
More than 1200 net? I get confused by this a lot lol
0 -
takemetosingapore19 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »takemetosingapore19 wrote: »Thanks everyone I feel like it’s more normal now after reading your posts... I thought I was doing something wrong at first because I see all these “1200 calories” posts... I couldn’t imagine eating that little lol
We veterans usually jump into the “1200 calories” threads and say unless women are really really short and really really sedentary, they can (and should) eat more than 1200 calories and still lose weight.
More than 1200 net? I get confused by this a lot lol
Yes, net 0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .6 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.1 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
That could work temporarily to fill the hunger void, but in the end no matter how much volume I will be hungry... over time. It doesn't always happen at the beginning but later in the week my body will tell me if I haven't eaten enough.
Also in terms of high calories, interestingly, my body seems to figure it out very well. Even if I try to "trick" it with high calorie foods, processed foods, smoothies. I just came off a bulk where I was eating 3000-3500 calories everyday for 7 months or so.. while something calorie dense and tasty, it was easy to go down and palatable... I still felt full for the rest of the day eating a high calorie meal or smoothie.
Anyways I wasn't trying to say volume of foods doesn't help or matter, but over time your body will tell you if it is being under-fed or under-nourished, at least mine does.0 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?2 -
acorsaut89 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree with this. Clearly your body cares not only about volume but also about caloric content, otherwise you could feel satisfied by eating a sufficient volume of grass or celery and good luck with that.
Your mind might recognize what you ate was XX amount of calories, but your stomach doesn't. Your stomach (and digestive organs) just sees food that needs to be digested and will put forth efforts based on how hard it is to break down. So if you're constantly eating foods that are processed already, it's less effort to break down than other foods meaning your stomach will empty faster and will be sending queues it's empty to your brain.
Of course if you choose to eat that's up to you, but your stomach will be telling you it's empty whether your last meal was 100 calories or a 1,000 . .. when your stomach is empty it's empty. And it doesn't say hey, this food is 1,000 calories so it should take more time to break down - that's dependent on what you just ate. So while you need to be mindful of your calories, absolutely, your body doesn't know the difference in a snack or meal's caloric content. Nutrition value? Absolutely you'll notice a difference, but your stomach doesn't count calories.
So what I'm supposed to ignore cholecystokinin signaling pathways now? Devazepide and loxiglumide are receptor agonists within your gut specifically designed to recognize fats and proteins for the purpose of signaling exactly what you are claiming doesn't happen.
I don't really think you know what you are talking about...you kind of sound like you are just making it up.
Moran TH, Kinzig KP. Gastrointestinal satiety signals II. Cholecystokinin. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2004;286:G183–8.
Little TJ, Horowitz M, Feinle-Bisset C. Role of cholecystokinin in appetite control and body weight regulation. Obes Rev. 2005;6:297–306.
11 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »acorsaut89 wrote: »Also, not sure if anyone mentioned, your body isn't craving 2500 calories worth of food, your body is craving that volume. Like others have said, your numbers are perfectly normal . . . however the foods you might be choosing to eat might be less volume for the calories, so you could look into more volume foods. But again, this seems normal for your stats.
I don't agree. Calorie do matter. I could have all the volume, high protein, high fibre etc in the world but if I need that many calories based on my stats and activity level, yes I do want that many calories.
You don't eat something and your body says oh ok, so that's 500 calories (or whatever) so now I should be full. Your stomach goes based on content . . . foods that are highly processed are also going to act like they are already partially digested so your stomach has less work to do to break it down. If you eat say leafy greens, foods that take longer to digest, your stomach won't be asking for more food in an hour (or X amount of time depending on how much you eat) it's still going to be breaking down what's already in there.
I didn't say calories don't matter, I said your body recognizes volume not calories. So if you eat a Big Mac or fast food meal that's already highly processed it doesn't take long to digest but you consumed a lot of calories for volume you just ate. Now take that caloric value and translate it into foods higher in nutritional quality and you'll get a whole lot more volume of food, which will keep you feeling fuller for longer. Your body doesn't sit there and count calories as it digests and stops when it gets to your daily goal . . . your mind has to do that. However, if you choose foods high in calories, low in volume (save for fats like PB, avocados, nuts, seeds) mostly like high processed foods you're probably going to feel hungry sooner and be more likely to over eat. Different things work for different people - I could never do a keto diet but it works for some people very well. All I was saying was that your body won't stop when it gets to X amount of calories, so choosing foods that keep you fuller for longer - which means your body takes more time to digest and break down - will help with the hunger cravings.
TL;DR - if he feels hungry on those calories or like he needs to eat more, I was suggesting to add foods with more volume not necessarily that there's an issue with his numbers. As I did mention those numbers seem normal . . .
No, again, I disagree. Calories aren't the only thing that matters for saeity, that is true...but they certainly do matter. If what you are saying were true that all that matters is volume and how long it takes to digest then according to that if I fill my stomach with rocks I will feel full and satisfied forever, at least until I die of starvation. That is clearly not true therefore it is not true that your body goes off volume and length of time to digest as the sole indicators of how full or satiated you feel.
I don't even know what you mean by "your body recognizes volume". By what mechanism does one's body "recognize volume" exactly? I mean it can't be simply how full your stomach is or rocks would make you feel satisfied right?
This.
When I'm trying to low-restrict, I'll pile up on veg, leafy greens, high amounts of smoked salmon, etc.
And you know what happens if I still go and run my 10 miles?
I get hungry.
800 calories a day, even at high volume, isn't going to convince my stomach that it's not hungry.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions