I've always welcomed feeling hungry as an indication that I'd run out of easily accessible energy and therefore was digging into my accumulated fat. I mean, how can you lose weight without feeling hungry?
But, I've also read that hunger is associated with a slowing of the metabolic rate which suggests I should NOT welcome the feeling, but instead eat something.
For the sake of argument, suppose I'm disciplined enough not to eat when I feel hungry. Should I eat something or not?
How much does one's BMR vary in response to the sensation of hunger?
I'm 10-20 pounds overweight, (i.e. not obese) and looking for a strategy to maintain my weight or lose a bit.
-- Robert Keyfitz
Washington, DC
Hunger is multi-layered concept.
Firstly, we humans are “special” because our hunger can be motivated both physiologically (there are different theories on this, ranging from low glucose levels to altered body temperature to stomach contractions) and psychologically (reasons not related to the body demanding calories, such as eating to alleviate emotions, eating out of habit, or eating “because it’s time to.”)
Oh, yeah, animals don't know what they're missing -- only we Homosapiens run the risk of scarfing down a bag of chips after a lousy date!
Your question also brings up the issue of weight loss and hunger.
Since these two are closely linked together, it is very important to have a carefully constructed weight loss plan drawn up by a professional – preferably a Registered Dietitians – who is able to implement strategies to make weight loss more manageable.
Telling someone who regularly eats 4,000 calories a day to go down to 1,400 overnight -- as many popular diets recommend -- is a recipe for disaster; yet, because people love quick fixes, they give it a try.
We know what happens. A week later they are about to lose their minds, drop everything, and go back to their established patterns of eating, without having learned any fruitful tactics.
So, should you eat something when you feel hungry?
This really depends on where the hunger is stemming from. Is it physical hunger, or is it masking other underlying emotions (anxiety, depression, boredom, fear, etc?).
Assuming we are talking about physical hunger, the answer is “yes.” The tricky part involves making the right choices.
The key is to choose lower-calorie foods that satiate. Remember that protein, fats, and fiber are the three pillars of satiety.
Note, though, that it is not necessary to have all three of those nutrients present in one food to feel full.
Let me give you an example.
A low-fat, low-protein, fiber-free food like pretzels is a terrible choice, as it takes quite a bit of them (and, thus, quite a bit of calories) to provide a feeling of fullness.
However, something like oatmeal (prepared with some skim milk) provides plenty of fiber and protein. Those 200 calories will leave you fuller for much longer than 200 calories worth of pretzels.
In order to keep metabolism running steadily, I recommend going no more than three hours without eating.
Again, though, this means having small snacks in between meals, not meals in between meals. A large triple chocolate shake from McDonald's may keep you full for several hours, but it also adds 1,160 calories to your day.
Going long periods of time without eating a single morsel of food not only decreases your metabolism, it also makes you more prone to binging.
One of the best weight-loss/maintenance strategies you can implement is to be in control of your food intake.
This means respecting your hunger and satiety, making deliberate choices, and supporting your eating with some structure (i.e.: not letting yourself go more than 3 hours without eating).
I've always welcomed feeling hungry as an indication that I'd run out of easily accessible energy and therefore was digging into my accumulated fat. 
Posts
3 comments:
Great tips! 400 calories from pretzels and chips - no problem for most. But eat 400 calories of nutrient dense oatmeal - no way! That is one reason why healthy food choices of nutrient dense food as a lifestyle change can have fantastic positive results for weight loss \ management.
Andy wrote,"...something like oatmeal (prepared with some skim milk) provides plenty of fiber and protein. Those 200 calories will leave you fuller for much longer than 200 calories worth of pretzels."
Why the skim milk? Is it because of the saturated fat or the fat calories? And why do you recommend cutting back on fat when fat helps with satiety? In one sentence you recommend fat for satiety and a few sentences later you say don't include the fat.
"In order to keep metabolism running steadily, I recommend going no more than three hours without eating."
No more than three hours without eating? In my experience, consuming plenty of butter with oatmeal keeps me satiated for upwards of eight hours or more. I've experimented with different eating patterns over the years. Breakfast, lunch, and supper work fine. Skipping either breakfast or lunch consistently day after day works fine also. However, my preference is three meals roughly 5 hours apart with no snacks.
David,
I know you are of the "weight management is all about carbs, not calories" Gary Taubes school of thought (by the way, I am still waiting for you or any other Gary Taubes supporter to explain how anorexia nervosa fits into that theory.)
In any case, although fat helps with satiety, the conbination of protein (present in skim milk) and fiber (found in oatmeal... and particularly soluble fiber) provides sufficient levels of satiety.
If fat in and of itself (without any protein or fiber) could do the trick, then drinking two tablespoons of olive oil would leave you full for hours -- it doesn't.
What I refer to in my post is the combination of these nutrients. I am not urging people to eat tablespoons of butter (instead, generally look for foods that combine fat, fiber, and protein).
And I have to ask -- how many calories of oatmeal and butter are you eating to keep you full for 8 entire hours?
Post a Comment