Hunger Between Meals

NoelFigart · Post by **NoelFigart** » Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:44 pm

A lot of people come on the board concerned about how they'll deal with hunger between meals -- feeling helpless in the face of it, or scared of being a bit hungry. It's a valid concern, but I'd like to offer some perspective that may or may not be useful.

One thing that got me over a lot of the hump was the realization that while uncomfortable, you can't starve in a couple of hours.

So, what does being hungry look like when you're grooving on that three meals thing?

Well, today I ate lunch a great deal earlier than I usually do. I was teaching some classes and it was either eat before or after. After would have meant around four. I didn't want to deal with teaching a class with a grumbling stomach, so I chose (notice: CHOSE) to have lunch beforehand.

Dinner is going to be late tonight. A family member is coming over and she has a meeting after work. We all like to sit down together, so dinner's a couple of hours away for me right now.

So. How do I deal?

A) I accept that yeah, I'm hungry. True dat. But it's okay to be hungry for a few hours. I freely admit I don't LIKE it. But I can tolerate it for a few hours, as it's a bit unusual for me to space meals out quite this far.

B) I feel hungry, but I'm not helpless in the face of it. I can choose to eat or choose not to eat. I have chosen not to eat, and that's okay. (If I felt faint, I would choose to take in some calories. Probably a glass of milk).

C) I am pleasantly anticipating how gloriously delicious that boring old spaghetti sauce in the crock pot is going to taste when I do eat. It'll be like a gourmet meal. Hunger, genuine hunger, makes food taste GREAT, and I'm choosing to focus on how wonderful dinner will taste when I finally do sit down.

Eileen7316 · Post by **Eileen7316** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 5:44 pm

Your post should be a sticky at the top of the forum.

Your common sense appeals so much to me. You are right, of course, about not starving to death in a few hours time. I observed something today that indicates how far from that idea we have strayed.

I am an elementary school bookkeeper, and was called upon today to assist staff members during our annual jog-a-thon. Another staff member and myself manned one of three water stations. We had small paper cups and two large 5 gallon coolers of water. The children had to run/walk as many laps as they could in one hour. The track is approximately 1/4 mile long. There were approximately 375 children, the temperature was about 67 degrees, and it was sunny.

After the VERY FIRST LAP, there were many, many children stopping to get a cup of water. The two of us were doing nothing but filling cups with water and setting them on the table and we could not keep up. We were not even filling the cups to the brim, but rather, with about 3-4 ounces of water. Three water stations along a 1/4 mile track, that's about 1 every 150 yards. WHAT? They can't run/walk 150 yards without needing water?

When did this molly-coddling begin? Shouldn't we expect even small children to move their bodies for more than two minutes without needing water?

Our society is becoming weak!

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:29 pm

Playing devil's advocate -- but maybe part of the problem was having 3 water stations on a 1/4 mile track. If there was only one, they'd only stop and get a drink at that one. It's kind of like why do kids snack so much? Because the snacks are there. If they're not there, they won't eat them.

Graham · Post by **Graham** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 6:45 pm

Eileen7316 wrote: After the VERY FIRST LAP, there were many, many children stopping to get a cup of water.

Was it the water they really wanted, or just a reason to stop?

Eileen7316 · Post by **Eileen7316** » Fri Jan 28, 2011 7:01 pm

Noel, didn't mean to hijack your thread.

Wosnes is right - I'm sure they stopped because they COULD.

However, my point is not so much that the children CAN or CAN'T go without the water. It's WHY the adults think it is necessary to put that many stations out there in the first place! Why do the grown-ups think that it's cruel and unusual to have children run some laps without having to have water every 150 yards?

Kevin · Post by **Kevin** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:09 am

I would have gone to the first one, the second one, the third one, then cut across the field to get back to the first one, just on the odd chance that they might have started giving out juice.

When I was a kid, I mean.

amake616 · Post by **amake616** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 4:14 am

Kevin wrote:I would have gone to the first one, the second one, the third one, then cut across the field to get back to the first one, just on the odd chance that they might have started giving out juice.

When I was a kid, I mean.

lol, points for honesty! They had "walk for charity" things at my school when I was in elementary that none of the kids would have participated in...if there hadn't been free popsicles promised. When I was older, cookies and juice was how they got us to donate blood in high school.

Strawberry Roan · Post by **Strawberry Roan** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:20 pm

To answer the question about feeling hunger, I say embrace it. To me it means that my body is pulling on stores of fat if I have any to spare. If I know that it has been hours since I have eaten, then the hunger signals a real need for food. Anticipating a good meal when hungry is a good feeling, for me at least.

However, in this country, many are so used to eating that we don't know the feeling of hunger and it scares us. to have that empty gnawing sensation. Growing up I was usually very hungry by mealtimes but I didn't sit around with a 2 ltr bottle of Coke and a bag of Cheetoz between meals either which I could now if I chose to.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:39 pm

I think between meal hunger diminishes somewhat over time and being hungry isn't an emergency that needs to be dealt with immediately. There's nothing wrong with being hungry. We've learned to eat every time we feel hunger, and we can also learn that it's okay to be hungry and we won't starve if we wait until the next meal.

This is from Mark Bittman's book Food Matters:

There's a basic truth here: there are stages of hunger, and we -- Americans -- have become accustomed to feeding ourselves at the first sign. This is the equivalent of taking a nap every time you get tired, which hardly anyone does.

There are levels of hunger, and there is a very real difference between hunger and starvation. Starvation is a physical state; your body is deprived of essential nutrients or calories for a long period of time. Probably no one reading this book has ever been truly starving -- though we all think we know what starving feels like.

Hunger is a hardwired early-warning system. At first, your brain says, "Think about eating something soon." In the later stages it says, "Eat as soon as you can; make eating a priority." At no point does your brain say, "Eat now or you will do permanent damage," though at times it may feel as if that is true. But "Eat when hungry" has become a habit. We get hungry. We eat. We get hungry again. We eat again. And so on.

I'm not saying, "Don't eat when you're hungry." I'm saying that if losing of maintaining weight is important to you, think twice before you eat from simple hunger, or from other reasons, like emotion. And when you do eat, choose a piece of fruit; a carrot; a handful of nuts. If you're still hungry, have more. And more. Eat a pint of blueberries, or cherry tomatoes; have a mango, a banana, and an apple. Have a lightly dressed salad. You would be hard-pressed to gain weight eating this way.

You can also embrace hunger, strange as that may sound, just as you might embrace the delicious anticipation of a nap, or sexual craving. Your hunger will, after all, be satisfied; why not wait an hour? (You're not dying, after all!) You might also stop eating before you're full (three-quarters full is probably about right). And if you eat slowly, taking your time, you'll give the food time to reach your stomach and give you a sense of satisfaction before you have seconds or thirds.

Sienna · Post by **Sienna** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 1:57 pm

wosnes wrote:I think between meal hunger diminishes somewhat over time and being hungry isn't an emergency that needs to be dealt with immediately. There's nothing wrong with being hungry. We've learned to eat every time we feel hunger, and we can also learn that it's okay to be hungry and we won't starve if we wait until the next meal.

I agree with this. I also think that there is a difference between "hungry because your body *needs* to eat" and "hungry because you *want* to eat". Only, I know that I've kind of lost the ability to tell the difference. Mostly though, I think that I personally am hungry because I *want* to eat - so pushing through the hunger and waiting for the next meal can be really satisfying.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat Jan 29, 2011 2:39 pm

Sienna wrote:
wosnes wrote:I think between meal hunger diminishes somewhat over time and being hungry isn't an emergency that needs to be dealt with immediately. There's nothing wrong with being hungry. We've learned to eat every time we feel hunger, and we can also learn that it's okay to be hungry and we won't starve if we wait until the next meal.
I agree with this. I also think that there is a difference between "hungry because your body *needs* to eat" and "hungry because you *want* to eat". Only, I know that I've kind of lost the ability to tell the difference. Mostly though, I think that I personally am hungry because I *want* to eat - so pushing through the hunger and waiting for the next meal can be really satisfying.

I can't remember where I read this, but our bodies are designed to go quite some time between "feedings" -- certainly more than the 3-4 hours we usually have between eating (meals and/or snacks). We've trained ourselves to eat frequently, but it's not necessary for the majority of us. We're used to eating between meals and think it's necessary. It's not.

If you've become accustomed to eating every 3-4 hours, you're going to feel the "need" to eat, but it's probably more habit than hunger.

Of course, I think what we eat is important, too.

gettheweightoff · Post by **gettheweightoff** » Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:23 am

Thanks for this post. Today I had lunch out and had 1/2 a pizza and put the rest in a to go carton and filled the rest of my plate with a salad. I still felt a bit hungry after eating because the pizza was very thin crust but I decided that since I ate lunch later than usual, if I had a cup of coffee with milk afterwards I would be fine with dinner at 6 or so. I thought to myself, what is the worst thing that could happen? I'll be a bit hungry. So what, I will get to eat the rest of my pizza at dinner!

Your post makes a lot of sense.