Everyday Systems

Over the years I have spent plenty of time asking myself this inane question, and often arguing with myself over it, both before and after eating. Am I really hungry?

Duh!

With No S, I never, ever, ever have to ask myself this stupid question again. The main reason is, of course, that I'm always hungry at mealtimes now, and the stark difference after a meal now tells me I'm full (or soon will be, once it gets to my tummy). Before, I would go from kinda hungry to kinda full. Too vague. Now I go from quite hungry to "ahh, that's better."

but also I realize now: If you have to ask, you have your answer: not hungry. How did we let ourselves get tricked by fake complexity?

finallyfull wrote:Now I go from quite hungry to "ahh, that's better."

I do that. In fact, I rather like the sensation. I use it as a motivator not to snack, because I know that I won't feel that way if I spoil my dinner.

finallyfull wrote:but also I realize now: If you have to ask, you have your answer: not hungry. How did we let ourselves get tricked by fake complexity?

Honest hunger is a rather strong imperative, isn't it?

However, because it IS a biological method to keep us ALIVE, it's easy to encourage us to buy into the fear of it. It might take awhile, but you really can die of hunger. What's idiotic is that we have conditioned ourselves to freak out at minimal amounts of hunger.

While I don't have the willpower to do this, I have to wonder if a few days' fast to give oneself a lot better perspective on what hunger IS might not be amiss.

I did a version of this when my children were refusing to eat what was served. For a Saturday, they were allowed a small bowl of rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Then I told them that there are people in the world who would have been happy to have that. (And the next morning I did make pancakes. I'm not a TOTAL monster). They got the point and while they ask for their favorite foods, they're not at all picky eaters.

I think it was because we got used to eating snacks and were often not hungry for meals. Then people began pushing the idea that we should just eat when we were hungry and skip meals if need be. Why should a person eat a meal just because it was lunchtime, if she was not hungry? At first, this appealed to my penchant for not being glued to routines, but I think this undercut the very social aspects of food and backfired for most people.

I'm single and still eat most of my meals alone, but I love the meal aspect, and appreciate that it jibes so much more easily for the occasions I do have a chance to eat with others. I just finished a Zen intensive at which we ate three meals a day. There was always food available, though, such as bread, nut butters and fruit, but I didn't care if I had any of that between meals this time. Three squares and coffee with milk was all I needed. It felt great.

NoelFigart wrote:
I did a version of this when my children were refusing to eat what was served. For a Saturday, they were allowed a small bowl of rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Then I told them that there are people in the world who would have been happy to have that. (And the next morning I did make pancakes. I'm not a TOTAL monster). They got the point and while they ask for their favorite foods, they're not at all picky eaters.

What a great idea. I hope I remember this when I have kids, should they turn out to be picky eaters.

I like being hungry between meals now. I also hate when I slip up and snack before a meal (which doesn't happen too often), because then I'm not hungry for the next meal, and it sort of spoils the enjoyment of that meal.

finallyfull wrote:...but also I realize now: If you have to ask, you have your answer: not hungry. How did we let ourselves get tricked by fake complexity?

I have to admit when I saw the title of your post, my thought was "If you have to ask, you're not." But I've only realized this since starting No S, and I, too, wondered how I managed to lose my ability to answer such a basic question. A day-old baby knows if it's hungry or not! It's one of those things that makes me realize how the semi-permanent diet mentality twisted my thinking. I'm so happy with the way No S has restored sanity to my thinking about food, hunger and eating.

Before no S I think I had almost completely forgotten what hunger was! I would usually eat a pretty big snack around 3 and then come home for dinner around 6:30 and not want what we had prepared for dinner. That would usually lead me to eating alittle bit of it and then eating snacks all night trying to make myself feel "satisfied."
The first two weeks of no S I came home for dinner really hungry for the first time in a long while. I always wanted whatever we had premade for dinner and I was convinced that the food actually tasted better than it used to!
After a couple of days I realized what was going on. It should have been obvious, but I was totally under the spell of the "snack all the time" doctrine and didn't see it.

I'm glad I've finally found the "light" of No S!

My rule has always been (though I ignore it) if I'm not sure if I'm hungry... I'm not! And anything after that is hunger until I eat.
Also, yes, vanilla No S makes me feel sane. No mind games.

I've found that I sometimes like getting REALLY hungry, usually for dinner. I will actually occasionally delay dinner even though I feel hungry and it is relatively close to the time to eat. I find that even that hunger fluctuates. It will practically fade away and then come back. I'm single and often eat alone, so I can afford to experiment. It's come in useful to remember when I've sometimes had to delay a meal for other reasons. And I find I rarely want to eat more by the end of the meal, even when I started it feeling starved, as long as I eat with awareness.