Everyday Systems

This is a question I've been mulling over for the past while, and I'd like some input on. When eating an N day meal should I be eating enough to satisfy my current hunger, or should I be eating enough to prevent or delay hunger before my next meal? I think that this mental distinction is very important to make. Unfortunately I've read conflicting things and am getting confused.

I've read on this board that I should try to eat enough at a meal so that I won't get hungry between meals, or at least only get hungry a reasonable time before a meal. I know from experience so far that to achieve this I have to overeat at my meal, or else eat a meal that is quite high in protein and fat and therefore high in calories.

On the other hand, I've also read that I need to start paying attention to how I feel when I am eating a meal and stop when I'm 80% full. This is actually starting to happen when I am eating, and I'm really please that I am starting to be able to recognize those signals. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually stop eating at that point because I know that if I do I will get hungry way, way too soon before my next meal. I'm still scared to get too hungry between meals. So far I've been able to keep my N day's green, but if I have to consistantly fight hunger for 4 hours every afternoon I don't know if I this will be sustainable for me.

I've always had hypoglycemic tendencies, which is why I've snacked between meals, and overeaten at meals. I recently read a book on hypoglycemia and the author said that hypoglycemics have a really hard time keeping their weight down for exactly these reasons. The author also said that most hypoglycemics tend to overeat at meals in an attempt to delay hunger, but this is not a good thing to do because people generally get hungry around the same amount of time after meals no matter how much they have eaten. I'm not sure that I totally agree with this statement though. From experience I know that if I eat a small tuna salad for lunch I'm going to be very hungry by around 2 p.m. If I eat a large tuna salad I might last until 3:30. If I eat a hamburger and fries I will probably not be hungry until 6 p.m. This statement has stuck with me though and only added to my confusion.

So, what do you think? And, for those who have lost weight, what do you do? Do you eat to satisfy hunger or do you eat to prevent hunger? Thanks in advance!

I eat enough to make sure that I'm not ravenous before my next meal.

I did a "reality check" by calorie counting some years ago when I first started doing No-S. I'm a nerd and like numbers.

My meals look pretty substantial, plate-wise. But if my ONLY food input opportunities are those plates, I'm eating a 400-550 calorie meal each time I sit down. 1200-1600 calories a day (yes it varies by that much), and I still lose weight. A 500 calorie meal is only overeating if I'm going to be snacking. Otherwise, it's quite appropriate.

I think you should expect to be hungry, but not feeling faint or ravenous. It is the difference between looking forward to your next meal and feeling like you've missed one.

In a few weeks, you won't mind that looking-forward-to-eating hunger.

Kevin wrote:I think you should expect to be hungry, but not feeling faint or ravenous. It is the difference between looking forward to your next meal and feeling like you've missed one.

In a few weeks, you won't mind that looking-forward-to-eating hunger.

Indeed. Kevin is right. In fact, you might get to the point where you WANT to be hungry for a meal for it to taste better.

I'd never thought about this before, but I eat to satisfy hunger. I rarely think about preventing hunger.

I usually eat a light breakfast (if I eat breakfast) and lunch and a bigger dinner. If I eat a big midday meal, I may not be hungry for dinner for at least 6-7 hours and maybe longer. In fact, there have been times that I've had to make myself eat something in the evening. Disclaimer: I'm an older, smaller and not extremely active woman, so this may play a part in it.

However, I've noticed that what I eat makes a difference. If I eat processed food, I may feel satisfied after a meal, but will feel hungry much sooner than usual. If I eat real food, I can eat a light meal (such as a bowl of soup and some bread), but still until I'm satisfied, and not be hungry for quite some time.

You see a lot of variety in answers because people are in different places on their No-S journey. The best strategy is to focus on where you are right now.

ChubbyBaby wrote: Unfortunately, I haven't been able to actually stop eating at that point because I know that if I do I will get hungry way, way too soon before my next meal. I'm still scared to get too hungry between meals. So far I've been able to keep my N day's green, but if I have to consistantly fight hunger for 4 hours every afternoon I don't know if I this will be sustainable for me.

Sounds like you've answered your own question...for now. In a few months, you may have a different answer.

I definitely am doing both -- I don't think they're mutually exclusive. However, I focus way more on what I am eating in a meal than how much. i.e. I'm not going to eat a bowl of cereal and skim milk alone at breakfast, because I'll be hungry in 2 hours. So if I want cereal, I'll beef it up with a banana or berries and 2% milk to help fill myself up, maybe even add a latte.

Basically, I'm not trying to stuff myself, but rather trying to make sure I have a balanced meal that will take longer to digest -- which pretty much encompasses a mix of protein, grain, and fruit or veggie for each meal.

Also, as somebody who can have blood sugar issues, when I started this, I gave myself permission to snack on fruit or milk if I felt myself getting shakey between meals. Seems like I need to do this about 25% of the time, depending on what I've eaten. In three weeks, it hasn't damaged my weight loss. I don't know about you, but grabbing an apple if I got so hungry I started shaking was definitely not the source of my weight gain/overeating issues.

Giving myself permission to eat a piece of fruit if I feel I can't make it between meals has made it a LOT easier to stick to N-S. I know it's not quite vanilla, but for me, it's close enough for now. My No-S w fourth meal of fruit plan is still LIGHT YEARS better than the cycle of deprivation/binging I was doing before.

Ex dieter has just provided me with a useful reminder. I have HM veggie soup and focaccia for lunch with 2 satsumas and I was debating adding a side salad. But if I look at the meal, it's actually short of protein - and I will need that to keep me going until dinner at 8.30pm. So I've just nipped out to get some grated cheese to put on my soup.

I think adding a salad was still "diethead" mode

I don't consider salads diethead. I like them, myself, and I do make a specific effort to make sure I'm eating plenty of veggies and fruits with my meals.

But if you're eating vegetable soup, yeah, you're all GOOD for the veggies, and balancing it out with something else isn't a bad idea.

I like salads as well - but I think I was looking at the plate and thinking "oh look a gap - should be good and add a side salad for less calories" rather than thinking about the balance of the meal