Yeah, I've read the book.
Good stuff.
When I was doing this online at the "official" website, this issue of eating when not hungry was brought up. The woman I spoke with on the phone (and I must say that I was very impressed with customer service over there) clearly stated that most people on the SBD ate too much when they sat down at their meals because they were too hungry throughout the day.
She went on to tell me that if I didn't feel hungry, I shouldn't eat.
It's counter-intuitive to eat when you're not hungry.
I think the salad I ate was made up of vegetables, and as I stated in an earlier post, I got caught knee-deep in snow out here and couldn't head out to the supermarket to stock up.
I worked with what I had and just ignored the crackers and rice and pasta and all the other "stuff" in the pantry.
Anyway, should be able to get into the supermarket tonight and I'll load up on all my goodies.
As for starvation mode, you would be amazed at what sort of catabolic damage you have to do to your body to get to starvation mode. Most of us in the US are not anywhere near starvation mode. As a matter of fact, the average American has enough glycogen stores in the muscles and liver, as well as enough fat stores, to run two marathons back to back. What prevents it from happening are sore muscles, mental fatigue, and other factors. But it isn't the body.
Starvation mode, in my humblest opinion, has been overly stated with little to no medical evidence suggesting that a diet at 1000 calories per day will cause catabolic damage. What DOES happen when the calories drop is that the metabolism slows down. A slowed metabolism is not starvation. If that were the case, my 92-year-old grandmother would be in starvation mode.
If the metabolism slows down, less calories are burned. If you weigh less, you don't need to burn more calories. So really, what's the point?
Anyway, I do look forward to my mozzarella cheese and my home-made black bean soup.