[livelaughlovesunshin]

I am trying to stick to eating when I am hungry and I am just not hungry. Do you force yourself to eat? I am on weight watchers and I was under my points just by 2 yesterday but I was so dang full. It's 1240 here and I haven't ate yet, waiting on hunger to kick in.
What do you think?

[JohnP]

Why force yourself to eat?

The important thing is making sure your body gets enough micro nutrients which isn't that tough if you eat a variety of veggies.

[livelaughlovesunshin]

Originally Posted by JohnP

Why force yourself to eat?

The important thing is making sure your body gets enough micro nutrients which isn't that tough if you eat a variety of veggies.

Right..But I am following Weight Watchers and most of what I have read says that if you keep falling below your daily points, weight loss will stall.

[kaplods]

Originally Posted by livelaughlovesunshin

Right..But I am following Weight Watchers and most of what I have read says that if you keep falling below your daily points, weight loss will stall.

... a point or two isn't likely to make much if any difference at all, and "starvation mode" and other diet-triggered metabolic slowing doesn't appear to be a universal experience. Not everyone experiences it, and even those who do generally have experienced it as a result of YEARS of crash dieting and vlcd's (very low calorie diets), NOT by coming in a few or even a few hundred calories short occasionally (and each point is only about 30 calories, so you're not even talking about 100 calories difference).

That being said, some of us have notoriously poor hunger cues. If I'm eating very low-carb, I never feel "hungry" as I'm used to feeling it. My first symptom is usually a headache (which I don't immediately register as hunger), then irritability (which I attribute to the headache) and then more irritability (which can sometimes seem like the people around me deciding to be jerks) and finally (a symptom I do recognize) feeling light-headed, dizzy, and about to pass out (and if I don't eat, I WILL pass out, and have done so).

With high-carb eating, I'm hungry constantly. The more carbs I eat (especially high-glycemic carbs) the hungrier I get. And during PMS/TOM, no matter what I eat or don't eatat, I feel ravenous and starved 24/7 (for up to 10 days).

So for me, hunger is a lousy determiner of whether or not and how much I should eat. I have go by portion-control.

The only way you can determine what YOUR response to your food plan and deviations from that plan, is to experiment. Your body isn't so sensitive that experimentation is going prevent you permanently from losing. You just have to experiment to see what works for you, and what doesn't.

[Rana]

Originally Posted by livelaughlovesunshin

Right..But I am following Weight Watchers and most of what I have read says that if you keep falling below your daily points, weight loss will stall.

No, weight loss won't stall.

The thing is, WW, like most diets, doesn't want you to go under 1200 calories, because it can be unhealthy to go lower. Usually below those numbers, you have to be really careful about what you're eating to make sure you're eating enough macros/vitamins, etc., to be healthy.

The question is how many points and how often you're falling below the goal...?

Because you have a lot to lose (if I read your ticket right), missing a point or two isn't going to stall your weight loss, at least not for now.

I wouldn't worry about it for now and don't force yourself to eat. If you're not hungry, you're not hungry. A lot of people's weight loss journey also includes learning to listen to your body's cues of hunger/satiation.

[ddovii]

I dunno, I don't think you should eat when you're not hungry, but is it to an extreme? How long are you going without eating? Are you just sitting there, or are you active during that time?

One of my weight loss roadblocks was I have trouble getting hungry for breakfast (finally seem to have gotten myself in the habit) or when it's hot.
That in itself isn't a problem, but if you don't eat at all for a long period I think it screws up your weight loss in indirect ways. I used to eventually get so hungry at work (since I skipped breakfast) that I'd binge at lunch. Also, yes, many experts seem to think if you go too long without eating or your metabolism will slow down.

But that doesn't mean you have to eat a whole meal. Maybe just try a health shake or something liquid that doesn't feel like a whole meal?

[Dottington]

If you aren't hungrier till later in the day why not try Intermittent Fasting? If you have recently changed your diet you could also just be feeling more full by eating higher protein foods and more volume foods like veggies. Or maybe your hunger cues are just off like Kaplods suggests.

It seems like a lot of people experience a big dip in hunger when starting a new plan and your body will most likely balance its self out. Being under a little isn't going to cause any long term damage. I personally only force myself to eat when I'm training really hard and my hunger disappears from hours of exercise and I know I need to eat to fuel my body.

[kelly315]

It sounds like you're in the first few weeks of changing your diet, which for many people comes with a lack of hunger.

"Why force yourself to eat?" It's a good question, but an easy one to answer. We force ourselves to eat enough because once the first few weeks of no hunger wear off, if you've been eating too little often your appetite comes back with a vengeance. You can think of this like an average day of overeating if you're like me- not hungry at breakfast, so you wait until you're starving at lunch and eat way more than you would have if you had eaten both meals.

Also, forcing yourself to eat enough helps to ensure a healthy attitude about food and prevent you from going into mindsets that create eating disorders. Losing weight isn't about eating as little as possible, it's about finding a healthy medium so you can have a symbiotic relationship with food- telling yourself, yes, I need food, and I'm going to make sure I get what I need. Even if you have 100% of what you need micronutrient wise, if you're getting too few calories, you're in a dangerous place (physically and mentally).

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by kelly315

"Why force yourself to eat?" It's a good question, but an easy one to answer. We force ourselves to eat enough because once the first few weeks of no hunger wear off, if you've been eating too little often your appetite comes back with a vengeance.

Even if you have 100% of what you need micronutrient wise, if you're getting too few calories, you're in a dangerous place (physically and mentally).

With all due respect - do you have any data to back this up because to me is sounds like you're making this up or giving your opinion on the matter. This is fine if you're giving your opinion but you're stating it as a matter of fact and I couldn't disagree more with what you're stating based on what I know.

Unless you want to debate what "too few" means the entire notion of losing fat has to do with eating fewer calories than one needs. A "dangerous place"? Strong words considering the context of the OPs question. Note - they didn't say they haven't eaten for two days because they're not hungry. Context matters.

Furthermore, I've never read that binging behavior is triggered by not eating when someone is not hungry, or eating a hundred calories (or 2 points) fewer than their eating plan. Binging behavior is triggered by not eating you are hungry and heavily restricting calories (as I understand it.)

Of course - I am always open to learning and discovering new things so please don't take this as an attack - it isn't one.

[JohnP]

Originally Posted by ddovii

I used to eventually get so hungry at work (since I skipped breakfast) that I'd binge at lunch.

This is a great point and scientific data backs this up. For people who regularly eat breakfast skipping it causes your reward centers to light up like a christmas tree at the site of high calorie foods which doesn't happen when they eat breakfast. Thus if you do normally eat breakfast and skip it you need to be aware your brain is going to try to overcompensate.

Originally Posted by ddovii

Also, yes, many experts seem to think if you go too long without eating or your metabolism will slow down

There really isn't any debate on this particular issue. If you go long enough without food your body will slow down your BMR. However the fastest this has been demonstrated in studies is 60 hours with most people taking longer. In other words skipping a meal has no effect on ones metabolism. So anyone who says that you need to eat 5-6 times a day to keep your metabolism humming along is not an expert. It doesn't work that way and in fact the bodies first reaction to no food is to slightly speed up ones metabolism.

[LiannaKole]

It depends. Sometimes I eat a little something so I don't get really hungry really fast later (which can make me overeat). I wouldn't worry too much. You'll get hungry eventually.

kaplods: I have the same issue during/before/after TOM - I get SO HUNGRY. It's physical and/or mental, depending on the day. How do you overcome that? I up my calories a bit, but it doesn't help the mental hunger cravings. Do you have something you do to combat that (other than the obvious choice of pure willpower)?

[mccull83]

I used to have a problem of not feeling hungry, especially for breakfast, but once I decreased my evening eating I've found that I'm ready for breakfast in the morning (while overall eating less calories). I would say, "eat when you're hungry" or prophylactically if you know you will do better later if you eat a little before the panic hunger sets in

[livelaughlovesunshin]

Thanks for the information everyone!

[Kelby]

Yeah thanks for the info. My appetite is pretty minimal this week too. Was worried that I was doing harm to my overall goal by not meeting my calories every day this week.

[kelly315]

Originally Posted by JohnP

With all due respect - do you have any data to back this up because to me is sounds like you're making this up or giving your opinion on the matter. This is fine if you're giving your opinion but you're stating it as a matter of fact and I couldn't disagree more with what you're stating based on what I know.

Unless you want to debate what "too few" means the entire notion of losing fat has to do with eating fewer calories than one needs. A "dangerous place"? Strong words considering the context of the OPs question. Note - they didn't say they haven't eaten for two days because they're not hungry. Context matters.

Furthermore, I've never read that binging behavior is triggered by not eating when someone is not hungry, or eating a hundred calories (or 2 points) fewer than their eating plan. Binging behavior is triggered by not eating you are hungry and heavily restricting calories (as I understand it.)

Of course - I am always open to learning and discovering new things so please don't take this as an attack - it isn't one.

Fair questions, John. My last post (like most of my posts, unless I specifically cite some source) is based on experience.
For example, I've gone the first couple of weeks eating 800-1000 calories, and found my appetite came back more than I could handle. Whereas when I forced myself to eat on plan, the later hunger was manageable.

The original poster is eating just over 1200 to be on plan, and I've noticed that too less than that is a "dangerous" zone for me. This is partially because I get very hungry, I might get obsessed with food or feel deprived, and occasionally I get dizzy and fatigued easily. Whereas if I stick to 1200 I don't tend to have those side effects.

Sorry to be unclear about whether or not I was speaking from experience, from now on I'll try to stick to personal examples.