> I let my hunger and energy levels guide my food choices. Perhaps "inform" (as in a signal that does not determine decision) might be a better approach. Hunge

> I let my hunger and energy levels guide my food choices. Perhaps "inform" (as in a signal that does not determine decision) might be a better approach. Hunger is not strictly correlated with need. That is, hunger and appetite are also subject to habituation. If someone is accustomed to eating three large meals a day with snacks in between, they will likely feel hungry when one of those meals is eliminated, or even when snacks are reduced. We hardly need as much as we generally consume, and the last thing we need is to be led around by our appetites. Like children, they can tell us what they want, but it is we who must assess what is actually needed or within healthy limits. Lack of hunger should also not form the basis for not eating. I suspect that's why you included "energy levels" as another signal. If you're not merely hungry, but feeling weak, and you know you haven't eaten in a while, then you could probably use some food. I would argue that adopting a schedule and using fasting to reduce intake and "noshing" and conform hunger reoccurrence to this schedule are a good approach. Fasting also has the benefit of helping us discipline our appetites, something people are generally miserable at unless they practice self-denial or have them disciplined by outside causes. Disciplined appetites sharpen the mind and strengthen the will and contribute to virtue and therefore true freedom (in the classical sense, not the liberal sense which is a recipe for enslavement). This latter benefit is more important than the first. Furthermore, human beings are animals, but we are not beasts. We do not merely guzzle slop from a trough. We eat meals. Meals are not merely about obtaining nutrition.