5 ms·

If you actually need to lose weight (which, statistically, most Americans do), in my experience you will be hungry at some point even with a pretty healthy diet

If you actually need to lose weight (which, statistically, most Americans do), in my experience you will be hungry at some point even with a pretty healthy diet. There’s just no way around the body’s response to a reasonable caloric deficit. The key is being able to actually have the willpower to ignore those pangs. Maybe you won’t be hungry immediately, but a 500cal deficit (which, is a pretty light deficit) is quite a lot. Most folks are likely at a mild surplus of calories, so the swing to actually get you to lose weight is often as substantial as 700-1000cal to actually lose weight. Per day. It’s a lifestyle change, unfortunately.

Zelphyr 2y ago
When I first started, I was rarely hungry in the classical sense. Instead, I knew I was hungry because I would suddenly get tired. When I ate, my energy almost immediately returned. Also, sometimes when we think we're hungry, we're actually dehydrated. So, I would argue that nobody needs to ignore hunger pangs. First, drink some water and wait a few minutes. Still hungry? Then eat something[1]. It's ok. 1: See my earlier post about what to eat. If you want to keep being hungry an hour after eating, eat food from the Standard American Diet.
- Kirby64 2y ago
  It seems like you're taking a personal anecdote and generalizing it to everyone. Some people will need to ignore hunger pangs, because the alternative is eating too many calories. Also, it may be the compromise between eating the food you want (occasionally) and having less satiety. Expecting people to eat gruel (or, generally radically redefining their entire diet) is, in my opinion, less realistic than just admitting that if you eat that <insert unhealthy food here> then the downside is you might end up feeling hungry because you cannot eat more food and adhere to your caloric goal. Also, we'll have to disagree on your opinion that food manufacturers are poisoning us, though. I don't subscribe to that hyperbole. Additionaly, organic and locally grown has essentially nothing to do with nutritional properties of the food we eat. It may be better for sustainability, but that has nothing to do with how healthy it is.
  - reitzensteinm 2y ago
    At the risk of anecdote extrapolation, I did a 1000 deficit to lose 1kg a week and never felt hungry to do it. There are enough fruit and vegetables like celery, carrots, cucumbers, apples, pears etc that you can eat if you feel hungry, and you'll feel physically sick well before you've eaten too many calories. While it's a diet change, it's far less intrusive than just having to put up with being hungry.
borroka 2y ago
"It’s a lifestyle change, unfortunately" I would say that this is one of the wrong ways of approaching the problem, which makes it more difficult to lose weight. People who are (severely) overweight who gorge on food have an unhappy lifestyle: they don't look good or feel good, they are prone to energy swings that make them irritable and bad company, and they are obsessed with food. Fortunately, an all-too-simple lifestyle change would make their lives much better. The food not eaten today will be there tomorrow. No need to obsess over it.
- Kirby64 2y ago
  What's your quibble here? The use of the word unfortunately? My point is that it's not some quick fix, it requires dedication to unlearn bad habits and commit to changing for the better. It cannot be a one-and-done approach, as falling back to similar levels of consumption will just lead them right back to where they started.
  - borroka 2y ago
    "What's your quibble here? The use of the word unfortunately?" Yes, that's the quibble. 'Unfortunately, you need to do resistance exercises if you want to grow substantial muscles'; 'Unfortunately, you need to stop watching porn like crazy if you want to have normal behavior with men/women'; 'Unfortunately, you need to stop stuffing yourself with food if you want to be in decent shape.' For the first two examples, 'unfortunately' seems out of place. But for the third example, food, it seems reasonable. And it is because gorging on food until you lose your wits has been normalized, but there is nothing unpleasant about having a normal relationship with food.
    - Kirby64 2y ago
      I don't really see the issue with unfortunately in either example 1 or 3. 2 is a moral judgment which is unrelated. If you could take a pill to make yourself grow muscles without downsides, it would be great. There's nothing 'fortunate' about having to spend hours of time on exercise which is otherwise meaningless. Also, there definitely is something unpleasant about dieting to lose weight. It's not fun. Maintaining a healthy diet less so, but you are absolutely making sacrifices personally and socially if you cannot eat or drink whatever you want whenever you want.

Zelphyr 2y ago

When I first started, I was rarely hungry in the classical sense. Instead, I knew I was hungry because I would suddenly get tired. When I ate, my energy almost immediately returned. Also, sometimes when we think we're hungry, we're actually dehydrated. So, I would argue that nobody needs to ignore hunger pangs. First, drink some water and wait a few minutes. Still hungry? Then eat something[1]. It's ok. 1: See my earlier post about what to eat. If you want to keep being hungry an hour after eating, eat food from the Standard American Diet.

Kirby64 2y ago
It seems like you're taking a personal anecdote and generalizing it to everyone. Some people will need to ignore hunger pangs, because the alternative is eating too many calories. Also, it may be the compromise between eating the food you want (occasionally) and having less satiety. Expecting people to eat gruel (or, generally radically redefining their entire diet) is, in my opinion, less realistic than just admitting that if you eat that <insert unhealthy food here> then the downside is you might end up feeling hungry because you cannot eat more food and adhere to your caloric goal. Also, we'll have to disagree on your opinion that food manufacturers are poisoning us, though. I don't subscribe to that hyperbole. Additionaly, organic and locally grown has essentially nothing to do with nutritional properties of the food we eat. It may be better for sustainability, but that has nothing to do with how healthy it is.
- reitzensteinm 2y ago
  At the risk of anecdote extrapolation, I did a 1000 deficit to lose 1kg a week and never felt hungry to do it. There are enough fruit and vegetables like celery, carrots, cucumbers, apples, pears etc that you can eat if you feel hungry, and you'll feel physically sick well before you've eaten too many calories. While it's a diet change, it's far less intrusive than just having to put up with being hungry.

borroka 2y ago

"It’s a lifestyle change, unfortunately" I would say that this is one of the wrong ways of approaching the problem, which makes it more difficult to lose weight. People who are (severely) overweight who gorge on food have an unhappy lifestyle: they don't look good or feel good, they are prone to energy swings that make them irritable and bad company, and they are obsessed with food. Fortunately, an all-too-simple lifestyle change would make their lives much better. The food not eaten today will be there tomorrow. No need to obsess over it.

Kirby64 2y ago
What's your quibble here? The use of the word unfortunately? My point is that it's not some quick fix, it requires dedication to unlearn bad habits and commit to changing for the better. It cannot be a one-and-done approach, as falling back to similar levels of consumption will just lead them right back to where they started.
- borroka 2y ago
  "What's your quibble here? The use of the word unfortunately?" Yes, that's the quibble. 'Unfortunately, you need to do resistance exercises if you want to grow substantial muscles'; 'Unfortunately, you need to stop watching porn like crazy if you want to have normal behavior with men/women'; 'Unfortunately, you need to stop stuffing yourself with food if you want to be in decent shape.' For the first two examples, 'unfortunately' seems out of place. But for the third example, food, it seems reasonable. And it is because gorging on food until you lose your wits has been normalized, but there is nothing unpleasant about having a normal relationship with food.
  - Kirby64 2y ago
    I don't really see the issue with unfortunately in either example 1 or 3. 2 is a moral judgment which is unrelated. If you could take a pill to make yourself grow muscles without downsides, it would be great. There's nothing 'fortunate' about having to spend hours of time on exercise which is otherwise meaningless. Also, there definitely is something unpleasant about dieting to lose weight. It's not fun. Maintaining a healthy diet less so, but you are absolutely making sacrifices personally and socially if you cannot eat or drink whatever you want whenever you want.