4 ms·

It's really hard (emotionally or motivationally) to undereat, which is what you need to do consistently for a long time to lose weight. Aside from the hunger i

It's really hard (emotionally or motivationally) to undereat, which is what you need to do consistently for a long time to lose weight. Aside from the hunger issue, food is enmeshed in all sorts of value having nothing to do with nutritional value per se and everything to do with sociopsychological value. I think I've massively underestimated that in my own life, or misunderstood what that meant or something. I think the way it plays out is much more pervasive and subtle than what people realize. I'm not even saying it's wrong, it's just hard to suddenly deprive yourself of something that is meaningfully rewarding, and especially so when you're unaware of it consciously.

colechristensen 2y ago
Also there are ways to convince your body that it needs less, and the journey from A to B is very uncomfortable. If you do it wrong you will just endlessly be suffering from your body thinking it's starving. On top of that though is you have to get over your intellectual ideas of how much food you think you need to eat.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
  This is so dismissive it's almost condescending. I know how much food I need to eat in order to survive and maintain a healthy weight. But if I eat that amount of food, I'm still hungry. Doesn't matter what I eat. I'll eat a diet high in protein and fiber, moderate in fat, and low in sugar and starches, which is supposed to be the recipe to feel full without eating empty calories, but it doesn't work. 16 oz steak paired with an 8 oz portion of green beans or broccoli, and I still get the munchies just 2 hours later. I should probably go to a doctor and ask about Ozempic or something. I did successfully lose about 50 pounds doing keto and brought my A1C from 6.8 down to 5.4, but I damn near lost my sanity because I was always hungry. I've gained it all back and started to get some of diabetic symptoms again.
  - nemomarx 2y ago
    I'm kinda convinced that something has changed (prescription meds ending up in the water supply? micro plastics?) that makes people hungrier than they were in the mid 20th century. the effort required to eat less seems higher than ever, and you can't totally explain the gap and rise in obesity with just lifestyle and food availability. if some unknown element was making everyone's internal thermostat aim for more food it would explain a lot.
    - robrenaud 2y ago
      Our genes are heavily evolved to live in calorie scarce environments. In those environments, high calorie foods are amazing. Our biology is built to find them incredibly rewarding. Science and capitalism have created incredibly delicious foods that are nutritionally lacking, hyper optimized for (against?) our now mis-aligned reward system. In the west, calories are not scarce and the most delcious foods are far from the most nutritious. It will take a long time for our genes to catchup. Mass producing delicious, cheap, but low nutrition food is profitable. Companies have gotten very good at it. That's the real big change.
      - nemomarx 2y ago
        that's the macro change, yeah, but the rate of increase in obesity in the us got sharper after the 80s, so it doesn't feel like the complete picture to me. we got the abundant food and the largely car bound live cycles and it still kept getting worse for decades after that point. I suppose it could be generations growing up only knowing this and so habituated to it more?
        CrimsonCape 2y ago
        The ability to experience endorphins from things unrelated to food has gotten more expensive. Would you rather buy a $13 dollar move ticket and go hungry, or just buy a $13 McDonald's meal and go home to watch a movie? Buy a $75 dollar ticket to a special event? Buy several thousands of dollars in travel? Food is much easier to fill the gaps in feeling good. The "public presence" of society has diminished due to the internet. You no longer need to put effort into constantly looking your best because social media helps curate your appearance. Going to Walmart is now so relaxed that you can wear pajamas. Putting on your "best appearance" occurs elsewhere in curated ways (i.e. facebook/instagram posts and careful selfies). You can "partition" your social life so that the people shopping at walmart see pajama-you while the Tinder matches see someone totally different.
  - rolisz 2y ago
    How much protein were you getting on the high protein diet? For a long time I heard about "get lots of protein, it helps with satiety" and I thought I had enough protein. When I went to a nutritionist and she made me do a food journal, her first feedback was that I needed to up the proteins even more. And then indeed, I stopped feeling as hungry.
    - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
      Typically 100-150g per day.
      - rolisz 2y ago
        Try 1g/pound of bodyweight (some say ideal bodyweight). For me it's 180-190 g per day. It's hard to eat that much protein. But when I do, the hunger goes away (unusual feeling for me too)
graeme 2y ago
My opinion is the only reliable way to lose weight (other than ozempic) is to eat in such a way that regulates satiety such that you don't feel hungry when losing weight. Intermittent fasting + lower carb + whole foods can do this. But the trick is satiety in any one person is regulated by multiple processes. I doubt there's a one size fits all and probably the problem gets harder the more satiety is dysregulated. But I think any approach aimed at undereating in the sense of being hungry is not likely what people who lose weight successfully are doing. Or at least those who avoid rebounds. You'd instead want to find something that is highly satiating and satisfying and that also can't be overeaten. Example: almonds may be high satiety by some technical definition. But is is very very possible to eat past hunger with them. In my own experience it is very difficult to eat too much steak. I find it delicious but simply couldn't past a certain point. Others have reported similar results by adding lots of potatoes. I don't guarantee success by targeting satiety but I think it's worth trying rather than calories or weight directly. At some level you need to roughly figure out macronutrients to know where you can err but anytime I've lost weight it's been by focussing on type of food rather than amount. But strictly so. Re potatoes: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in-four-weeks-with-this-one-weird-trick-discovered-by-local-slime-hive-mind-doctors-grudgingly-respect-them-hope-to-become-friends/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in...
NoPicklez 2y ago
I agree and from experience of keeping relatively the same weight 4kg+/- for over a decade. If I need to lose weight I need to undereat consistently and as another commenter mentioned, its also using techniques to remove as much satiety as possible. I need to eat foods that are nutrient and fiber dense to keep me from feeling hungry or snacking, drinking lots of water etc. And importantly, its understanding that sometimes between meals I might go hungry and that's okay, I don't need to eat straight away to fix that hunger craving. One of the challenges I faced and I'd say most people face as well, is that eating is a source of joy and comfort and when losing weight you sometimes need to delay that joy or comfort.

colechristensen 2y ago

Also there are ways to convince your body that it needs less, and the journey from A to B is very uncomfortable. If you do it wrong you will just endlessly be suffering from your body thinking it's starving. On top of that though is you have to get over your intellectual ideas of how much food you think you need to eat.

Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
This is so dismissive it's almost condescending. I know how much food I need to eat in order to survive and maintain a healthy weight. But if I eat that amount of food, I'm still hungry. Doesn't matter what I eat. I'll eat a diet high in protein and fiber, moderate in fat, and low in sugar and starches, which is supposed to be the recipe to feel full without eating empty calories, but it doesn't work. 16 oz steak paired with an 8 oz portion of green beans or broccoli, and I still get the munchies just 2 hours later. I should probably go to a doctor and ask about Ozempic or something. I did successfully lose about 50 pounds doing keto and brought my A1C from 6.8 down to 5.4, but I damn near lost my sanity because I was always hungry. I've gained it all back and started to get some of diabetic symptoms again.
- nemomarx 2y ago
  I'm kinda convinced that something has changed (prescription meds ending up in the water supply? micro plastics?) that makes people hungrier than they were in the mid 20th century. the effort required to eat less seems higher than ever, and you can't totally explain the gap and rise in obesity with just lifestyle and food availability. if some unknown element was making everyone's internal thermostat aim for more food it would explain a lot.
  - robrenaud 2y ago
    Our genes are heavily evolved to live in calorie scarce environments. In those environments, high calorie foods are amazing. Our biology is built to find them incredibly rewarding. Science and capitalism have created incredibly delicious foods that are nutritionally lacking, hyper optimized for (against?) our now mis-aligned reward system. In the west, calories are not scarce and the most delcious foods are far from the most nutritious. It will take a long time for our genes to catchup. Mass producing delicious, cheap, but low nutrition food is profitable. Companies have gotten very good at it. That's the real big change.
    - nemomarx 2y ago
      that's the macro change, yeah, but the rate of increase in obesity in the us got sharper after the 80s, so it doesn't feel like the complete picture to me. we got the abundant food and the largely car bound live cycles and it still kept getting worse for decades after that point. I suppose it could be generations growing up only knowing this and so habituated to it more?
      - CrimsonCape 2y ago
        The ability to experience endorphins from things unrelated to food has gotten more expensive. Would you rather buy a $13 dollar move ticket and go hungry, or just buy a $13 McDonald's meal and go home to watch a movie? Buy a $75 dollar ticket to a special event? Buy several thousands of dollars in travel? Food is much easier to fill the gaps in feeling good. The "public presence" of society has diminished due to the internet. You no longer need to put effort into constantly looking your best because social media helps curate your appearance. Going to Walmart is now so relaxed that you can wear pajamas. Putting on your "best appearance" occurs elsewhere in curated ways (i.e. facebook/instagram posts and careful selfies). You can "partition" your social life so that the people shopping at walmart see pajama-you while the Tinder matches see someone totally different.
- rolisz 2y ago
  How much protein were you getting on the high protein diet? For a long time I heard about "get lots of protein, it helps with satiety" and I thought I had enough protein. When I went to a nutritionist and she made me do a food journal, her first feedback was that I needed to up the proteins even more. And then indeed, I stopped feeling as hungry.
  - Sohcahtoa82 2y ago
    Typically 100-150g per day.
    - rolisz 2y ago
      Try 1g/pound of bodyweight (some say ideal bodyweight). For me it's 180-190 g per day. It's hard to eat that much protein. But when I do, the hunger goes away (unusual feeling for me too)

graeme 2y ago

My opinion is the only reliable way to lose weight (other than ozempic) is to eat in such a way that regulates satiety such that you don't feel hungry when losing weight. Intermittent fasting + lower carb + whole foods can do this. But the trick is satiety in any one person is regulated by multiple processes. I doubt there's a one size fits all and probably the problem gets harder the more satiety is dysregulated. But I think any approach aimed at undereating in the sense of being hungry is not likely what people who lose weight successfully are doing. Or at least those who avoid rebounds. You'd instead want to find something that is highly satiating and satisfying and that also can't be overeaten. Example: almonds may be high satiety by some technical definition. But is is very very possible to eat past hunger with them. In my own experience it is very difficult to eat too much steak. I find it delicious but simply couldn't past a certain point. Others have reported similar results by adding lots of potatoes. I don't guarantee success by targeting satiety but I think it's worth trying rather than calories or weight directly. At some level you need to roughly figure out macronutrients to know where you can err but anytime I've lost weight it's been by focussing on type of food rather than amount. But strictly so. Re potatoes: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in-four-weeks-with-this-one-weird-trick-discovered-by-local-slime-hive-mind-doctors-grudgingly-respect-them-hope-to-become-friends/ https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2022/07/12/lose-10-6-pounds-in...

NoPicklez 2y ago

I agree and from experience of keeping relatively the same weight 4kg+/- for over a decade. If I need to lose weight I need to undereat consistently and as another commenter mentioned, its also using techniques to remove as much satiety as possible. I need to eat foods that are nutrient and fiber dense to keep me from feeling hungry or snacking, drinking lots of water etc. And importantly, its understanding that sometimes between meals I might go hungry and that's okay, I don't need to eat straight away to fix that hunger craving. One of the challenges I faced and I'd say most people face as well, is that eating is a source of joy and comfort and when losing weight you sometimes need to delay that joy or comfort.