Weight Loss
Moderators: spoiled_candy, coach_k, devilish_patsy, nycgirl, Mollybygolly


Should I eat if I'm not hungry?


Quote  |  Reply

So I had a light breakfast(orange...I don't like breakfast), ended up skipping lunch. I ate a snack on the way home. Now I've eaten dinner and I'm full, tired and I want to go to bed. I'm loggin my calories and I'm sitting right around 700 for the day....I'm hugely fat and I'm guessing my body will just grab what it needs. But, I'm wondering should I eat to get my vitamins or just skip it...and don't give me any starvation modeI(SM) bs, and no it is not "well documented"...if people couldn't lose weight by starving the holocaust victims would have had fat on them and I'm eating enough protein to prevent a deficiency, so spare me that SM mumbo jumbo.

19 Replies (last)
Yes yes yes. Eating keeps fuel to the fire, keeping your metabolism going
I disagree if this is not a regular thing don't stuff food down your throat. As long as you eat maybe a bit more tomorrow it won't matter. Your metabolism won't stop working after a day that's silly.
Original Post by minneapplemick:

don't give me any starvation modeI(SM) bs, and no it is not "well documented"...if people couldn't lose weight by starving the holocaust victims would have had fat on them and I'm eating enough protein to prevent a deficiency, so spare me that SM mumbo jumbo.

Frown

Yep, you're definitely depriving yourself of nutrition and calories.

 

And for future reference if you want people to be helpful and give you heartfelt advice, watch how you word your posts.

and for future advice, sawdust and water(their bread) and water with some flavoring(soup) isnt food so when you arent eating anything its a lot different than 800 whole calories
Original Post by minneapplemick:

So I had a light breakfast(orange...I don't like breakfast), ended up skipping lunch. I ate a snack on the way home. Now I've eaten dinner and I'm full, tired and I want to go to bed. I'm loggin my calories and I'm sitting right around 700 for the day....I'm hugely fat and I'm guessing my body will just grab what it needs. But, I'm wondering should I eat to get my vitamins or just skip it...and don't give me any starvation modeI(SM) bs, and no it is not "well documented"...if people couldn't lose weight by starving the holocaust victims would have had fat on them and I'm eating enough protein to prevent a deficiency, so spare me that SM mumbo jumbo.


Nah, if you're not hungry, don't force yourself to eat. Tomorrow, just try to have a more balanced day so you don't end up feeling starving and binging on crappy food because you were extra hungry from the day you ate very little.

If you're not a breakfast person, but feel you should have something in the morning as part of your plan, may I suggest a protein shake would be more satisfying and do you more good than an orange?

 

Personally I wouldn't eat if you're not hungry, AS LONG as this is a one time thing. I certainly wouldn't eat that little on any kind of regular basis.
#8  
Quote  |  Reply
Hi I totally agree that the SM is rubbish. Isn't that what we're dealing with here? Eat less calories- loose weight. I think maybe we should go with instinct and listening to our bodies. If you were done at 700 calories you were done. No harm in re establishing a relationship with our hunger.

I guess you don't want us to say anything and let you starve yourself then huh? Good one mate! That will get you where you want to be...

#10  
Quote  |  Reply

OP asks a question, but already has the answers...

I don't care.

Original Post by minneapplemick:

f people couldn't lose weight by starving the holocaust victims would have had fat on them and I'm eating enough protein to prevent a deficiency, so spare me that SM mumbo jumbo.

Because holocaust victims (note that you are trying to compare your eating habits to a group you are referring to as victims) were in the best state of health they could have been in.

Original Post by minneapplemick:

if people couldn't lose weight by starving the holocaust victims would have had fat on them and I'm eating enough protein to prevent a deficiency, so spare me that SM mumbo jumbo.

Starvation mode and utter starvation are not the same thing.

Ironic that your post comes on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and you've only succeeded in minimizing what terrors those people went through.

Original Post by jcbolt:

I guess you don't want us to say anything and let you starve yourself then huh? Good one mate! That will get you where you want to be...


Seriously? What kind of weight specialist are you? Whats your degree and certifications in? If this is a one time type of deal he is not going to starve.... That is absolutely ridiculous! Im sorry I had a bad day last week where I was under 100 calories because I was dealing with a death, and I was starving myself? I shoulda focused on how much I was eating? Seriously? This topped with u can only lose 10% of your body weight in the first year makes me question what you were taught and where you were taught it.

Sorry that sounds really harsh and I dont mean to attack, it just bothers me that you assume one day is starving? or that every person on the planet is the exact same and there are no variables. Its a very inflexible way to look at things.

Under 1000 calories that should have said

Original Post by jessbrohn:

Hi I totally agree that the SM is rubbish. Isn't that what we're dealing with here? Eat less calories- loose weight. I think maybe we should go with instinct and listening to our bodies. If you were done at 700 calories you were done. No harm in re establishing a relationship with our hunger.

If this were true and the body's response to a certain level of starvation weren't *real* as the poster suggests, then there wouldn't be millions of people out there wondering why they can't lose any weight despite the fact that they barely eat anything.

Your body's response to starvation isn't a matter of you believing in it or not, it is a proven biochemical process. There are no ifs, ands, ors, or buts about it. It happens. Whether you accept it or not is your problem.

Original Post by armandounc:

Original Post by jessbrohn:

Hi I totally agree that the SM is rubbish. Isn't that what we're dealing with here? Eat less calories- loose weight. I think maybe we should go with instinct and listening to our bodies. If you were done at 700 calories you were done. No harm in re establishing a relationship with our hunger.

If this were true and the body's response to a certain level of starvation weren't *real* as the poster suggests, then there wouldn't be millions of people out there wondering why they can't lose any weight despite the fact that they barely eat anything.

Your body's response to starvation isn't a matter of you believing in it or not, it is a proven biochemical process. There are no ifs, ands, ors, or buts about it. It happens. Whether you accept it or not is your problem.

It is not proven. The scientific literature disagrees, as there are studys that both suggest and don't suggest a "starvation mode". So, at least for the time being, it is a possibility but no where near regular scientific doctrine.

I personally think "starvation mode" is just a symptom that can have multiple explanations. Even in the studies that concluded this, the "evidence" for it doesn't really hold up under scrutiny of many scientists, so more studies are needed.

To answer your question:

One night of under eating is not going to ruin your body or metabolism.

 

but our bodies do go out of whack hormone wise. starvation mode is a symptom as science chick said
19 Replies
Advertisement
Advertisement
Allergy Remedies
Is It Possible to Go Natural?
The side effects of allergy medications keep some people from using them. Natural remedies can be a great alternative, but some are more effective than others.