Hunger signals vs Portion control

Isn't it meant to work that we eat until we satisfy our hunger?

So if we're not actually hungry and eat just for comfort or out of boredom
it means we must have some sort of emotional issues that we are trying to
eleviate with food. I'm not saying it's wrong to have emotional issues. It's
just questionable whether food is the answer to dealing with them.
Irregardless of how we deal with them, wouldn't you say most people's WOE,
certainly in the West, is not driven solely by hunger?

So for the average person, if you want to avoid blowing up like a balloon
you need to exercise some measure of portion control. This means saying to
yourself 'I want it but I can't have it' or 'I want to eat more but that's
all I'll eat'.

It seems most people on a weight loss diet or maintenance diet, including
me, live this sort of self-denying life. It's not so bad really. You can get
used to it. But what do you think? Are we condemned to live this way? Is
there a way back to trusting our hunger signals? A lot of modern food with
all its sugar, salt and what not can be very addictive. Does the answer lie
with a more natural diet?

I desire a more natural and instinctive relationship with food. Any
thoughts?

I think a component of the problem is that we are fighting our own
biology. We all know that genetics DOES play a role (i.e. for some
people, their built in metabolism dictates a strong tendency to lean
and mean, or rolly polly, and trying to get it to do something other
than that is a fight).

I don't know if you've read about Pima Indians from Arizona -
essentially, an ethnic group that lived for thousands of years in a
very harsh environment, who have evolved very, very thrifty
metabolisms. Put them in the modern world, and they have a tendency to
obesity that really is in their genes (i.e. their body is always
getting ready for famine, so it can make them crave more than they
need, plus suck every last calorie out of what they eat and stash it on
their hips!).

I've had three babies. Believe me, when you are pregnant, your body
WANTS you to gain more than just the weight of the baby etc. Your body
wants some extra on it for insurance, not just to sustain pregnancy,
but for breastfeeding. Its bizarre when its happening to you - you know
you've eaten enough, but you are STARVING all the time, and it ain't
emotional. Its your body on autopilot, fighting with your brain.

Its a product of the same kinda things the Pimas faced in times past.
Our bodies are still worried we won't catch a wooly mammoth or find
enough yams in the forest, so they make us eat more than we need to
have that cache of body fat to live on.

And we're built to CRAVE fats and sugars - ever wondered why we aren't
built to crave brussel sprouts and carrot sticks? Its to make us eat
more fats and sugars in time of plenty to get us through the leaner
times....which in the Western world just never come.

I think another factor is how long we were really meant to live. Even
at the turn of the century, the average lifespan was only 40 something,
and it was even shorter earlier on. So, if you'd been lucky enough to
be able to get your mitts on way too much food and get fat - no worries
- you probably would die from something else (like infection) LONG
before you got any fat related illnesses. So, your body set the
priority on pigging out as the best big picture strategy for survival
of the greatest number. There are still a number of traditional
societies where fat women are very desirable.

Its frustrating.

Mary G.
195/135/132-135 and holding...with fingernails!

Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read a message from
of 25 Mar 2005:

Isn't it meant to work that we eat until we satisfy our hunger?

You sound like my wife. She's 5' 5" and around 95 pounds. Has been that
weight ever since I met her in high school (about 30 years ago). Makes
sense though. I've managed to lose 80 pounds through calorie restriction
and exercise. The exercise seems to keep everything in sync. I can
usually eat around 2500 to 3500 calories a day on a BMR of around 2000
because of running. However, I'm sitting here on the couch today with an
injury ;-( Now I'm really testing my hunger signals and will power. For
me, it takes more will power to restrict my caloric intake than it takes
to complete a 20 mile run.

So if we're not actually hungry and eat just for comfort or out of
boredom it means we must have some sort of emotional issues that we
are trying to eleviate with food.

Good point. Probably true for a lot of people. But I think some of us
also have this genetic code that tells us that if food is plentiful, we
should eat it now, because it may be scarce in the future. That would
give us a chance to survive a famine. Those that did not survive also had
less of a chance to pass on this genetic code. Anyway, that's my excuse.
;-)

Irregardless

No such word. Sorry, but that's another one of my emotion hang-ups,
besides eating past the satiated point. ;-)

of how we deal with them, wouldn't you say most people's
WOE, certainly in the West, is not driven solely by hunger?

If most in the West are considered overweight, then you are probably
correct.

So for the average person, if you want to avoid blowing up like a
balloon you need to exercise some measure of portion control. This
means saying to yourself 'I want it but I can't have it' or 'I want to
eat more but that's all I'll eat'.

It seems most people on a weight loss diet or maintenance diet,
including me, live this sort of self-denying life. It's not so bad
really. You can get used to it. But what do you think? Are we
condemned to live this way? Is there a way back to trusting our hunger
signals? A lot of modern food with all its sugar, salt and what not
can be very addictive. Does the answer lie with a more natural diet?

All very good questions. Personally, I needed help controlling my
irrational overeating. Using software to track my caloric intake and
exercising is fine with me. I'm perfectly happy measuring everything I
eat. However, that may be because of my OCD tendencies.

Phil M.

--
Don't quit when the hill is steepest,
For your goal is almost nigh;
Don't quit, for you're not a failure
UNTIL YOU FAIL TO TRY."

--Jill Wolf

BCJ wrote:
Isn't it meant to work that we eat until we satisfy our hunger?

Consider in our ancient past if food suddenly became available, what
would you do? Put it in the fridge? Nope. Pass thinking you might eat
again tomorrow? Nope. Food is scarce. You need to eat food when food is
available.

These signals, to the extent they exist at all, are nothing compared
with our need to eat. Now add in sensation specific satiety that when
you switch to a different type of food, as in a buffet, allows you to be
hungry again so you can eat more. That's our bodies way of making sure
we get a diverse diet and enough calories.

Getting enough calories is your brain's number one goal. It's not easily
placated in the majority of people whos ancestors were successfull at
surving starvation.

Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read a message from
of 25 Mar 2005:


Phil M. wrote in message
...

However, I'm sitting here on the couch today with an
injury

Aack! I don't follow RR anymore; does this mean Boston is out for this
year?

I'm still going since my flight and hotel are non-refundable. I just
don't know if I'm running it or not. I'm taking a full week off of
running. Then I'll see how it goes. At any rate, I'll try to have fun
while I'm there.

Phil M.

--
Don't quit when the hill is steepest,
For your goal is almost nigh;
Don't quit, for you're not a failure
UNTIL YOU FAIL TO TRY."

--Jill Wolf

Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read a message from
lid of 25 Mar 2005:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:56:12 GMT, Phil M. wrote:

You sound like my wife. She's 5' 5" and around 95 pounds. Has been
that weight ever since I met her in high school (about 30 years ago).
Makes sense though. I've managed to lose 80 pounds through calorie
restriction and exercise. The exercise seems to keep everything in
sync. I can usually eat around 2500 to 3500 calories a day on a BMR
of around 2000 because of running. However, I'm sitting here on the
couch today with an injury ;-( Now I'm really testing my hunger
signals and will power. For me, it takes more will power to restrict
my caloric intake than it takes to complete a 20 mile run.

Good luck Phil, I hope that your injury will heal.

I'm sure it will heal if I give it a chance.

I am curious if you can walk instead of running, while you are
healing...

It's also painful to walk. Walking seems to cause my ankle to bend even
more than running and therefore pull on the tibialis anterior tendon.

Getting injured is my big concern also, although I exercise
a lot less than you did.

It's bound to happen to anyone that exercises past the point of normal
fitness. But from what I understand, my particular injury is not a
catastrophe.

Phil M.

--
Don't quit when the hill is steepest,
For your goal is almost nigh;
Don't quit, for you're not a failure
UNTIL YOU FAIL TO TRY."

--Jill Wolf

Phil M. wrote in message
...

However, I'm sitting here on the couch today with an
injury

Aack! I don't follow RR anymore; does this mean Boston is out for this
year?

We often idealize the 'old days' without really having a clue as to what it
was really like in those days. There's nothing to tell us what or how much
our ancestors ate 10,000 yrs ago. Eating till satiated & being satiated
after eating only what we need to survive carries the assumption that food
was readily available & accessible whenever we got those hunger signals.
This is in direct contradiction with the generally accepted idea that food
was scarce & difficult to obtain, which is why we're born with the ability
to store the surplus as fat, the biological equivalent of 'saving for a
rainy day'.

It is very likely that we are genetically programmed to eat a lot whenever
food is available, whether it's because we've just hunted a mamooth or
because there's a mamooth supermarket nearby. It is also possible that our
bodies prefer the more calorically dense foods with lots of fat & carbs as a
natural way of getting 'value for money'. It's just like buying concentrated
shampoo, washing up liquid or fabric conditioner instead of the huge -but
highly diluted- 'value packs'. A more natural diet may well be healthier but
it won't change this built-in 'program' which is like the BIOS on your
computer.

We are also genetically programmed to have a couple of dozen kids & for
girls to start procreating at 12, when they get their periods. In our day &
age, this evolutionary fact has the potential to be more disastrous than our
built-in ability to store fat. For many years, the only way to control it
was through sexual abstinence of some sort, nowadays we have contraceptives.
Can you see the similarity with the fat storage program? So far we can also
control it through abstience.

The time may come when we also have a safe & effective way to control food
absorption and/or fat storage. That we haven't got it yet may have something
to do with the fact that whoever markets such product will become immensely
rich BUT we may find ourselves back in 1929, given the economic importance
of the slimming industry in today's Western world. Most food companies
(manufacturers, wholesalers & retailers) carry both fattening & diet
versions of their products, once we've got fat on mayo & marmalade we can
buy their low fat/reduced sugar versions. Millions of books, newspapers &
magazines are sold on the basis of the diets they publish. There's gyms,
health clubs, clinics, supplements, body fat monitors, scales,
medications....

"BCJ" wrote in message
...
Isn't it meant to work that we eat until we satisfy our hunger?

So if we're not actually hungry and eat just for comfort or out of boredom
it means we must have some sort of emotional issues that we are trying to
eleviate with food. I'm not saying it's wrong to have emotional issues.
It's just questionable whether food is the answer to dealing with them.
Irregardless of how we deal with them, wouldn't you say most people's WOE,
certainly in the West, is not driven solely by hunger?

So for the average person, if you want to avoid blowing up like a balloon
you need to exercise some measure of portion control. This means saying to
yourself 'I want it but I can't have it' or 'I want to eat more but that's
all I'll eat'.

It seems most people on a weight loss diet or maintenance diet, including
me, live this sort of self-denying life. It's not so bad really. You can
get used to it. But what do you think? Are we condemned to live this way?
Is there a way back to trusting our hunger signals? A lot of modern food
with all its sugar, salt and what not can be very addictive. Does the
answer lie with a more natural diet?

I desire a more natural and instinctive relationship with food. Any
thoughts?

Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read a message from ignoramus15970
@NOSPAM.15970.invalid of 25 Mar 2005:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:33:29 GMT, Phil M. wrote:

It's bound to happen to anyone that exercises past the point of normal
fitness. But from what I understand, my particular injury is not a
catastrophe.

That's nice to hear. You have a long time before boston, maybe you can
rest a lot and jog through the marathon slowly.

That's a possibility. I might not have a choice but to jog slowly.

I hope that you will do well, though. Personally, I do not want to
exercise way beyond simply being fit.

Of course. That makes too much sense.

Phil M.

--
Don't quit when the hill is steepest,
For your goal is almost nigh;
Don't quit, for you're not a failure
UNTIL YOU FAIL TO TRY."

--Jill Wolf

Phil M. wrote in message
...
Leafing through alt.support.diet, I read a message from
ignoramus15970
@NOSPAM.15970.invalid of 25 Mar 2005:

On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:33:29 GMT, Phil M.
wrote:

It's bound to happen to anyone that exercises past the point of
normal
fitness. But from what I understand, my particular injury is not
a
catastrophe.

That's nice to hear. You have a long time before boston, maybe you
can
rest a lot and jog through the marathon slowly.

That's a possibility. I might not have a choice but to jog slowly.

Well when were you planning on starting your taper? Rest up and you
might surprise yourself.