alt Hacker NewsIt'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.
Replies
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.
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.
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...