Sooo Hungry! Is It Normal?

[_lppaiva]

I have changed my diet a little after taking to time to wander around the forum and after talking to some members (thanks guys, learned a lot).

I am blessed to have access to cheap fruit year round, since I live in the tropics, So I have slowly substituted potatoes with more fruit. I don't pile down on the sugar but don't restrict myself. I put as much is needed to make my coffee or milk to taste pleasant.

My Staples currently are bananas, Guavas (remove the seeds), papaya, Oranges and occasionally mangos. In winter I can still get bananas and oranges, and drive more towards grapes and strawberries. I also consume some roots, although lower in Starch and higher in fructose (White sweet potatoes, pumpkins). I eat those with either lunch or dinner, If I am having a higher protein meal (omelettes or liver)

I don't stress about the "little" things like resveratrol, carotene, etc. I am trying to transition slowly and setting a good foundation so later on I can experiment with removing one thing or another. I am not saying these things aren't important, but I think if I micromanage each and every step specially in the beginning I'll go nuts lol.

Anyway, not sure if it's a good thing or not, but after increasing my fructose I am hungry ALL THE TIME. I mean, I am eating up to 3100kcal when I workout (and it's only physical therapy) and 2600kcal on rests days but every two to three hours I am hungry. This might not seem much, but as someone who has come from a 1900-2000kcal diet just last month, I don't want to rush it.

Is this a good sign (being that that's the average time glycogen stores last you) or might it mean I am not eating enough. My meals are around 700kcal with 300-400kcal snacks, as to avoid too high blood sugar spikes (perhaps this is my mistake?). Around 40-60g of sugar, max of 50g of starch, 110 protein, 45-60g fats and aiming for 400+ carbs (failed attempt might I add).

 

[Cirion]

Extreme Hunger 1: What Is It? — The Eating Disorder Institute

@Kelj

3100 cal is actually pretty low for an active male, especially if you are under 25 y/o, and doubly more so if you are recovering from chronic calorie deprivation. 3500 is bare minimum for an under 25 year old sedentary male (3000 for over 25 year old sedentary male), and by bare minimum means that means no further degradation will occur, and no recovery will occur either, which means one often needs way more for proper recovery in some cases as much as double or more.

The hunger IMO is a good sign. It means your metabolic rate is starting to ramp up again.

Focus on feeding the appetite with what seems good to you. I would agree that you shouldn't get hung up on the minutae at least at this point. I would avoid the worst things if you can like PUFA, and try to get plenty of sugar. I have found these are two of the most important peat principles that have served me the most.

 

[redsun]

I have changed my diet a little after taking to time to wander around the forum and after talking to some members (thanks guys, learned a lot).

I am blessed to have access to cheap fruit year round, since I live in the tropics, So I have slowly substituted potatoes with more fruit. I don't pile down on the sugar but don't restrict myself. I put as much is needed to make my coffee or milk to taste pleasant.

My Staples currently are bananas, Guavas (remove the seeds), papaya, Oranges and occasionally mangos. In winter I can still get bananas and oranges, and drive more towards grapes and strawberries. I also consume some roots, although lower in Starch and higher in fructose (White sweet potatoes, pumpkins). I eat those with either lunch or dinner, If I am having a higher protein meal (omelettes or liver)

I don't stress about the "little" things like resveratrol, carotene, etc. I am trying to transition slowly and setting a good foundation so later on I can experiment with removing one thing or another. I am not saying these things aren't important, but I think if I micromanage each and every step specially in the beginning I'll go nuts lol.

Anyway, not sure if it's a good thing or not, but after increasing my fructose I am hungry ALL THE TIME. I mean, I am eating up to 3100kcal when I workout (and it's only physical therapy) and 2600kcal on rests days but every two to three hours I am hungry. This might not seem much, but as someone who has come from a 1900-2000kcal diet just last month, I don't want to rush it.

Is this a good sign (being that that's the average time glycogen stores last you) or might it mean I am not eating enough. My meals are around 700kcal with 300-400kcal snacks, as to avoid too high blood sugar spikes (perhaps this is my mistake?). Around 40-60g of sugar, max of 50g of starch, 110 protein, 45-60g fats and aiming for 400+ carbs (failed attempt might I add).

110g of protein is barely 14% protein intake on 3100 calories. That is why you are incredibly hungry, try upping it to 130g or even 140g but 130g may be enough to satiate, and yes plenty of protein is what is going to satiate you better then carbs or fats. Ravenous hunger is caused by low protein, and will cause you to want to eat everything in sight to meet protein requirements. Its a good range of cals as well, just the protein proportion is too low.

 

[Peatful]

I have changed my diet a little after taking to time to wander around the forum and after talking to some members (thanks guys, learned a lot).

I am blessed to have access to cheap fruit year round, since I live in the tropics, So I have slowly substituted potatoes with more fruit. I don't pile down on the sugar but don't restrict myself. I put as much is needed to make my coffee or milk to taste pleasant.

My Staples currently are bananas, Guavas (remove the seeds), papaya, Oranges and occasionally mangos. In winter I can still get bananas and oranges, and drive more towards grapes and strawberries. I also consume some roots, although lower in Starch and higher in fructose (White sweet potatoes, pumpkins). I eat those with either lunch or dinner, If I am having a higher protein meal (omelettes or liver)

I don't stress about the "little" things like resveratrol, carotene, etc. I am trying to transition slowly and setting a good foundation so later on I can experiment with removing one thing or another. I am not saying these things aren't important, but I think if I micromanage each and every step specially in the beginning I'll go nuts lol.

Anyway, not sure if it's a good thing or not, but after increasing my fructose I am hungry ALL THE TIME. I mean, I am eating up to 3100kcal when I workout (and it's only physical therapy) and 2600kcal on rests days but every two to three hours I am hungry. This might not seem much, but as someone who has come from a 1900-2000kcal diet just last month, I don't want to rush it.

Is this a good sign (being that that's the average time glycogen stores last you) or might it mean I am not eating enough. My meals are around 700kcal with 300-400kcal snacks, as to avoid too high blood sugar spikes (perhaps this is my mistake?). Around 40-60g of sugar, max of 50g of starch, 110 protein, 45-60g fats and aiming for 400+ carbs (failed attempt might I add).

I would say this is a good sign.
Especially the last part- where you are mindful of blood sugar.
Wise.

I simply think that you’ve lowered your stress hormones; not running on cortisol; will give you a normal appetite.
So keep eating to satiety- balancing those macros.
You’ll keep healing....

More thoughts but gotta go.....

 

[ExCarniv]

Like @redsun said, 110g of protein is low for a 18yo.

130-140 is a better range.

 

[Kelj]

2600 calories is never going to be enough for any aged man. If you are under 25, work up to over 3500 always. This is a scientifically proven calorie intake for sedentary men. Don't worry about being hungry. Feed yourself. That is your body telling you you haven't eaten enough yet. Eat more protein, if you feel like it. Especially if you've been trying to eat mostly fruit for a while. Don't cut carbs.

 

[tara]

Anyway, not sure if it's a good thing or not, but after increasing my fructose I am hungry ALL THE TIME. I mean, I am eating up to 3100kcal when I workout (and it's only physical therapy) and 2600kcal on rests days but every two to three hours I am hungry.

Is this a good sign (being that that's the average time glycogen stores last you) or might it mean I am not eating enough. My meals are around 700kcal with 300-400kcal snacks, as to avoid too high blood sugar spikes (perhaps this is my mistake?). Around 40-60g of sugar, max of 50g of starch, 110 protein, 45-60g fats and aiming for 400+ carbs (failed attempt might I add).

Nothing extreme about that. Are you eating enough to satisfy your appetite yet? It's possible you may have times of wanting more than that, too. If you are hungry for more, you could eat more.

110g of protein is barely 14% protein intake on 3100 calories.

I read it differently - I thought OP was saying 110g protein and 90 - 110g carbs per meal. If this is what your appetite is calling for, then it may make sense to go with it for a while. But I don't know that it's necessary to force such a high protein to carb ratio otherwise. Many people here are eating 2 or more times as much carbs as protein.
If redsun's interpretation is what you meant (110g protein per day rather than per meal), then disregard my comment, and by all means eat a bit more protein with meals.

and no recovery will occur either

My understanding from ED institute is that the minimums (3500 men under 25yrs, more if extra tall, extra active) are likely enough for recovery unless appetite calls for more (as in the the reference you made), in which case restricting food hinders recovery.

 

[gaze]

often times a zinc or other vitamin/mineral deficiency will cause an over excessive appetite to try and restore the body. Consider eating some oysters/liver if you don't already

 

[_lppaiva]

3100 cal is actually pretty low for an active male, especially if you are under 25 y/o, and doubly more so if you are recovering from chronic calorie deprivation. 3500 is bare minimum for an under 25 year old sedentary male (3000 for over 25 year old sedentary male)

Yeah, you guys told me something similar on a different post. It's just, it's so hard to get use to it. I mean, most "health concious" people probably get around 2000-2200 tops. Does this 3500kcal come from peat or another source? I find it so odd we never hear about it in mainstream media.

110g of protein is barely 14% protein intake on 3100 calories. That is why you are incredibly hungry, try upping it to 130g or even 140g but 130g may be enough to satiate, and yes plenty of protein is what is going to satiate you better then carbs or fats

The higher my protein goes, the hungrier I get. I usually have a feast after eating ground beef or liver for example. Since I avoid too high fat, that means satiating myself with carbs. Not eating starch is REALLY hard, and I don't think sugar is the answer, as it will just increase energy expenditure without providing the Nutrients to support it, making me probably even more hungry. As bad as starch is, it still carries nutrients to help balance it out (although I've seen a Peat quote saying their not optimal for mineral balance, don't know what's the deal with that).

 

[redsun]

Yeah, you guys told me something similar on a different post. It's just, it's so hard to get use to it. I mean, most "health concious" people probably get around 2000-2200 tops. Does this 3500kcal come from peat or another source? I find it so odd we never hear about it in mainstream media.



The higher my protein goes, the hungrier I get. I usually have a feast after eating ground beef or liver for example. Since I avoid too high fat, that means satiating myself with carbs. Not eating starch is REALLY hard, and I don't think sugar is the answer, as it will just increase energy expenditure without providing the Nutrients to support it, making me probably even more hungry. As bad as starch is, it still carries nutrients to help balance it out (although I've seen a Peat quote saying their not optimal for mineral balance, don't know what's the deal with that).

Eat starch dude. Do not avoid starch. Its possible that the increasing of protein will cause cravings for more food, this is the body asking for glucose to better use the protein. Certain fruits, usually tropical fruits provide decent nutrients to with the sugar. Don't aim for 3500 calories, the point is the aim for satiation not a number. You can try eating a day of eating and see how many calories you get by eating to satiation. If sugars from fruits are not satisfying you, it is pointless to mindlessly pound down sugary fruits until it works, it won't. If you do better with more protein and starch, do it. Some find they also do better with higher fat content. Experiment with levels of sugar, starch, fat, and protein and find out the combo that works best for you in terms of satiation and sustained energy. Very few people do well with sugars even if they are from fruits, no sense causing problems trying to force a fruit based diet.

 

[_lppaiva]

I read it differently - I thought OP was saying 110g protein and 90 - 110g carbs per meal

Jesus Christ no. I think that's too much even for me lol. Again, I am not sure if I am correct, but I think there's a limit to how much fructose and protein can offset blood glucose. I am not sure I can just indefinitely increase my carbs per meal before seeing some blood sugar issues (perhaps it's higher than I'd expect though). I aim for 400-700kcal per meal, 6 meals, but perhaps increasing it would be best?

But I don't know that it's necessary to force such a high protein to carb ratio otherwise

Eating protein makes me hungry. I have gone up to as much as 1:5/1:7. Perhaps I should try the opposite route, increasing protein per meal. My fear is that the "satiate" I'll feel will be due to stress hormones, not proper nourishment. I will probably try it out while accessing temp/pulse.

often times a zinc or other vitamin/mineral deficiency will cause an over excessive appetite to try and restore the body. Consider eating some oysters/liver if you don't already

I am not sure. I think it's more macro related because liver just makes me hungrier, and it has a lot of protein. I sometimes even use starchier foods to offset it (sweet potato, cooked bananas).

I don't want to sound like a d***, but at least amongst the people who don't/can't supplement, I think I hit my Nutrients pretty well. I estimate my own RDA's based on Peat's quotes, research and personal experience, and track them Daily (it's not a chore for me, I actually enjoy it), plus their really higher than the normal RDA's.

I usually get 16-18mg of zinc per day, 3000-4500mg of Sodium, I stopped counting Potassium after 8g lol. Calcium to phosphorus around 1:1. 790-800mg of magnesium, the only thing I supplement.

I don't think it's useful to get periodic high doses of zinc because the body can't store it for long (forgot in which book I read that). Selenium, Vitamin E and K2 are probably the hardest for me. I get a lot of K1 from well cooked leafy greens, Vitamin E is sort of a lost cause for now, and I am trying to eat pork kidneys sometimes, as their rich in selenium and low in PUFA. I aim for 200mg daily but can mostly get to 60-80mg. Liver twice a week, Oysters I can't source, and Pork Kidneys once or twice a week.

I can't test your theory because I don't have money to supplement, and I can't eat these nutrient dense foods everyday (liver, etc), plus the more I try to get it from fruit or carbs, the more the Metabolism increases/demand for nutrient increases (I think) and the hungrier I get! It's like a loophole.

 

[_lppaiva]

Eat starch dude. Do not avoid starch. Its possible that the increasing of protein will cause cravings for more food, this is the body asking for glucose to better use the protein. Certain fruits, usually tropical fruits provide decent nutrients to with the sugar. Don't aim for 3500 calories, the point is the aim for satiation not a number. You can try eating a day of eating and see how many calories you get by eating to satiation. If sugars from fruits are not satisfying you, it is pointless to mindlessly pound down sugary fruits until it works, it won't. If you do better with more protein and starch, do it. Some find they also do better with higher fat content. Experiment with levels of sugar, starch, fat, and protein and find out the combo that works best for you in terms of satiation and sustained energy. Very few people do well with sugars even if they are from fruits, no sense causing problems trying to force a fruit based diet.

Thanks man. It's not like I am 100% orthorexic about it, I am just experimenting with lower starch too see. I have had the most stable temperature/pulse so far, so that's why I wanted to hold the experiment for longer. Everything feels/measures great, it's just the hunger that's hard to deal with.

Aiming for 3500kcal means mostly the next milestone I'll test out to see if it satiates me, after all, appearently I can still be "undereating" by underestimating my needs. Probably around 4000kcal is when I'll stop and try a new approach (like adding more starch back in). I just ate like 100g of starch and 200g of carbs overall for dinner lol, so I'll wait for tomorrow and see my readings and how I feel (10:30PM here, and I am still hungry btw)

Ah, and Don't get me wrong, I really appreciated your reply, and it did help calm me down a little regarding starch and fat. I admit I have been fear mongering it a bit. But I forget Peat's most important quote, the one about self experimentation. I will keep what you said at heart, thanks.

 

[gaze]

If you got micros covered then just eat to appetite. Also try to eat complete meals with carbs/protein/little fat each time. try to avoid eating only carbs. not that big of a deal though

 

[tara]

I mean, most "health concious" people probably get around 2000-2200 tops.

I doubt it.
There are probably some who do this for a while. Being 'health-conscious' is no guarantee that their habits are health-supporting in the long-run, though.

Many public calorie recommendations are based on studies that use unreliable methods, such as occasional self-reported eating, to assess how much people eat. Unless it's measured, underestimating how much we eat is common except among people with restrictive eating patterns.

Have you had a look at the Minnesota Starvation Experiment?

Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia
brief extract from the methods:
"Control Period (12 weeks): This was a standardization period when the subjects received a controlled diet of approximately 3,200 kilocalories of food each day. The diet of the subjects who were close to their "ideal" weight was adjusted so as to maintain caloric balance, while the diets of the underweight and overweight individuals was adjusted so as to bring them close to their ideal weight. On average, the group ended up slightly below their "ideal" weight..."

" During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject's dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 kilocalories per day. ..."

extract from results:
"... There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. ..."

 

[tara]

Jesus Christ no. I think that's too much even for me lol. Again, I am not sure if I am correct, but I think there's a limit to how much fructose and protein can offset blood glucose. I am not sure I can just indefinitely increase my carbs per meal before seeing some blood sugar issues (perhaps it's higher than I'd expect though). I aim for 400-700kcal per meal, 6 meals, but perhaps increasing it would be best?

If you are only eating 110g protein per day, then I don't suggest reducing it at all - by all means eat more if you are hungry for it.

16-18mg of zinc per day

I'd expect that to be enough for most people.

Selenium, Vitamin E and K2 are probably the hardest for me.

If local land is poor in selenium, sea food can be a good addition.
Liver probably has useful amounts of vit-K.

Do not avoid starch. ... If sugars from fruits are not satisfying you, it is pointless to mindlessly pound down sugary fruits until it works, it won't. If you do better with more protein and starch, do it. Some find they also do better with higher fat content. Experiment with levels of sugar, starch, fat, and protein and find out the combo that works best for you in terms of satiation and sustained energy.

+1

 

[gaze]

I doubt it.
There are probably some who do this for a while. Being 'health-conscious' is no guarantee that their habits are health-supporting in the long-run, though.

Many public calorie recommendations are based on studies that use unreliable methods, such as occasional self-reported eating, to assess how much people eat. Unless it's measured, underestimating how much we eat is common except among people with restrictive eating patterns.

Have you had a look at the Minnesota Starvation Experiment?

Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia
brief extract from the methods:
"Control Period (12 weeks): This was a standardization period when the subjects received a controlled diet of approximately 3,200 kilocalories of food each day. The diet of the subjects who were close to their "ideal" weight was adjusted so as to maintain caloric balance, while the diets of the underweight and overweight individuals was adjusted so as to bring them close to their ideal weight. On average, the group ended up slightly below their "ideal" weight..."

" During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject's dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 kilocalories per day. ..."

extract from results:
"... There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject's basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. ..."

It’s quite scary actually how everyone in the media assumes around 2300 calories is healthiest. I myself thought this and it’s difficult to overcome ones preconceived notions. not sure how such a big change happened casually. i guess it’s because some long living populations ate that much so the media assumed that’s healthiest, but what people can’t seem to understand are those populations are usually quite a bit shorter on average so it’s laughable to try and get americans to eat the same amount. I saw an article where during world war 2 rations for Civilians was around 3000 calories. So even during the time of limited resources to feed the army the civilians were still given what today everyone would consider an amount that makes you obese. crazy honestly when you think about it.

 

[tara]

i guess it’s because some long living populations ate that much so the media assumed that’s healthiest,

You make a good point about height being relevant.
Also, some of those measurements of long lived peol=pel may have been made during periods of relative privation - they may have been more generously fed when younger. For instance, there's an article observing that the 'Okinawan' diet that got documented in the west was done at a time when Okinawan's didn't have access to their usual amounts of food in general, and pork in particular.
According to Gwyneth Olwyn, underestimating what we eat is typical - it's been measured. So if they base recommendations on what people say they ate, the recommendations will be low.

I saw an article where during world war 2 rations for Civilians was around 3000 calories. So even during the time of limited resources to feed the army the civilians were still given what today everyone would consider an amount that makes you obese. crazy honestly when you think about it.

Yes.