Something I've often wondered about maintenance calories

[JDkeystone]

If a person was truly eating at their maintenance level (which, as we know, means eating enough to neither lose, nor gain, but simply maintain their current bodyweight), then, theoretically, shouldn't that be enough to keep them completely satisfied and hunger-free throughout the day?

Then why is it so many people claim to still experience hunger (not to be confused with appetite) even when eating at their pre-determined maintenance? If you're feeding your body exactly what it needs to maintain its current status, why wouldn't it be satisfied with that amount?

[ChecksandGiggles]

WOW this is a good thread!

Here's my theory. And I could be very, very wrong and probably am. I think food these days, for the most part, is more calorie-dense than it used to be. If it's more calorie dense and does not experience a proportional increase in its ability to fill you, you'll consume more. Also I have a theory that even when you eat at "maintenance" some days you'll go a tad over, some days a tad under-not enough to make a difference as far as the scale goes. So you might accumulate, say, 20 grams of fat one day, then the next day you may undereat by 180 cals. Net effect is pretty much the same. See what I'm saying?

[mollywolly]

If a person was truly eating at their maintenance level (which, as we know, means eating enough to neither lose, nor gain, but simply maintain their current bodyweight), then, theoretically, shouldn't that be enough to keep them completely satisfied and hunger-free throughout the day?

Then why is it so many people claim to still experience hunger (not to be confused with appetite) even when eating at their pre-determined maintenance? If you're feeding your body exactly what it needs to maintain its current status, why wouldn't it be satisfied with that amount?

What a good thought! I find maintenance is much harder than I think most average people think. The term "maintaining" is often misleading as it isn't work, but really, it depends what you're maintaining.

[JDkeystone]

WOW this is a good thread!

Here's my theory. And I could be very, very wrong and probably am. I think food these days, for the most part, is more calorie-dense than it used to be. If it's more calorie dense and does not experience a proportional increase in its ability to fill you, you'll consume more. Also I have a theory that even when you eat at "maintenance" some days you'll go a tad over, some days a tad under-not enough to make a difference as far as the scale goes. So you might accumulate, say, 20 grams of fat one day, then the next day you may undereat by 180 cals. Net effect is pretty much the same. See what I'm saying?

lol totally. Those are great points, and I think you hit the nail on the head there for many

But just for argument's sake, let's assume the people who complain that they don't feel satisfied eating at their individual maintenance levels really and truly are eating at their maintenance. Specifically, let's assume we're talking about people from this site who are into bodybuilding and eating for maximum body composition (in other words, ample protein and EFAs). I can think of a number of members from here who eat pretty solid diets, but constantly say they could eat wayyyy more than they do, and do not truly feel satisfied eating the amount they do right now. It's only because of sheer self-control and discipline that they don't eat more (obviously to avoid unwanted fat gain).

This is what I don't get. If their diet is in check for macros and quality food sources, and they actually are eating at their specified maintenance, why would they still be feeling physically hungry by the end of the day? Logically, to me, that suggests they haven't eaten at their maintenance level, but if they were to eat more, any additional calories would just go to storage. Mind=blown, nameen??

[kusok]

Simple

Living things are designed by nature to want to eat as much as possible, because famine can come suddenly, and surviving can be tough. All living things thus attempt to store as much as possible as reserve.

Notice how your goldfish, dog or cat will eat as much food as you give it until they get fat and if you keep giving them food they will die from over-eating
We're animals too.

[JDkeystone]

Simple

Living things are designed by nature to want to eat as much as possible, because famine can come suddenly, and surviving can be tough. All living things thus attempt to store as much as possible as reserve.

Notice how your goldfish, dog or cat will eat as much food as you give it until they get fat and if you keep giving them food they will die from over-eating
We're animals too.

So, basically, what you're saying is maintenance calories has absolutely no bearing on physical hunger (although it can, but varies from person to person)?

[rich503]

Hunger and appetite are certainly not mutually exclusive variables, rather, they are intimately linked. I am too damn tired to go into the physiology of it all, but believe me I have felt incredible hunger on bulking diets that are 2000-3000 kcals above maintainence.

[ChecksandGiggles]

Simple

Living things are designed by nature to want to eat as much as possible, because famine can come suddenly, and surviving can be tough. All living things thus attempt to store as much as possible as reserve.

Notice how your goldfish, dog or cat will eat as much food as you give it until they get fat and if you keep giving them food they will die from over-eating
We're animals too.

Pretty sure most organisms contain a hunger/satiety regulation system based on leptin and a myriad of other hormones-it's disadvantageous for an organism to gorge to the point of death.

[Vigilante_Inc]

Because eating habits are learned to a certain point. Most people have learned to eat when they're stressed or tired etc. A lot of times hunger people experience isnt actual hunger. It's more like a mental craving.

[JDkeystone]

Pretty sure most organisms contain a hunger/satiety regulation system based on leptin and a myriad of other hormones-it's disadvantageous for an organism to gorge to the point of death.

Not only that, but not all animals will just eat and eat and eat as long as they have food sitting in front of them. My cat, for example; she's a very small, slim cat (minus the mounds of fur lol), and I have no doubt that's because she really doesn't eat very much. She's ravenous in the morning, but even after I set down 1/2 can of catfood and a bowl of dry (for her to munch on throughout the day), by the time I get home, the bowl with the cannd food will only be 2/3 gone, and the bowl with the dry stuff will be about 3/4 full. She never fully finishes whatever I leave out for her in a day. Makes me wish I had her appetite cycle lol.

Because eating habits are learned to a certain point. Most people have learned to eat when they're stressed or tired etc. A lot of times hunger people experience isnt actual hunger. It's more like a mental craving.

That's not what I'm talking about, though. I'm talking about people who track their diet meticulously, who eat spot on at their maintenance level, and yet still experience genuine, physical hunger despite eating at maintenance. That's a reality for many people on here (myself included).

[kusok]

Pretty sure most organisms contain a hunger/satiety regulation system based on leptin and a myriad of other hormones-it's disadvantageous for an organism to gorge to the point of death.

leptin got nothing on modern world's abundance of food. For millions of years living things existed in a balance where there was a certain amount of food, no more, no less. Today we no longer have these cycles where you might get lucky and catch an antelope, for tomorrow we will starve. Today we got an antelope 24/7 in front of us ready to be eaten. Leptin can't make this evolutionary adjustment in only a few thousand years.

In a way, it's as if our natural environment has sharply and suddenly changed, and our natural mechanisms are nowhere remotely close to keeping up with the sudden unnatural change.


They take away soda machines in schools, kids get thinner, this was proven by solid research and 100% evidence. Less available calories = less fat people.

But perhaps I took it too far saying we would eat until we die. I was just making a point. More reasonable is to say we will eat until we're nice and fat so that we can beat famine when it comes... it just never does...

[kusok]

Not only that, but not all animals will just eat and eat and eat as long as they have food sitting in front of them. My cat, for example; she's a very small, slim cat (minus the mounds of fur lol), and I have no doubt that's because she really doesn't eat very much. She's ravenous in the morning, but even after I set down 1/2 can of catfood and a bowl of dry (for her to much on throughout the day), by the time I get home, the bowl with the cannd food will only be 2/3 gone, and the bowl with the dry stuff will be about 3/4 full. She never fully finishes whatever I leave out for her in a day. Makes me wish I had her appetite cycle lol.

I think your cat is a lucky exception. Great many pets are over-fed and over-weight.
There is just too much available food around.

[Ruben705]

Maybe because at some point you were eating over your maintenance level and now when you don't eat that amount you think you are hungry. You could be satisfying your body but just like some other posters I think it could be mental. I know on my fasting days I feel insanely hungry but on days where I go a long time without eating due to being busy I don't even notice the hunger.

[WibbleWabble]

Simple

Living things are designed by nature to want to eat as much as possible, because famine can come suddenly, and surviving can be tough. All living things thus attempt to store as much as possible as reserve.

Notice how your goldfish, dog or cat will eat as much food as you give it until they get fat and if you keep giving them food they will die from over-eating
We're animals too.

DING, DING, DING. We have a winner!

For millions of years we ate when we could get food! There were no markets, refrigerators full of food, etc.. Sometimes we would go days without food and then eat a $hitload when we killed something or came upon something. Our minds have not lost this. Our BIOLOGY has not caught up with our CULTURE. The scenario I mentioned was the reality of 99% of our existence as a species- it only makes sense that our minds would not send us the "ok i'm full" signal until after simple maintenance has been reached.

[Vigilante_Inc]

I really doubt that the average person who actually has to worry about dieting or eating at maintenence is really experiencing hunger. You're experiencing the psychological equivalant of hunger that you've learned through conditioning. Wanna un-learn this you've gotta uncondition yourself.

Put a rubber band on your wrist. Everytime you think "I'm so hungry" Pull that rubber band back and let it fly on the inside of your wrist. Your mind will quickly associate your cognitive thought of hunger with PAIN and it will supress your thoughts of hunger. You actually learned what you're calling "hungry" this way. You were unsatisfied, so you ate, you felt better. Youre mind associated eating with a good feeling. So in order to feel good youre mind says "hey go eat" Everytime you give in to this feeling you re-enforce this conditioning further.

I actually conditioned my current GF when we first started dating. I'd light a powerful cinnamon candle everytime we were having sex. Now when she smells cinnamon she gets horny She doesnt even know I did this either. I'll light the candle in the living room and like 5 mons later shell be nibbling on my neck.

All I'm saying is the mind is a very powerful tool and controls more than what you think. You're bodies hunger triggers are learned and therfore can be unlearned

[NorthTexasBB]

because activities lower and increase maintenance levels, didnt think about that one huh lol.

[JDkeystone]

I really doubt that the average person who actually has to worry about dieting or eating at maintenence is really experiencing hunger. You're experiencing the psychological equivalant of hunger that you've learned through conditioning.

I'm not. I've been eating at maintenance for awhile now (about 1750-1800, with my current activity level), but I experience physical hunger many times when I've already reached my calorie limit for the day. I know what psychological hunger is (which is really just another way to say appetite, which is the psychological desire to eat), and that's not what I'm talking about here. Many people on this forum can attest to this as well (Ted Nugent, Own3r, UCFBuilder, just to name a few), and the hunger we experience despite eating at maintenance is not from psychological conditioning. If anything, we've had to condition ourselves to not automatically go eat something just because we're feeling physically hungry. It's not pleasant, but it's what's gotta be done to maintain the bodies we want. But that's really gearing away from the original question that was asked here....

[lod254]

If a person was truly eating at their maintenance level (which, as we know, means eating enough to neither lose, nor gain, but simply maintain their current bodyweight), then, theoretically, shouldn't that be enough to keep them completely satisfied and hunger-free throughout the day?

Then why is it so many people claim to still experience hunger (not to be confused with appetite) even when eating at their pre-determined maintenance? If you're feeding your body exactly what it needs to maintain its current status, why wouldn't it be satisfied with that amount?

Incorrect, maintenance is what the body needs to maintain that weight, but hunger varies from person to person and definitely not dependent on calories.

For example, you could eat for example a bunch of broccoli (608g) and be stuffed on the 207 calories. You could also eat a candy bar and still be hungry on the same calories.

Personally I struggle to eat maintenance calories, much less my bulking calories.

[chelle21689]

Simple

Living things are designed by nature to want to eat as much as possible, because famine can come suddenly, and surviving can be tough. All living things thus attempt to store as much as possible as reserve.

Notice how your goldfish, dog or cat will eat as much food as you give it until they get fat and if you keep giving them food they will die from over-eating
We're animals too.

This is an old ass thread but I LOL at this

[thebankcard]

This is an old ass thread but I LOL at this

LMFAO

This is a good thread though wonder why it didnt pick steam. But im going to guess it has to do with more of what you feed yourself vs just eating at maintenance, as in fiber fats protein digest slower than eating a meal filled with more simple carbs!?!?!

[chupalo]

LMFAO

This is a good thread though wonder why it didnt pick steam. But im going to guess it has to do with more of what you feed yourself vs just eating at maintenance, as in fiber fats protein digest slower than eating a meal filled with more simple carbs!?!?!

Yeah it depends on what foods you have. The calorie density of food doesn't always match up to how full it makes you feel. Eg. Compare a bar of chocolate to the calorie-equivolent amount of fruit and vegetables. The fruit and veg will take up far more space.

Imagine doing a cut where 100% of your carbs came from fruit and vegetables. You'd need to eat kilos of the stuff, you'd feel stuffed all day, yet still would be eating under maintanence.

[Vanitouses]

The effects of HFCS and modified fats on hunger and especially appetite affect the amount of food and the satiety of the modern person.

info:
http://www.ajcn.org/content/88/6/1738S.full
http://www.ajcn.org/content/75/1/47

[JDkeystone]

Lol strong 2 year bump (to the exact day I made this thread, too haha)

[MikeK46]

Nice bump. The simple answer is that humans, like most animals, are opportunistic feeders.