- Health and Science
- The Free Program
- McDougall Newsletter
- Success Stories
- Search »
Join Dr. McDougall along with fellow McDougallers in lively discussions and share your opinions.
As everyone who has had an extensive experience with fasting knows, true hunger is felt in the mouth and throat and is related to the senses of taste and smell. It is indicated by a watering of the mouth for plain food--even for a crust of dry bread. As almost everybody knows from personal experience the gnawing sensation or other sensation that is commonly thought of as hunger usually comes on at meal time, or when the stomach is empty, and subsides after an hour or two, if no food is taken. As we see in thousands of cases of fasting, these morbid sensations subside and completely cease after two or three days of fasting, not to recur after the fast is broken.
For over a hundred years Shew, Graham, Trall, Page, Dewey, Oswald, Haskell, Macfadden, Carrington, Eales, Tilden, Weger, Claunch, Shelton and hundreds of others, who have had extensive experience with fasting, have been calling attention to the fact that hunger is a mouth and throat sensation rather than a stomach sensation, but the professional physiologists have persisted in ignoring their work and their testimony and have accepted popular superstitions about the sensation of hunger and have "confirmed" these by limited experiments on sick men and women. Cannon, Pavlov, Carlson, etc., have all based their conclusions on inadequate data and on experiments that are too short to be conclusive.
Certainly if one is ever hungry, he is so at the conclusion of a long fast. Fasting experts insist that hunger is invariably manifested at the conclusion of a long fast, like thirst, in the mouth and throat. We employ this fact as a complete and satisfactory test of the sensations observed during a fast--it reveals whether it is true hunger or morbid sensations. Never under any circumstances following a fast, is hunger felt in the stomach. Always it is manifested in the mouth and throat and always there is an entire absence of distress or of morbid sensations associated with the stomach.
Debbie wrote:I find this interesting though. I'll just assume that I shouldnt eat any earlier than every 3-4 hours and leave it at that. And maybe try to stretch it out some from there.
JeffN wrote:Some people just can't maintain a meal plan with fewer meals and some just can't maintain a meal plan with more frequent meals. I am one of the latter, and so, I keep a more limited meal plan but would not insist on that for someone who felt more comfortable with more frequent meals as long as the overall dietary and nutritional pattern is the same.
ETeSelle wrote:I really object to this whole "toxic hunger" thing. It is NOT a McDougall concept at all--Dr. McD tells us to eat on-plan food when we are hungry, period. IMO it's detrimental to feel guilty about a perfectly natural impulse which is there to keep us alive! Just be more careful about what you eat. Sticking w/ MWL makes it much easier b/c you really can eat pretty much all you want. It's when people eat things like nuts, avocados, bread, processed food, etc. that they get into trouble.
MDraine wrote:I also object to it. What is the point of experiencing "true hunger" or "toxic hunger" if you're waiting 10 HOURS for it? That's not exactly the ideal time between meals, and if you choose to eat every 10 hours, you'd be eating larger portions to make up for that time difference anyway. So, um, why?