Can a volume eater de-volumize?

[elizabeth h]

Is being a volume eater truly a physical need? I eat a lot with this way of eating. I’ve read up on calorie density, stretch receptors, the pleasure trap, etc. and I’ve actually lost more weight than I had hoped for in the last couple of years. But it takes a lot for me to be satisfied. And this isn’t always convenient. I imagine I would be fine on less food.
So it’s had me thinking is the practice of volume eating more a mental issue than physical one?
Can you train yourself over time to be happy with a lesser amount?
Do I really need the food, or do I just want the food?

[f00die]

Is being a volume eater truly a physical need? I eat a lot with this way of eating. I’ve read up on calorie density, stretch receptors, the pleasure trap, etc. and I’ve actually lost more weight than I had hoped for in the last couple of years. But it takes a lot for me to be satisfied. And this isn’t always convenient. I imagine I would be fine on less food.
So it’s had me thinking is the practice of volume eating more a mental issue than physical one?
Can you train yourself over time to be happy with a lesser amount?
Do I really need the food, or do I just want the food?

just my experience:
i now eat less than half the food volumes
compared to when i started
eating when hungry until comfortably full
that point of comfortable fullness has moved
if i eat more than 2 cups of food a time
i get a mild heartburn feeling (i label that discomfort)
so ive learned to stop before that point
and im still very satisfied with my food
recently, ive been serving food 1 cup at a time
then going for seconds
which is suggested for volume eaters
in the relevant newsletter

[GeoffreyLevens]

i now eat less than half the food volumes
compared to when i started
eating when hungry until comfortably full

I imagine individuals vary but this matches my experience as well. I gradually uncovered a huge emotional component to the volume deal. I still eat more than nearly anyone I know because my calorie density is deliberately quite low. But I have also somewhat increase calorie density because I realized that it was too low and there was also an actual bodily felt lack of calories contributing to my overeating volume. Long time project with constant attention/self observation.

[patty]

Yes, I have found it stops. It takes time to let go of the old conditioning. Lately I have been cooking my potatoes in the pressure cooker because I love them being cooked in water. I eat them with a small amount of veggies. Prior I would eat microwave potatoes or baked fries. I was listening to Dr McDougall share of eating 70 to 90% starch on a video about cancer testing scam. I didn’t listen to the whole video but the video started out with the importance of fiber with digestion. Once mentally digestion comes more and more into alignment of what I am eating the volume eating decreases. Everyday I mentally check if I have eaten a piece of fruit and ate some vegetables. I never have to mentally check about about starch as it is my go to food. First I ate for health, then ethical, now for environment.

Aloha, patty

[PJK]

Since you say you're losing weight, you're not eating too much calorie-wise.

Your body requires a certain amount of food energy (calories) every day. That's a given. The question is HOW you get that energy.

So if you want to reduce the volume, then you need to increase the calorie density.

For example, instead of eating a huge salad (very low calorie density), eat more potatoes (higher calorie density).

That way, you would get about the same number of calories per day, but with less volume.

[LuckyMomma]

I’d call myself a volume eater. Yes, I think you can train yourself to eat less. If one ever fasted for a few short days, one would learn that they are okay with no food. Your stomach shrinks if you practice eating less. A lot of times it’s my mind that tells me I want to eat more but if I observe true hunger, I really don’t need as much food. Observing how much you eat by measuring your food helps.

[f1jim]

This is one of the benefits of going all in with this program. The satiety comes quicker by only eating on plan. The transition happens quicker and odds are it will stick if you don't keep sampling the bad stuff.
f1jim

[lucidguppy]

I need to focus on eating the right things and changing what I eat. I can't not snack - so I have to eat a fruit or have raw veggies dipped in fat free dips.

The only thing I need to follow is only have seconds after 20 minutes after a serving of food.

[PJK]

LuckyMomma, the McDougall plan is NOT about eating less or shrinking your stomach (if that's even possible).

It's about eating differently.

If you're following the program, you should not be going hungry. And you should be either losing unhealthy weight or maintaining your healthy weight.

No tricks required. Read Dr. McDougall's book, "The Starch Solution," and follow the plan. For a lot of people, it works.

[LuckyMomma]

LuckyMomma, the McDougall plan is NOT about eating less or shrinking your stomach (if that's even possible).

It's about eating differently.

If you're following the program, you should not be going hungry. And you should be either losing unhealthy weight or maintaining your healthy weight.

No tricks required. Read Dr. McDougall's book, "The Starch Solution," and follow the plan. For a lot of people, it works.

From my observation, not all mcdougallers can be slender as John and Mary. Weight wise, they look not too different from People who eat healthy SAD.

[Willijan]

LuckyMomma, the McDougall plan is NOT about eating less or shrinking your stomach (if that's even possible).

It's about eating differently.

If you're following the program, you should not be going hungry. And you should be either losing unhealthy weight or maintaining your healthy weight.

No tricks required. Read Dr. McDougall's book, "The Starch Solution," and follow the plan. For a lot of people, it works.

I really agree with PJK's statement. I think it is most important to remember and follow what Dr. McDougall says. And what he says is, this diet is not about going hungry or being unsatisfied. Now if you weigh too much for health, then you need to examine the volume of food you eat or its calorie density. If you find it unpleasant to eat the volume you do, then you can increase calorie density to lower volume.

It's been awhile since I read The Starch Solution, but I just reread his Maximum Weight Loss book. I am not on the MWL plan, but that book gives really good explanations about a lot of aspects of Dr. McDougall's plans, including the importance of eating enough.

[human vegetable]

Most high volume low energy density foods I consume are very easy to chew and go down quickly (cooked grains, legumes, tubers, pasta).

The low volume high energy density foods I eat occasionally on the road for convenience are mostly dried versions of the above, e. g. crisp bread (nothing but whole rye flour and a little salt), or roasted chickpeas (they even sell those unsalted, with just one ingredient). They are much tougher to chew, mostly because they need a lot of saliva to gow down smoothly. In order to make this a little easier, I eat some bites of fruit or raw veggies along with them, or take some sips from a water bottle.

I find that when I compute portion sizes merely by energy content, the low volume foods fill me up just as well as the high-volume foods, even though the size of an energy-equivalent portion is much smaller (about a third or less). That is probably due to the long time it takes me to chew them properly - despite the smaller portions, a meal takes me about as long as with the high-volume foods.

I bet, however, with an SAD high-density food containing substantially more sugar, salt and fat, and less fiber, the situation would be much different. Therefore, I would posit that the problem is less the high energy density per se, but rather the higher degree of procession and the unhealthy ingredients that tend to go along with it when choosing ordinary SAD staple foods.

Bottom line: When sticking to healthy high-energy density foods, decreasing your portion sizes should not affect satiety much, if at all. It might only take some time to find some healthy, McDougall-compatible high energy density food alternatives that are not too bland and you enjoy eating.

[PJK]

Human Vegetable: what you're saying, I believe is wrong. Here's why:

Everyone needs a certain amount of calories per day. If you eat low-calorie foods, you will need to eat more of those foods than you would high-calorie foods, to get your daily requirement of calories.

By analogy, imagine you were required to deliver 100 pounds in boxes every day. If the boxes were filled with tissue paper, you would need a lot of boxes to reach that weight. But if the boxes were filled with rocks, you would need many fewer boxes. Because rocks are denser than tissue paper.

Same with food. If the food has a lot of calories, you could eat less of it by volume to reach your daily calorie needs. If the food is very low in calories, you would need to eat more of it to hit your calorie requirement.

[PJK]

Here's another example. Imagine you had a choice between a diet of only olive oil, and a diet of only apples.

And you need 2,000 calories a day.

Olive oil is about 4,000 calories per pound. So to get your 2K calories, you would need to eat one-half pound. Because 1/2 of 4000 is 2000.

Apples are around 200 calories per pound. So to get your 2K calories, you would need to eat 10 pounds. Because 10 x 200 = 2000.

So that's 1/2 pound vs. 10 pounds. All because of calorie density.

[human vegetable]

PJK, English is only my second language, and I may have expressed myself unclearly.

Actually, I think that both of us are saying the same thing. I wholeheartedly agree to this passage of yours:

If the food has a lot of calories, you could eat less of it by volume to reach your daily calorie needs. If the food is very low in calories, you would need to eat more of it to hit your calorie requirement.

Still, the trouble is that people often eat more than they need, or feel starved when they restrict their intake to what is deemed sufficient. The OP is worried that if one has gotten used to eat huge quantities of low-kcal foods, it might be hard to "de-volumize", i. e. be content with smaller quantities of high-kcal foods, even if energetically, both are equivalent. Satiety does not depend on energy alone, but also on food volume (there are stretch receptors in the stomach). So, there is a point to this worry.

In my above post, I speculate that if one sticks to the rare McDougall-compatible high-kcal foods, it is possible to de-volumize without feeling starved - at least, that's my personal experience.