But rhubarbarin, you have a very fast metabolism and no weight to lose, right? How many calories do you eat a day?
I really have to lose quite a bit of weight and do not have a very fast metabolism . . . the thing is, I don’t think most people consider 400 cals a “tiny meal.” Esp. if you eat more than three meals/day.
I’ve never seen any correlation with calories and hunger, myself. Hunger is either physical–which is how full my tummy feels–or mental–which is about how tasty and satisfying my previous meal was. The former can be helped with adding bulk to your diet. The latter with just finding good tasting food and eating slowly.
Also, there’s nothing wrong with eating a larger meal, and making your smaller meals smaller. The meal plans I’ve seen tend towards having two or three bigger meals and two or three smaller ones.
My rule of thumb is that if you think you’re hungry but don’t feel like you’d want to eat a bowl of steamed broccoli and cabbage, then you aren’t hungry enough yet.
The amounts of food you describe in your OP do not sound large enough to quell your hunger for any significant amount of time. If you’re going to try to use an “eat when I’m hungry” approach, you need to also use an “eat until I’m satisfied” approach. Restricting food and then trying to eat when you’re hungry is only going to lead to constant hunger (and make it impossible for you to stick to your plan). One thing to remember is that hunger is affected by the bulk of the food you eat rather then strictly by calories. Eating foods with more fiber is going to fill you up more than eating low fiber foods. With practice, you should be able to get a sense of how much food it takes to last you for a while (satisfied) rather than stuff you.
They had one small meal at 9, and another possibly even smaller one at 12:30.
I dont think they’re using that system.
Otara
Sure. Blood sugar meters, readily available for use by diabetics.
Objective, but they have the disadvantage of requiring a finger stick & drop of blood to work.
Otherwise, just schedule your meals and eat only on that schedule. And make sure your meals are of appropriate size (your description seems a bit skimpy for a meal).
I’m pretty sure if you’re not diabetic than your blood sugar remains relatively constant between meals (because otherwise I think i would actually consider that method)
How long have you been trying to eat less? I think the transition from 3000 cals of whatever you want to 1200 cals of lower-fat foods takes a couple weeks to get used to.
What kind of oatmeal are you eating? Does your protein powder have sugar in it? Less sugar might help.
How much water are you drinking? That helps a LOT.
So does smoking but…ugh 
Thanks. I am definitely going to check it out.
It’sd a fascinating insight into American food beliefs that, underlying most of the posts is the assumption that the OP is trying to eat less.
She doesn’t say that in the OP. She does say she has a history of disordered eating.
How many meals per day are you eating? If you are eating 5 350-400 calorie meals that isn’t so bad. If you are eating 4 400 calorie meals and you are used to eating 3 800 calorie meals of course you are going to feel hungry!
I think your answer is that your body told you that you were hungry at 11:30 when you started feeling peckish. If you had eaten an orange or a handful of almonds or something then your lunch probably would have been more filling when you sat down at 12:30 to eat. Waiting until your stomach is angry with you is not a good diet idea because it makes you more likely to binge. I tried the exact same thing and made it about 3 or 4 days before I said, “Fuck it, this is worse than being fat. I will be glad to let out my pants if this feeling will go away!” and supersized my lunch and added a dessert. So far I’m losing weight using www.livestrong.com and making sure that my stomach is never empty. When my stomach meter is pinging empty I get angry and have really bad nausea which causes lots of unsexy burping and dry heaving of stomach acid. I try my best not to let it get to that point before I start eating because when it does nothing is satisfying.
No, but she does say it eventually, in a post prior to **ZipperJJ **asking how long she had been trying to eat less:
I don’t read how big you are now. 400 might be enough or it might be way too little.
Cutting calories is the right thing to do but cutting too much too soon will not work for long for most people.
Doh sorry Gestalt, I didnt realise you were the OP.
Otara
When I was coming off disordered eating (nice phrase), I planned calories and nutrition for the day and ate that. My body’s needs were being taken care of, so anything else was emotional eating or bad habits. I did that for about three months; it really straightened out my relationship with food.
Exactly the same strategy for me, I used the food pyramid and ate everything I was supposed to every day. I planned out exactly the calories and nutrients that I needed every day and did not veer from the plan. There was no way I could have trusted my hunger signals because they were not trustworthy.
The thing that changed for me and made it possible to eat sensibly without the strict plan was that I trained myself to stop thinking about food as anything other than fuel. I think the trick is to find a way to stop asking yourself “am I hungry?” until your hunger signals have a chance to get healthy again, because once they do you won’t have to ask anymore.
You’re correct that our needs are very different, and I really don’t like to compare my experiences with weight/caloric intake to normal people because I’m such an outlier.
However, since I’m really into my ‘primal’ diet-and-lifestyle, and it seems to work so incredibly well for fat loss, I end up reading a lot about the experiences of people trying to lose fat. Many little meals throughout the day doesn’t seem to work very well for most when it comes to reduction of nagging hunger, and/or weight loss. Neither does eating a grain-based and primarily vegetarian diet, of course. IMO to achieve both it’s better to eat fewer larger and satisfying meals containing plenty of fat and protein. I know this is totally against the common advice. All I know is that the many people I know who follow the accepted advice do not lose much weight or body fat, aren’t successful at keeping what weight they do lose off long-term, and are hungry all the time which makes it all the harder to stick to a strict low-calorie diet. This jives with your personal experiences, from what you’ve said. You seem to do it all ‘right’ (vegetarian, low-fat, low-calorie, running) and you aren’t seeing the results you want. Metabolic rate and genetic predisposition is a part of the answer, sure, but there are many other factors.
And I do think 1600-2000 cals for a grown woman is on the lower side, even if you are completely sedentary. Which you’re not, you’re a runner who racks up a significant weekly milage, correct? I do know for a fact that plenty of women can’t lose any weight at all eating that or less, even if they are exercising. I believe this is becase of the type of food they are eating, not the amount.
All humans have constantly fluctuating blood sugar. It’s lowest in the morning after a night with no food (or after any fast), and rises to peaks in the hour (or two)following each meal. If you are eating high-carbohydrate meals, a metabolically normal and healthy person can see b/s readings of up to 150 (normal fasting range is considered to be 70-99) soon after eating.
Type II diabetics mostly suffer from systemic inability for their cells to properly utlize the insulin their body produces to bring the blood sugar down after eating carbohydrate, so they have problems with elevated total blood sugar or hyperglycemia. People who have issues with hypoglycemia have their blood sugar dip dangerously low with various ill-effects (you can die, for one). Type 1 diabetics produce insufficient insulin or even none at all, so without proper monitering and insulin injections if necessary, can become hyperglycemic or hypoglycemic. The term ‘pre-diabetic’ (Type II) is now being used for the many people who have chronically elevated blood sugar levels but aren’t yet high enough for a formal diagnosis of diabetes.
It can be quite educational to test your own blood sugar. I’ve found that my fasting level is low-normal, that my blood-sugar never goes very high, my body is very quick and efficient at bringing down my blood sugar levels, even after eating enormous quantities of glucose.
Diabetic here. Just popping in to back up Gestalt - low blood sugar does not correspond to hunger, at least not all the time. I can be ravenously starving when my blood sugar is just fine, and I’ve been dangerously low (in the 40s or below) and not notice hunger at all. (Luckily I do tend to notice other things, like how I’m sweating and shaking :D)
Some diabetics do report being ravenous during lows, but it’s not universal, and as I point out above, you can very much be hungry and not be low at all. For most non-diabetics, a blood glucose meter will be a very expensive method of telling that your blood sugar is between about 90 and 110 95% of the day.