to not 'get' portion control

[thecatneuterer]

This is my first ever AIBU so I’m a bit scared.

So I was just eating an enormous bowl of porridge and I got to pondering the subject of portion control. Nearly every time I see discussions of weight loss/control on MN or on TV or wherever, portion control comes up as being essential. And I just don’t get it.

I understand what it is of course, I just don’t really understand the point of it. Surely if you eat a large quantity then it just means that you won’t be hungry again for much longer than if you’d only eaten a small amount, so you will eat less often. So the total quantity of food you eat in a day won’t be any greater.

I understand that eating a huge amount just before going to bed would be a bit silly, as you don’t feel hungry when asleep so you don’t need to ward off hunger for a long time then. And I totally understand that portion control should be exercised in relation to say doughnuts or chocolate cake, but with healthy meals then I don’t get why it really matters. And I can even imagine it would lead to more snacking on potentially unhealthy stuff.

Or is it that when portion control is encouraged the idea is that, even if you are really hungry after your small meal, you still need to wait until your next set mealtime before you eat? So in other words it really means that you should spend a certain number of hours a day being hungry? I can understand that would work. Is that really the aim of it?

So AIBU to think that if you only eat relatively healthy stuff, and you only eat when hungry, then portion control is pointless?

To add, I think this is why 5:2 is so successful for so many. All it boils down to is, eating less.

I think people confuse the advice "eat only when you are hungry" with "eat the moment you feel hungry, feeling hungry is bad".

Yes - and that's also one reason why the 5:2 thing can help some people, it makes you realise that a rumbling tummy is OK.

But it does seem to me that quite a lot of us nowadays are setting our kids up for problems - kids seem to be encouraged to snack a lot more than we did when we were growing up (Fiscal's mum was more the norm!), the idea that they'll have a meltdown if they get even a little bit hungry.

I think portion control as described in the OP is very ligi and but doesn't take into account all the reasons that people eat aside from feeling hungry. Eg I could eat the big bowl of porridge for breakfast but then meet a friend for coffee mid-morning and have a cake just because it looks yummy. Or mooch about all morning nibbling things because I'm bored. Or polish off the toddler's leftovers to 'avoid waste' (very illogical!) So I'd be better off eating the small bowl of porridge first thing to keep my overall intake down. Unless I am really concentrating on my food intake, I will eat when not hungry all the time!

At the moment I am nearly 29 weeks pregnant and my hunger signals are really messed up. I don't feel hungry at all and then suddenly switch to ravenous and faint within minutes. And then nauseous as soon as I start eating. My body is giving me a lot of mixed messages so I should be regulating what I eat, monitoring portion size etc. I miss that feeling of pleasant anticipatory hunger when you are looking forward to a meal!

isn't it a modern construct to eat 3 meals a day? I mean, that we are not designed to eat like that - little and often is better, and what our stomachs are designed to deal with? Your stomach is only the size of your fist (or is that an urban myth) - with porridge (which is mushed up anyway) it's easy to tell how much will fit into your stomach - unless, of course, your stomach has already stretched.

Pre-2WW charity shop crockery is good for portion control. Plates were away smaller then.

I don't think 'liitle and often' is the answer, either.

Eating 'often' doesn't allow the body to digest it all properly. Having regular breaks from eating is meant to be better.

Hopefully someone who knows more than I do about the logistics might be able to explain it better.

Surely if you eat a large quantity then it just means that you won’t be hungry again for much longer than if you’d only eaten a small amount

That's OK if the only reason you eat is that you are hungry.

I have eaten because:

I am upset
I am happy
There are crisps in the cupboard
It's the right time
I am feeling fat
I am feeling skinny
I have lost my house keys
The food is available
Something looks good
I've had a glass of wine
I'm eating instead of having a glass of wine
It's cold
It's hot
It's my birthday
It's someone else's birthday
Someone has cooked for me / made me a cake
It's the cat's birthday (OK I made that up, she's a stray and I don't know her birthday)
I know I won't eat for a while
The sell by date on the cake is tomorrow

regarding little and often versus big meals, this is a one size not fitting all issue. Some people get much better feedback on fullness doing one and some people the other. Snacking can be the answer to losing weight for some. Moving to 2 or 3 larger meals and cutting out snacks can be the answer for others. It depends which part of your metabolic pathways are screwed up....

the problem is that if you overeat, by say 2 buscuits per day, this adds up to weight gain over time

something as little as two plain buscuits that you dont need.... just two tiny little buscuits.....

this blew my mind i never realised that it was such a fine balancing mechanism. seems obvious really!

Presumably it depends what sort of foods you like eating too. Roughly speaking, most animals either eat nutrient-dense foods occasionally, after some sort of hunt, or graze on low-nutrient foods (with occasional considerable activity to avoid becoming food). Humans are victim of their own success in that - in developed countries - we can eat energy-dense foods any time we want with no physical effort involved.

The whole concept of "snacking" I find odd - it was a noun not a verb when I was young. A snack would be eaten often in place of a larger meal if in a rush, of if the next meal were delayed. The snack would be most likely toast, or cheese & biscuits, or fruit, - proper food rather than a chocolate bar or bought cake.

I agree with the comment above about people "eating when hungry" often means they eat as soon as they feel even slightly less than full.

Lots of confusion generally about "good" & "bad" foods - they're all just food. Too much lettuce would cause weight gain, assuming you could plough through enough of it. As for being "naughty" or "good" related to the eating or not of cakes & chocolates -

Lots of confusion generally about "good" & "bad" foods - they're all just food

Well, yes and no. Some foods really are 'better' than others because they contain nutrients we need - enough protein, calcium, iron, other trace elements, vitamins, oils etc. The castigation of sugar as 'empty calories' - which is nothing new - has validity because unlike most other foods it's completely unnecessary. But that certainly doesn't mean that anything containing it should be regarded as taboo.

I so agree with you sashh - I would love to only eat when I am hungry . I am not hungry now, I had a cooked breakfast and have a nice evening meal to look forward to but I absolutely know that I am about to make a toast sandwich for a late lunch, just because I fancy it .

"Little and often"
is a myth put about by the food industry in recent years

if you actually LOOK at how pre industrial societies live, people (if they are lucky) eat at the start of the day
work bloody hard all day getting food and then eat some of it at the end of the day
hunters go for days without food
tudor peasants who stopped for a snack rather than working all day would get beaten or starve
factory workers in the 19th century did not get snack breaks

the "worst job in the world" about the bin men in the phillipines made it very clear - they eat a bit at the start of the day and then work through till eating a big meal at the end of the day

I've eaten little & often for decades :). Works very well for me.
But bad for teeth. I can easily concede that.
Big rare large meals are really bad for me. I can only eat exactly what I need to sate hunger by eating little and often. I would overeat much worse if restricted to set meal times

Think we need a happy medium between the life of a 19th century factory worker being beaten for snacking and a 21st century compulsive grazer as neither are really a model of optimum health. Food is definitely too readily available now and we have to rely on self control which obviously doesn't work for a lot of us. But some people do need to eat little and often whilst others suit longer gaps.

But some people do need to eat little and often whilst others suit longer gaps.
No
Some people in some Western Countries have accustomed themselves to eating a little and often.

Fasting for various periods has been integral to most societies for most of history - Ramadan being the most obvious one today.

The rise in obesity and the rise in ready availability of cheap food are inextricably linked.
Relearning to only eat when you need to - be that meal times or just once a day - is the route to a longer healthier life.

for Sashh's cats birthday.

I think you make a very good point about the reasons why we eat.

OP if you are the weight you wan to be then portion control doesn't matter. if you are eating too much then your portions are too big and you need to get used to eating less

I was thinking specifically of someone I know who has a stomach condition that does mean they need to eat small amounts regularly. And it suits some people better. It sounds like the OP has got a really good regulation of her eating according to her appetite. I think if you have that - and many people don't - then frequency doesn't matter. The OP describes how if she eats a small portion, she will eat again sooner whereas if she eats a large portion she will go longer. So she eats what her body needs. That's the key, in my opinion, but it's very hard for lots of people.

It's simply down to your stomach adjusting to fit in large meals, and then requiring larger and larger meals to fill you up. Yes, it will keep you full for longer, but it will equal to a much higher calorie count than several smaller meals. It takes about 3 weeks for your stomach to readjust down to a smaller size again, once you stop overeating. I try to just stop once I feel a little bit full, and it seems my stomach has readjusted down to a normal size now! :)

Talkinpeace, agree.

Also, I find waiting long enough between meals allows your stomach to get empty, and you get a proper hungry feeling, which makes meals taste better and more exciting, IMO.

Snacking takes away from the enjoyment of a proper meal.

Personally I like to eat well, but then forget about eating for the next 4 hours.

That is very true Fiscal