‘That’s me done for food today’ after a 3 course lunch

[Offred2]

I went to a restaurant with four friends for a Christmas lunch a few days ago. We all ate 3 courses and had a glass of wine each (none of us are big drinkers). The portions were decent-sized but not ridiculously big.

As we were finishing one of my friends said something along the lines of ‘that was lovely, I wont be needing anything else to eat today’. Following this all my other friends nodded/agreed.

While I didn’t say anything I was thinking that this is not the case for me at all! After that lunch at 1pm I ate beans on toast at around 7pm. I think of myself as someone with a pretty normal appetite, but if my friends were being truthful I ate a substantial amount more than them that day.

I remember a few years back my MiL making a similar comment after a restaurant lunch, that she wouldn’t need to eat anything else that day. However as we happened to be staying with her at the time I know she later ate sandwich and soup at dinner time.

So - my friend’s comment got me thinking. What do people actually mean when they use this phrase? Is it literal, as in ‘after this big lunch I will not eat any food until tomorrow’? Or do people simply mean that they won’t need to have a big evening meal, but might have eg a sandwich? Or is it something some people (women!) say without meaning it, to indicate they have a small/delicate appetite, though they may have every intention of eating something else that day.

For what it’s worth all of my friends in the restaurant are healthy weights, and as far as I know no one has any history of disordered eating.

@RoyalCorgi you made me snort laugh - toast or a tangerine. Sorry, but they are such divergent examples, I found it very funny.

I would be able to eat 3 courses as long as I had skipped breakfast, and would wolf it all down, if it was good. I would feel full, and try to up my moving about for the rest of the day. I would be hungry again, probably by 7ish, and would eat something, a light meal (more than a tangerine :)) I too find it funny that I often feel hungrier the more I eat.

Humans are odd fish. That's what is so great about them!

I usually say "Oh, I'll probably squeeze something in."

Some people have poor digestion and have slower metabolisms anyway.

Since when was soup/bread, a sandwich, eggs on toast, etc. not a 'full meal'?

a full meal in my books has a starter and a desert , and sandwiches qualifies as junk food in my house: something the kids have as a treat for a picnic, it's not a proper meal.

So what? MN posters LOVE sandwiches, each to their own.

But as a very slim, woman who only really put a bit of weight on in my 40's ...I know that to keep very trim...you just don't eat...or at the very least, very small portions... little or no carbs...very little sugar etc.

No, you mean you. You don't speak for the rest of us.

If they are slim then a 3 course meal in one go would probably represent lunch and dinner in terms of volume of food, so possibly they wouldn't want/need to eat again that day.

I'm slim (technically underweight, although I think BMI is a very blunt instrument) and, as I said, would and do definitely need to eat a dinner even after a large lunch.

I would say that and mean it at the time. But 4 hours later I'm going to be hungry again and eat! People say it because they believe they are too full to eat again....until they get hungry again!

I’d probably not eat a cooked meal at tea times but have a substantial snack such as beans or cheese on toast, Cheese & biscuits or a sandwich ect. I couldn’t go without food until the next morning!

I wouldn't eat again. If I eat a big lunch or brunch I won't eat til lunch the following day as I don't eat breakfast (unless I'm at a hotel ).
I low carb, and don't tend to feel hungry often; I don't consider this 'disordered eating' but some may.

Yanbu I'm like you I'd need to eat something to at 7pm nothing massive but perhaps a cheese on toast or something.

If I eat more than a sandwich at lunchtime I’m not hungry in the evening for more than a small snack.

We went away a couple of weekends ago, breakfast each morning was fried egg two, two rashers bacon, sausage, black pudding, mushrooms and tomato. I managed to eat most of it and then neither of us had lunch. A good breakfast easily takes us through to our evening meal.

I would still have dinner too

Pfefferkuchen, Well that's you. There's no such thing as a 'full meal' in this house, it's just a meal. Whatever is eaten at the time, that's the meal. We don't routinely eat desserts or starters at home.

I'm agreeing with the OP and challenging the nonsense.

I had a 2 course meal on Monday at 1pm And didn’t eat anything till the following day.

I only eat when I’m hungry.

I wouldn't be able to eat again after a lunch meal. In fact I very rarely eat much in the evening anyway I have a more filling lunch and then just soup or salad in the evening about 5:30 - been the best approach for maintaining good weight for me.

firawla My auntie was like that about us when we were younger. When I used to go and stay with her I’d be ravenous in the evening because she wouldn’t cook anything if we’d had a big lunch... When I was in my teens I started taking snacks with me!

Newsflash - different people have different appetites.

As long as the eating patterns people choose to have result in good health, does it really matter?

I’m a GP, and it’s really common for people not to count food that isn’t a cooked meal. I quite often ask people to tell me what they eat in a day and it’s not uncommon for people to say “I don’t really have X meal, just a snack”. If you question them further, they never mean an apple. They mean a sandwich, or beans on toast or soup and bread, all of which are in fact a meal.

Newsflash - different people have different appetites

Totally agree. I dont know why people seem to be getting so worked up that others might not be able to manage anything else to eat after a big three course meal. Its not ridiculous or nonsense at all. Everyone is different. Its not exactly earth shattering news that we are all different and have different appetites/metabolisms.

I'd still eat dinner, albeit not something huge (I am fat though).

I’d not eat another main meal but I’d be wanting toast and marmite by 7pm.

Shock news: Some people have a faster metabolism than others!

I don't understand this constant fascination with how much/what/when other people eat. Eat what you need for your own body.

It would vary. Some days I have a McDonalds for lunch and don't need dinner. Other times I could eat a lot for lunch and be hungry for dinner at usual time. I presume it's hormonal, or depends on what I've eaten the day before or what I'm doing.

But yes, I suppose it might be a throw away comment to convey how full they are in that moment and isn't really intended to be taken literally.

I'd maybe say I won't need anything for dinner at the time, but then when dinner comes round I'll probably be hungry and eat something. It depends how big the lunch was and also if it was something 'bad' that I should try to eat less to compensate for! 😁

I’d say that, then probably be ravenous by 7pm. I find that big meals - esp sweet/fatty - actually stimulate my appetite later on. Same as you it’d probably be a light supper, not a full meal. I’m a slim woman so don’t think I’m an unusually greedy eater!

I couldn't eat much after that. Probably a slice of toast and cup of tea. I'd definitely want something by 6/7 though. A bad time to eat I know but I like to wait until I have some peace