It may seem like a “duh” statement but an article is out about how a study showed that eating while moderately hungry is better than eating when not hungry.
Let Hunger Be Your Guide is a post reprinted from Cornell Food & Brand Lab that shows how researchers conducted a test on undergraduates and how those who ate when moderately hungry and those who ate when they weren’t hungry at all had different blood glucose levels after eating. I would have to see the entire research results and analyze them before drawing conclusions but I can, at an off shoot of what I saw in the article, say that I can see why eating when moderately hungry is better than eating when not hungry. I would also say it’s better than eating when starving. That would be more of a don’t wait until you’re starving to eat kind of thing.
When one is starving then it is more likely that an excess of food will be devoured because of the craving. When one is not hungry then eating food seems pointless on some levels. Of course that’s not always a truth. I have a couple family members who are never hungry and have a hard time eating more than one meal a day. In their case it is best to eat something even when not hungry otherwise they would not eat anything.
One size does not fit all. But if you are one who grabs food just because it’s sitting there even though you have already eaten and you’re not hungry then the Cornell research may be of use to you. If you’re just interested in health and nutrition you might find it an interesting read too.