Talk:Hunger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hunger is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

Contents 1 Sounds and feelings 2 Poor entry 3 Physiological description 4 Same as URL 5 Stomach "shrinkage" 6 Politics of Hunger 7 Satiety 8 Chart 9 Progress in World Hunger 10 America has abolished hunger

[edit] Sounds and feelings

Under the 'Hunger as a condition'-section, it is stated that gurgling sounds and bubbling feelings are what induce stomach shrinking. The reason for the gurgling and bubbling is never properly explained. Gamkiller 07:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor entry

This is a dictionary entry, and a poor one at that. There's nothing but usage information for the word "hunger" here. AxelBoldt 21:14 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

Then please flesh it out with a physiological description. --Brion 21:17 Nov 20, 2002 (UTC)

Generally I agree in condemning such criticisms, because rather than criticize, one can add, or ask questions and make polite requests for expansion. Tyciol 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Physiological description

That may be better suited to Starvation, unless the (many) specific chemical changes in the body that trigger hunger are documented here. -64.235.174.78

What exactly is your body signalling a need for when you're hungry? I know it's food, but what exactly does it need? What nutrient deficiency causes hunger? --SPUI (talk) 17:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see more of a physiological description too. I am surprised with the problems many have with overeating, food addictions, anorexia, etc. that this article has not been more fully explored. I am of the opinion that what the article currently consists of should be secondary content. Instead, the primary one should be the biological basis of hunger, and how it manifests as physical pain and mental need. Who agrees?Tyciol 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Same as URL

I notice this page is exactly the same as [1]. What's company policy on this? 209.195.128.7218 May 2005

The BiologyDaily site may use this page under the GFDL, as long as Wikipedia is credited. JFW | T@lk 22:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Generally, the policy is that if it's free, it's fine to have similarities or to base it on another page. We should supplement it with info from other sources to make it better, less biased, up to date, and all-encompassing though. Tyciol 06:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stomach "shrinkage"

I have heard from a couple sources that your stomach does not actually "shrink" when you do not eat enough food. From what I understand, your body is actually producing less stomach acid to dissolve your food. The stomach acid triggers the "hungry" feeling in your stomach, and as the acid gets used up on food, you do not feel as hungry. So when you have less acid, you do not fill up as fast. If I could find some sources, I think this should be pointed out... because a lot of people seem to be spouting off this "myth" about our stomachs shrinking. -Unknown

I believe the rumour is true, but not in the degree most people think. The stomach very likely has a minimum size that it won't shrink past, which is why people get surgery to make it smaller (a full stomach does induce fullness). Any shrinkage beyond minimum would probably be due to catabolization of stomach tissue, which I can't see happening very easily due to the anti-evolutionary aspects of the trait. Stomachs due 'stretch' though, as far as I know, which is how power eating works, so if someone reduced their food intake or ate smaller meals, the stomach might reduce to it's minimum, rather than stretching out from larger meals? Tyciol 07:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I have run across from searching around. So it would make sense then that when people say their "stomach shrank", it was really they just let their appetites return to their minimum appetites. Anyways, thanks. -Unknown

[edit] Politics of Hunger

The last sentence needs to be deleted as it reflects an anti-American bias. The United States should not be singled out.

---

I agree with the non-neutral POV tag above. The military expenditure of many nations exceeds 19 billion dollars U.S., yet they are not mentioned. Why it is the responsibility of the United States to feed the hungry or why the military spending of the United States' (or anywhere else) is relevant to the discussion escapes me.

I've removed the section. If anyone wants to readd it, feel free to do so, but don't single out any countries. _-M ^o P-_ 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Satiety

Mentioning satiety would be a great addition to the article. --Abdull 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Here is a thought on this subject. There are people in the World that are spending millions of Dollars on finding out if there is drinkable water in Mars. Why not spend those same Dollars on figuring out how to sustain water in the third world Countries so they DON'T HAVE to RELY on the USA or other far better off countries?

[edit] Chart

China is not on the list. Also, wouldnt percentages be better than total numbers? (IE: at this stage, small countries are excluded no matter what) -146.115.65.15 10:02, 29 June 2006

I updated the list with newer statistic from FAO: http://www.fao.org/faostat/foodsecurity/index_en.htm Also, I definitely think that a percentile should be added to the chart, while keeping the total numbers too. However, I need to find a population chart for 2001-2003 to do that. Anyone? twsjon 12:45, 29 June 2006

[edit] Progress in World Hunger

Little progress has been made in tackling world hunger despite pledges by leaders to halve the number who are underfed, the UN's food agency says.

Some 820m people in the developing world were hungry in 2001-2003, only 3m fewer than 1990-1992, the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6099460.stm

vkvora 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] America has abolished hunger

"The USDA will now use the term "very low food security" to describe people who used to be considered "food insecure with hunger." Statistically speaking, hunger will no longer exist in America." [2]

I have no idea how or if this should be mentioned, but I thought you'd be interested to know that America has abolished hunger. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)