Skip to main content
Friday FeatureHealthMUSINGS

Friday Feature: Hunger Satisfaction v. Taste Satisfaction

By February 10, 2012June 20th, 20222 Comments

How many times have you been afraid to try some new food because “I might not like it” or you try something because you think you will like it? Typically, trying something new is not an issue for me, though some things, like squid and frog legs (though I’ve tried them) turn my stomach just thinking about them. As I was thinking about why we eat what we eat I realized that most of us eat foods we have a taste for and not foods that will simply satisfy our hunger. We have given precedence to satisfying our taste above satisfying our hunger. Yes, God gave us food to enjoy; that’s why we have taste buds. But should taste really be our main concern?

This is the question I have been pondering while on this raw food program. I have had some amazing foods that have satisfied my taste and hunger, but some foods I didn’t like. Because I am committed to trying new foods to help me learn how to prepare new dishes I continue to try what I have not heard of in hopes of discovering what will be good for my body. When I say good I mean good for me, not necessarily good to me. The phrases good for me and good to me offer the major difference between hunger satisfaction and taste satisfaction. Following are some basic distinctions:

Hunger Satisfaction

Supplies fuel
Eliminates hunger pangs
Infuses energy
Nourishes cells
Nourishes skin
Provides mental clarity

Taste Satisfaction

Pleases palate
Pleases emotions
Fills stomach with empty calories
Pleases eyes
Provides temporary fuel
Feeds fat cells

Of course everything that tastes good isn’t bad for you. There are a range of foods (like my favorites of Mediterranean and Indian) that are good for you and good to you. But let’s admit: when we go for taste we are rarely thinking about eating foods that will satisfy our hunger. And we simply satisfy our taste we are ultimately satisfying our souls—our minds, will and emotions. When we seek to only satisfy our taste I believe we are giving in to our soulish side, our flesh. We know that when we feed our flesh we in turn are starving our spirit. So if that’s that case, shouldn’t we be seeking to satisfy our hunger—receiving fuel that gives us energy and physical and mental health—above satisfying our taste? This is what I want us, especially Bible-believing Christians, to consider. If our food is to do the will of God the Father and to complete the work that He put us on earth to do, as Jesus said, shouldn’t we choose to satisfy our hunger above our taste so we get all the physical stamina we need to accomplish our God-given work (John 4:34)?

What do you think of how I have made the distinction between hunger satisfaction and taste satisfaction? How do you see taste satisfaction and hunger satisfaction playing out in your life? In the lives of others? I would love for you to comment below. Depending on your reading format, the below options will say Leave a Reply or Add New Comment. Thank you for reading.


  • Abbey Waterman says:

    Guilty!  Rhonda, keep it coming.  God has to be the master of even my taste buds.  No part of my earthly body deserves the right to rule, not even my fungiform papillae, filiform papillae, foliate papillae, circumvallate papillae (taste buds of the tongue).  This blog is a flesh killer.

    • Abbey,

      I love the way you give the proper names to the taste buds, calling them out and letting them know you know them! What authority this brings to us having a handle on our taste buds and allowing God to have authority even that very part of us. We have to be flesh killers, doing whatever it takes to reckon ourselves dead and alive in Christ.

Close Menu