Sugar - possibly the easiest thing to cut back on for weight loss!
tennisdude2004
Posts: 5,609 Member
Lots of threads on the forums have newbies posting topics wanting to reduce their sugar intake to lose weight, which is a good thing - after all a lot, if not most, people on MFP are here to lose weight!
Sadly the original intent and message from the OP gets lost in translation (not through their fault).
It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
The truth is sugar isn't the devil, but then to be fair I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread which claims it is.
So why cut sugar? A large portion of people cutting sugar do it from a position of being over weight, so it stands to reason their calorie intake to calorie burn is out of whack and in a surplus.
As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!
What could be a better thing to cut, to get that calorie surplus into a deficit?
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
The main thing is get into a calorie deficit!
Sadly the original intent and message from the OP gets lost in translation (not through their fault).
It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
The truth is sugar isn't the devil, but then to be fair I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread which claims it is.
So why cut sugar? A large portion of people cutting sugar do it from a position of being over weight, so it stands to reason their calorie intake to calorie burn is out of whack and in a surplus.
As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!
What could be a better thing to cut, to get that calorie surplus into a deficit?
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
The main thing is get into a calorie deficit!
0
Replies
-
Well said!0
-
Actually, it's much easier to simply cut back on all foods and still eat everything you love.
Most people who undergo elimination diets for weight loss (as opposed to doing it for medical reasons) are likely to fail, revert back to old eating habits, and this usually means eating more calories again.
No foods have "empty calories" because all calories matter.
This entire post could have basically just been your last line: "the main thing is to get into a calorie deficit" and NOT to cut out foods.
And ETA. I'm eating a huge bowl of frozen raspberries. Which I'm guessing are full of "natural" sugar (they are unsweetened), but I don't actually track sugar so I have no idea. Sugar is sugar is sugar. by your logic this means you also don't eat fruit.0 -
Actually, it's much easier to simply cut back on all foods and still eat everything you love.
Most people who undergo elimination diets for weight loss (as opposed to doing it for medical reasons) are likely to fail, revert back to old eating habits, and this usually means eating more calories again.
No foods have "empty calories" because all calories matter.
This entire post could have basically just been your last line: "the main thing is to get into a calorie deficit" and NOT to cut out foods.
And ETA. I'm eating a huge bowl of frozen raspberries. Which I'm guessing are full of "natural" sugar (they are unsweetened), but I don't actually track sugar so I have no idea. Sugar is sugar is sugar. by your logic this means you also don't eat fruit.
Not sure you read the post properly - this is not an elimination post!
Its a moderation post - moderating sugar!
You are probably right about the analogy of empty calorie - but I guess Alan has his reasons for using that phrase - I suppose its an easy way of identify the less useful calories, saves having to explain the lack of nutrients sugar offers, compared to other energy packed calories.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that i think you shouldn't eat sugar??????????? maybe it was this paragraph?
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Actually, it's much easier to simply cut back on all foods and still eat everything you love.
Most people who undergo elimination diets for weight loss (as opposed to doing it for medical reasons) are likely to fail, revert back to old eating habits, and this usually means eating more calories again.
No foods have "empty calories" because all calories matter.
This entire post could have basically just been your last line: "the main thing is to get into a calorie deficit" and NOT to cut out foods.
And ETA. I'm eating a huge bowl of frozen raspberries. Which I'm guessing are full of "natural" sugar (they are unsweetened), but I don't actually track sugar so I have no idea. Sugar is sugar is sugar. by your logic this means you also don't eat fruit.
Not sure you read the post properly - this is not an elimination post!
Its a moderation post - moderating sugar!
You are probably right about the analogy of empty calorie - but I guess Alan has his reasons for using that phrase - I suppose its an easy way of identify the less useful calories, saves having to explain the lack of nutrients sugar offers, compared to other energy packed calories.
^^This
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
Well, to be fair there have been plenty of threads with titles like "sugar is the devil" and people proclaiming that they want to quit sugar. Which, of course, they can if that's what they want to do with no argument from me, but if one says you have to do that to be healthy or lose weight, I understand why people argue. And if one claims sugar is similar to cocaine, well, people might find it tempting to challenge that claim.As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
I'd be surprised if someone got flack for saying: "I have to cut way back on my calories, so looked at where my discretionary calories were falling and noticed that I was drinking lots of soda and eating dessert at every meal plus extra sugary snacks in the evenings, so decided that needed to be cut way down."
Indeed, I suspect that's pretty common (to the extent people were overindulging on sugar in the first place) among those who defend sugar around these parts.
Personally, I didn't eat lots of sugary treats during most of the period in which I was getting fat, but I was "emotionally eating" them by the time I decided I needed to change things (once I was fat I kind of stopped with the normal limits on snacks and such, since I was already fat so who cared). So sure, I agree, that's one of the things I stopped.
More significant things, for me, were (1) replacing the two to three nights a week I'd get Indian takeout with home cooked meals, (2) exercising restraint when I do go to restaurants, (3) watching portion sizes and added fat calories when cooking at home, and (4) (significant for me) increasing the veggie portions and reducing dramatically the portions of rice, bread, pasta, etc., since I don't enjoy those foods enough to waste that many calories on them. Cutting sugar was part of this, sure (mainly because it was attached to non-meal foods eaten when I wasn't even hungry, not because adding some sugar to a rhubarb sauce makes it inherently unhealthy). What I think is goofy about the sugar paranoia is that it takes it away from an overall context like this and posits it as the main villain in "why I got fat."Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
Assuming you are someone who struggles more with staying within your calories than meeting them, of course this is true. I don't really think it's what the arguments here are usually about.
(Okay, some hate the term junk food, but it doesn't really bother me.)
0 -
What are unsweetened raspberries?0
-
I have to say that while it should be easy to cut back on sugar, for some people that is really really hard. Yes, it makes sense, yes I should do it, but not that easy for me. I have cut out soda which was tough, and I try not to add sugar to my drinks but I still crave it at times. I don't think I will ever be able to eliminate it and struggle every day to keep the amount of sugar down below the level that MFP wants me to. I'm close but if I go over on anything it is almost always sugar.0
-
I actually think cutting WAY back on added sugars (I'm not a believer in demonizing fruit, though) can be helpful at first for some people. Going "cold turkey" can help retrain your tastes and preferences to be less sweet-heavy, which will make a reduced calorie moderation diet more satisfying and sustainable in the long run.
No, sugar isn't a demon in itself. But a sweet tooth can be a devil to overcome for lots of folks who are trying to reduce their overall caloric intake. Learning to love foods that are less sweet can make a long-term dietary change a whole lot easier.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I actually think cutting WAY back on added sugars (I'm not a believer in demonizing fruit, though) can be helpful at first for some people.
I agree, and not just for the reason you mentioned.
What I dislike is the idea that one must do that to be able to lose weight successfully or to be healthy, regardless of the specific circumstances, or the focus on eating healthy as an all or nothing thing--either you eliminate "added sugars" (or whatever else is supposed to be a bad food) or you are eating badly, no middle ground. I think that kind of thing causes people who can't imagine giving up all the things they'd have to give up to not even try or to quit quickly, and that's why I think people want to stress that it's not necessary.
(Does the sentiment sometimes go too far the other way when there are reasons for a particular poster to want to try a different kind of approach, like cutting stuff out for a while? Sure, that happens.)0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lots of threads on the forums have newbies posting topics wanting to reduce their sugar intake to lose weight, which is a good thing - after all a lot, if not most, people on MFP are here to lose weight!
Sadly the original intent and message from the OP gets lost in translation (not through their fault).
It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
The truth is sugar isn't the devil, but then to be fair I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread which claims it is.
So why cut sugar? A large portion of people cutting sugar do it from a position of being over weight, so it stands to reason their calorie intake to calorie burn is out of whack and in a surplus.
As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!
What could be a better thing to cut, to get that calorie surplus into a deficit?
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
The main thing is get into a calorie deficit!
Completely Subjective.
Thanks for stopping by, glad of your input!
How is that paragraph subjective - apart from quick energy what does sugar provide the body in regards to nutrition, or anything else for that matter?
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »Actually, it's much easier to simply cut back on all foods and still eat everything you love.
Most people who undergo elimination diets for weight loss (as opposed to doing it for medical reasons) are likely to fail, revert back to old eating habits, and this usually means eating more calories again.
No foods have "empty calories" because all calories matter.
This entire post could have basically just been your last line: "the main thing is to get into a calorie deficit" and NOT to cut out foods.
And ETA. I'm eating a huge bowl of frozen raspberries. Which I'm guessing are full of "natural" sugar (they are unsweetened), but I don't actually track sugar so I have no idea. Sugar is sugar is sugar. by your logic this means you also don't eat fruit.
Not sure you read the post properly - this is not an elimination post!
Its a moderation post - moderating sugar!
You are probably right about the analogy of empty calorie - but I guess Alan has his reasons for using that phrase - I suppose its an easy way of identify the less useful calories, saves having to explain the lack of nutrients sugar offers, compared to other energy packed calories.
Not sure how you came to the conclusion that i think you shouldn't eat sugar??????????? maybe it was this paragraph?
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
I did read it, and to me it read as an elimination tactic. saying that you need to only cut out enough to produce a deficit, well that could very well require eliminating it entirely. And other than candy, pretty much no food is made up entirely of sugar, so it's much easier to simply say "I'm going to cut out 50g of sugar to reach a deficit" than it is to actually figure out how much one needs to monitor sugary intake to create a deficit. As I said, much easier to simply log your food regardless of how sugary it is, and once you reach your calorie goal then you stop eating. Doesn't require any monitoring of sugar intake at all. I've not monitored sugar at all, some days I'm sure I eat way more than I need, and yet I'm down about 25lbs.
Moderation is fine. I practice moderation every day without actually thinking about it at all because I simply eat foods I like that I know will fill me up and help me reach my protein needs. But I do not moderate any specific micronutrient.0 -
This feels rather flamebaity to me.0
-
Tennisdude, whilst I agree with nearly everything you said, it is the title I disagree with.
Sugar is the hardest thing to cut back on!! Effective solution - yes absolutely!!, but easy nah!!
Now before I say my next sentence I want to stress the fact that when I talk about sugar, I am not talking about naturally occurring sugars in fruit and such but am talking about added sugar. You are a "dude" so you may be like my husband and sons who could live their lives without sugar and will only have the occasional chocolate or sweet treat but me I loooove sugar and lollies and they are my downfall. If I start a packet of lollies, I eat the lot.
I agree completely with your statement "So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!"
So why do we keep eating it. Because it tastes so good but it is really the devil - that's why??
0 -
Sugar is the hardest thing to cut back on!!
That's subjective.
It's ironic (or not) that the anti-sugar people seem to be the most obsessed with it. Wonder if there's something about making something forbidden fruit that makes it irresistible. Hmm, what a strange, unheard-of idea, don't know what the genesis of it might be.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sugar is the hardest thing to cut back on!!
That's subjective.
It's ironic (or not) that the anti-sugar people seem to be the most obsessed with it. Wonder if there's something about making something forbidden fruit that makes it irresistible. Hmm, what a strange, unheard-of idea, don't know what the genesis of it might be.
honest response to this, it is kind of strange to me to see how much less chocolate and candy I eat now that I don't put any restrictions on it and don't view it as something that will make me fat. Although I think it helps that I eat them within my calorie/macro needs. Still have plenty of halloween candy, and I bought a Snickers bar WEEKS ago and still haven't felt like eating it lol.0 -
NOPE. I like sugar and I like chocolate. I especially like chocolate with sugar.
0 -
Tennisdude, whilst I agree with nearly everything you said, it is the title I disagree with.
Sugar is the hardest thing to cut back on!! Effective solution - yes absolutely!!, but easy nah!!
Now before I say my next sentence I want to stress the fact that when I talk about sugar, I am not talking about naturally occurring sugars in fruit and such but am talking about added sugar. You are a "dude" so you may be like my husband and sons who could live their lives without sugar and will only have the occasional chocolate or sweet treat but me I loooove sugar and lollies and they are my downfall. If I start a packet of lollies, I eat the lot.
I agree completely with your statement "So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!"
So why do we keep eating it. Because it tastes so good but it is really the devil - that's why??
i do accept that some people really find sugar hard to cut back on - I did use the wording possibly - lol.
All I'm trying to say is a lot of people target sugar to reduce (not eliminate, cos as we all know even oxygen contains sugar) their calories and for me and I think for many its the low hanging fruit (excuse the pun).
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »NOPE. I like sugar and I like chocolate. I especially like chocolate with sugar.
Do you eat a calorie surplus or deficit?
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sugar is the hardest thing to cut back on!!
That's subjective.
It's ironic (or not) that the anti-sugar people seem to be the most obsessed with it. Wonder if there's something about making something forbidden fruit that makes it irresistible. Hmm, what a strange, unheard-of idea, don't know what the genesis of it might be.
honest response to this, it is kind of strange to me to see how much less chocolate and candy I eat now that I don't put any restrictions on it and don't view it as something that will make me fat. Although I think it helps that I eat them within my calorie/macro needs. Still have plenty of halloween candy, and I bought a Snickers bar WEEKS ago and still haven't felt like eating it lol.
Yeah, it was kind of a serious point phrased in a jokey way, although I'm not claiming it's the same for everyone. I find that for me it's not terribly hard to not overeat or have sweets around for ages without eating them when I'm not thinking at the back of my head that this is my last opportunity (or last for a while). I never really binged, but in the past I've behaved in a more greedy/immoderate fashion at times that I know was related to that idea.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Do you eat a calorie surplus or deficit?
I still fit a serving of chocolate into my deficit daily when I was eating 1500 calories a day. I found that when I was cooking everything from home my meal calorie totals were tiny so I had plenty of wiggle room for reasonable portions of 'junk' that I enjoyed. It made me feel like I wasn't giving anything up.
I do agree that added sugar is one of the places you can cut excess calories and not really miss them, but it's hard to say what is best for anyone but yourself.
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lots of threads on the forums have newbies posting topics wanting to reduce their sugar intake to lose weight, which is a good thing - after all a lot, if not most, people on MFP are here to lose weight!
Sadly the original intent and message from the OP gets lost in translation (not through their fault).
It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
The truth is sugar isn't the devil, but then to be fair I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread which claims it is.
So why cut sugar? A large portion of people cutting sugar do it from a position of being over weight, so it stands to reason their calorie intake to calorie burn is out of whack and in a surplus.
As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!
What could be a better thing to cut, to get that calorie surplus into a deficit?
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
The main thing is get into a calorie deficit!
Completely Subjective.
Thanks for stopping by, glad of your input!
How is that paragraph subjective - apart from quick energy what does sugar provide the body in regards to nutrition, or anything else for that matter?
You seem to think that it tasting good doesn't mean anything.
Now tasting good - that's something subjective
0 -
Sugar provides a fast energy source. That's good. There are all kinds of naturally sourced sugar packages wrapped in a fiber and vitamin sandwich - like fruit - that are good.
If you want super-easy to cut for weight loss, go for fat. I like fat, but I portion it out like medicine. That's a hard lesson to get through to a newbie.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Do you eat a calorie surplus or deficit?
Deficit. Point was I didn't give up anything.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »
Do you eat a calorie surplus or deficit?
Deficit. Point was I didn't give up anything.
My point is you don't have to!
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Or that energy is somehow unimportant. There's a very specific reason sugar tastes good to us. Because in general, it IS good for us. If it didn't offer us any advantage, we wouldn't taste it, or it would taste bad. For example, cats are carnivores, they don't have taste receptors that detect sugar at all.tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lots of threads on the forums have newbies posting topics wanting to reduce their sugar intake to lose weight, which is a good thing - after all a lot, if not most, people on MFP are here to lose weight!
Sadly the original intent and message from the OP gets lost in translation (not through their fault).
It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
The truth is sugar isn't the devil, but then to be fair I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread which claims it is.
So why cut sugar? A large portion of people cutting sugar do it from a position of being over weight, so it stands to reason their calorie intake to calorie burn is out of whack and in a surplus.
As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!
What could be a better thing to cut, to get that calorie surplus into a deficit?
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
The main thing is get into a calorie deficit!
Completely Subjective.
Thanks for stopping by, glad of your input!
How is that paragraph subjective - apart from quick energy what does sugar provide the body in regards to nutrition, or anything else for that matter?
You seem to think that it tasting good doesn't mean anything.
As for the overall premise of the OP. It's common knowledge. Read the recommendations of everyone that gives out advice. Generally it's hit your protein and fat minimums, and use carbs to fill out the rest. Generally that requires cutting back on carbs, especially for people who are eating low levels of protein and fat, because the deficit has to come from somewhere.
So it's not "cut back on sugar because it doesn't offer anything (because it does, lots of hormonal regulation is based on the behavior of insulin and sugar, anabolic hormones like igf-1 and hgh are regulated by carbs,) but because minimum amounts of protein and fat are required, and those amounts don't change when you want to create a calorie deficit (they are calculated based on body weight, not a percentage of total calories, after all.)0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Lots of threads on the forums have newbies posting topics wanting to reduce their sugar intake to lose weight, which is a good thing - after all a lot, if not most, people on MFP are here to lose weight!
Sadly the original intent and message from the OP gets lost in translation (not through their fault).
It seems as though any want to reduce your sugar intake gets met with 'sugars not the devil' and other mature catch phrases!
The truth is sugar isn't the devil, but then to be fair I'm not sure I've ever seen a thread which claims it is.
So why cut sugar? A large portion of people cutting sugar do it from a position of being over weight, so it stands to reason their calorie intake to calorie burn is out of whack and in a surplus.
As we all know and agree on the only way to lose weight is to eat in a calorie deficit. So those peps currently over weight and eating in a surplus have to cut some calories somewhere and whats the easiest and least important food group to do that with - Sugar.
So whats great about sugar - Nothing!!! Apart from giving the body a quick fix of energy (which it can easily get from more nutrient rich and beneficial food) it offers nothing!
What could be a better thing to cut, to get that calorie surplus into a deficit?
I think the message for newbies looking to reduce their sugar intake is first off - well done for wanting to do something! But also a reminder that they only need to cut enough to get them into the deficit they need.
Within their allotted calories if they've covered their bases with protein and got their micro nutrients dialed in, then if they want to make up the rest of their cals with sugar then do it, log it and enjoy it.
So to coin some phrases used by Alan Aragon, reduce your intake of junk food and limit your foods with empty calories!
The main thing is get into a calorie deficit!
Completely Subjective.
Thanks for stopping by, glad of your input!
How is that paragraph subjective - apart from quick energy what does sugar provide the body in regards to nutrition, or anything else for that matter?
You seem to think that it tasting good doesn't mean anything.
Now tasting good - that's something subjective
Well then we both made subjective statements.
Don't we always?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions