What's the deal with the obsession of sweets?
Replies
-
I used to be one of the "sugar is ebil" crowd. I gave it up, thinking I was "addicted", and did Atkins and then paleo for a long time.
Fortunately, I wised up and trusted myself more and came to find out that I'm just fine with moderation now. I don't often choose to eat sweets because sugar sometimes triggers migraines for me, but when I do choose to eat them, I can be moderate in my consumption of them. My experience is that maybe you can retrain yourself to having a more normal relationship with the stuff if you think you're "addicted"; the problem isn't sugar, the problem is you and your behavior. This also applied to me and other carbs as well.
I still have some treats I have problems with. Brownies are something I can't control myself around. So I don't make them or buy them. Again, this is me controlling my behavior. Brownies aren't the problem, I am.0 -
No clue. I love chocolate but from tracking cals I now have a clear smack in the face from my cal tracker every time I choose to overindulge. So I don't now.
That being said ... I love chocolate!! So much!! It just makes me happy to nibble a little. I used to eat a LOT late at night while I worked. BAD IDEA. I think the habit came from boredom/rewarding myself while I worked to "make it worthwhile" to do the hours I used to do (working til 2-3am some nights but 1am most of the time).
Gawd, it's not a wonder I have a heap of weight to lose. I couldn't give a toss what anyone thought of what I eat. It's not my business anyway
Now, I exercise 2-3 hours a day and it's rare that I overindulge because it would be totally counterproductive to do that much exercise then eat it in chocolate in one night!0 -
Funny thing is when I was eating sweets all the time before i you know .. cared. I didn't think I would miss them. Then I go a month or so without touching them and when I eat them it's bloody sexual. I make groaning noises I swear to god.0
-
I was never a sweets person until I restricted carbs and I suddenly had a sweet tooth with a vengeance. I increased my fat and protein and the sweets cravings went away. I can get by on a piece of sugar free gum or a cup of coffee or tea with calorie/sugar free sweet cream if I crave sweets. I've always preferred real food over sweets but I have always been a salty (chips) person. Now when I crave a salty snack I eat broccoli, cottage cheese, olives, pickles, etc. healthier options vs. a bag of chips. I don't care what people think when I eat either... I eat lean meat and veggies and have no problem devouring a huge portion of chicken and steamed broccoli after an intense workout. But I think you're right... media portrays sweets as celebration, good times, holidays, etc. Media also shows the thinnest and healthiest models eating garbage e.g., Magnum ice cream commercial.0
-
Funny thing is when I was eating sweets all the time before i you know .. cared. I didn't think I would miss them. Then I go a month or so without touching them and when I eat them it's bloody sexual. I make groaning noises I swear to god.
I did that involuntary laugh when I read this. I think we can all relate.
Honey, every now and then just simply ENJOY!!0 -
sugaraddict4321 wrote: »Okay, I have to jump in because of my username.
I also use the term in a lighthearted manner and most people I know do. It's not fair to compare a sugar "addiction" to a hard drug addiction, particularly illegal drugs, so there's no need to take things out of context just to make a point. MRIs have shown our brains do seem to light with sugar spikes, and even Mayo Clinic has looked into whether sugar "addiction" is real: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ending-addiction-good/201401/sugar-addiction-it-may-be-very-real
Anywho, back on-topic with the OP. I agree there does seem to be some sort of stereotype around women and sweets and men and fats (and beer). But the poster that said fat people face looks all the time is more accurate. You see a skinny person down a burger and a milkshake and no one bats an eye because "they need to eat more." You see a fat person do the same and it's judgement time. Not saying it's right, just how it is.
never crosses my mind one way or another….0 -
I was also a little unclear about what the OP get getting at, but for me her original post reminded me that certain sweets are often depicted as a luxe, high-end sort of decadence in the media. I think of images of glamorous (and thin) French women eating macarons and pastries, or Japanese kawaii where images of cupcakes, lattes, donuts, boba tea and frou frou-looking desserts adorn fashionable/cute Japanese women. I do think there is some fetishization, or at least glamorization, around fancy desserts which leads to some mixed messages in the media: It's luxe and glamorous to have all this pastel sugary goodness, but then it's also depicted as "the enemy" elsewhere.
I'm not sure how much this imagery *actually* confuses people or whether it has legitimately contributed to anyone being overweight, but it is an interesting cultural phenomenon.0 -
Funny thing is when I was eating sweets all the time before i you know .. cared. I didn't think I would miss them. Then I go a month or so without touching them and when I eat them it's bloody sexual. I make groaning noises I swear to god.
This just happened to me the other day when i was eating ice cream. My daughter shot me a WTF look and said "Really?"... Um yeah really!!! I made homemade cherry almond (low fat) and it was like heaven in my mouth.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I grew up seeing women look guilty and do a stage whisper "I'm being bad today" when ordering something high calorie and sweet. I think part of the attraction of sweet things for women (and perhaps people more generally) is that they are somewhat considered sinful and forbidden.
So true.
I used to feel extremely guilty when I ate sweets. So much so that after one cookie, piece of chocolate, or scoop of ice cream the "what the hell" effect would just kick in and I would eat 3x more. So I restricted sweets a lot and then would binge and feel bad about myself.
I eat a treat everyday now, usually something sweet, though occasionally something salty if the mood is right. Working it into my calorie/macro goals has taken the guilt out of it and I enjoy them so much more now. Taking that "oh, I'm so bad" reaction out of having one serving has helped me to stop that "what the hell" mentality and I can stick to one serving.
I wish people would stop demonizing food and realize how damaging it is to your relationship with food.0 -
Idk. The food industry, especially fast food, strategically advertises unhealthy foods in ways to make them seem more appealing. You never see obese people in any of these commercials due to the image they would portray. We all know these foods are unhealthy whether we choose to indulge or not. I've lost almost 60 pounds and I sure didn't do it by indulging in fast foods and sweets. It comes down to the choices we make to lead healthier lifestyles or continue to slowly kill ourselves. I'm not judging anyone. Certainly once in a while have that burger, cake or candy bar. Just do it in moderation.
I also think we put to much emphasis on outter appearances and not enough on inner health. If we attacked our obesity problem like we did the tobacco industry I'll bet people would think twice. Whether all this has to do with laciemm's post Idk but I felt I had to say it. That being said I love reading the MFP post. I may not agree with everything but it always makes me think about my own situation.0 -
I saw you creepin on me earlier.....sugaraddict4321 wrote: »Okay, I have to jump in because of my username. I also use the term in a lighthearted manner and most people I know do. It's not fair to compare a sugar "addiction" to a hard drug addiction, particularly illegal drugs, so there's no need to take things out of context just to make a point. MRIs have shown our brains do seem to light with sugar spikes, and even Mayo Clinic has looked into whether sugar "addiction" is real: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ending-addiction-good/201401/sugar-addiction-it-may-be-very-real
Anywho, back on-topic with the OP. I agree there does seem to be some sort of stereotype around women and sweets and men and fats (and beer). But the poster that said fat people face looks all the time is more accurate. You see a skinny person down a burger and a milkshake and no one bats an eye because "they need to eat more." You see a fat person do the same and it's judgement time. Not saying it's right, just how it is.
never crosses my mind one way or another….
0 -
BAHAHAH this is why ilu.
0 -
I don't really understand the point of this post.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »
I still have some treats I have problems with. Brownies are something I can't control myself around. So I don't make them or buy them. Again, this is me controlling my behavior. Brownies aren't the problem, I am.
Ok, this is how I understand the anti-sugar addiction argument:
The body processes all sugars the same, regardless of the source. Your body cannot tell the difference between sugars.
Ergo, sugar addiction does not exist.
Therefore, eating all sugary foods in moderation is fine, because one type of sugar does not kick off some bodily process that other types of sugar do not also kick off (if you are addicted to cookies you should also be addicted to fruit).
Yet people continue to provide evidence that they do have trouble eating certain foods in moderation -- your issue with brownies, for instance.
Here's my problem with the argument -- if there are no bodily functions in play, what non-bodily function is occurring that is causing your body to want more brownies?
I think there are bodily functions at play, and they are at play LONG before the sugar gets processed in the GI tract.
Smells -- before the food even enters the body -- trigger a host of chemical reactions in the body. Taste does the same thing, as does chewing and swallowing. The food hasn't even entered into the bloodstream, but the body is reacting to the food in massively powerful ways.
It's at this point that people struggle with food addictions -- not at the GI tract end. It's at the front end where all kinds of chemical reactions are occurring in the brain, and all kinds of messages are being sent back and forth.
The pro-sugar addiction people -- or at least me -- are arguing that in some people, these chemical reactions and messages are more powerful than our willpower / self-control. Are we responsible for overeating? Yes -- we shouldn't have taken the first bite that kicks off the chemical reactions that we then struggle with.
Even mamapeach, who knows that sugar isn't addictive, can't eat brownies because something more powerful than her willpower and self-control kicks in when she eats brownies. What is that something?
I keep thinking about alcoholism -- just because someone is dry doesn't mean they aren't still an alcoholic. The same is true with drug users, smokers, and coffee drinkers. Even though their system is clean, they still crave. Their bodies want the substance and send powerful messages to the brain about getting the substance.
While sugar itself might not be addictive, the brownie is something your body wants and sends powerful messages to the brain about getting. How is that any different than a drug or alcohol or nicotine message in an addict who is clean?
I could be completely wrong. I'd like to hear some arguments (complete with studies!) that deal with the smell and taste end of the eating process, not just the GI tract end of the process.0 -
YEUUUUUUP!DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I still have some treats I have problems with. Brownies are something I can't control myself around. So I don't make them or buy them. Again, this is me controlling my behavior. Brownies aren't the problem, I am.
Ok, this is how I understand the anti-sugar addiction argument:
The body processes all sugars the same, regardless of the source. Your body cannot tell the difference between sugars.
Ergo, sugar addiction does not exist.
0 -
Obsession with sweets? First of all, there are some people who, genetically, do seem to have a stronger craving for sweets. This, in and of itself, cannot begin to explain the American problem of obesity and there are a number of factors involved.
Overeating may well be a part of it but not as great a factor as some might think. Too many, most, processed foods have added sugars. And it's a pernicious little secret. Even many canned foods - vegetables - can have added sugar, salt, etc. in addition to chemicals with twelve syllable names, none of which we need in our diet. This makes it very difficult to control the consumption of sugar. Even baby food can have added sugar and other unwanted additives. We are indoctrinated to it from infancy.
Years ago, Nestle Co. had baby food that was banned in the US for containing dangerous additives. What did they do? They shipped it all off to South America! THAT is the mindset of business in America. "If you can't push it through, hide it. If you can't hide it, sell it to someone else."
So we consume these hidden sugars, which makes losing weight all the more difficult and, in our Nintendo generation, it makes it all easier to gain.
Which brings me to another factor in our issue of Obesity in America: inactivity. Back in the late 1940s, early 50s America was recovering from WWII. Grandma kept the kids and women who had been housewives and mothers took over the jobs left vacant by men going off to war. They found they enjoyed getting their own paychecks and being in charge of their own lives. But then they were not home to cook all day for family dinner. So Mr. Birdseye helped out with frozen dinners. They came to be called "t.v. dinners" because entire families were eating in front of their new t.v. while watching George Burns and Red Skelton on the huge 14" screen. (I can recall my family having a monster large 22" Bendix television and the neighbors would come to our house to watch!) The beginnings of the obesity epidemic in America can actually be traced back to that very period.
What changed? People were eating pre-packaged, pre-processed, additive laden foods. They were not as active anymore because they sat in front of the t.v. instead of going outdoors.
It was a slow process but THAT was the starting point. Turning it around is going to be a slow process as well. But, quite literally, it starts with one step. We must encourage our children to be more active and less tv addicted. And the best way to do that is to be more active WITH them.
The second step is to be more conscientious about what we are feeding our families. Take a few extra minutes in the kitchen to cook wholesome foods rather than pre-packaged foods with additives. The slow cooker is a wonderful invention. Start with the roast and potatoes and carrots and such you froze up. Dump it in the slow cooker in the morning and a healthful, fresh meal is ready when you get home. And that leaves you with more time to DO together and actually BE a family.
So, Laciemn, as you can see, your 'simple' question about America's love affair with sugar has no simple answer.0 -
DeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I still have some treats I have problems with. Brownies are something I can't control myself around. So I don't make them or buy them. Again, this is me controlling my behavior. Brownies aren't the problem, I am.
Ok, this is how I understand the anti-sugar addiction argument:
The body processes all sugars the same, regardless of the source. Your body cannot tell the difference between sugars.
Ergo, sugar addiction does not exist.
Therefore, eating all sugary foods in moderation is fine, because one type of sugar does not kick off some bodily process that other types of sugar do not also kick off (if you are addicted to cookies you should also be addicted to fruit).
Yet people continue to provide evidence that they do have trouble eating certain foods in moderation -- your issue with brownies, for instance.
Here's my problem with the argument -- if there are no bodily functions in play, what non-bodily function is occurring that is causing your body to want more brownies?
I think there are bodily functions at play, and they are at play LONG before the sugar gets processed in the GI tract.
Smells -- before the food even enters the body -- trigger a host of chemical reactions in the body. Taste does the same thing, as does chewing and swallowing. The food hasn't even entered into the bloodstream, but the body is reacting to the food in massively powerful ways.
It's at this point that people struggle with food addictions -- not at the GI tract end. It's at the front end where all kinds of chemical reactions are occurring in the brain, and all kinds of messages are being sent back and forth.
The pro-sugar addiction people -- or at least me -- are arguing that in some people, these chemical reactions and messages are more powerful than our willpower / self-control. Are we responsible for overeating? Yes -- we shouldn't have taken the first bite that kicks off the chemical reactions that we then struggle with.
I keep thinking about alcoholism -- just because someone is dry doesn't mean they aren't still an alcoholic. The same is true with drug users, smokers, and coffee drinkers. Even though their system is clean, they still crave. Their bodies want the substance and send powerful messages to the brain about getting the substance.
While sugar itself might not be addictive, the brownie is something your body wants and sends powerful messages to the brain about getting. How is that any different than a drug or alcohol or nicotine message in an addict who is clean?
I could be completely wrong. I'd like to hear some arguments (complete with studies!) that deal with the smell and taste end of the eating process, not just the GI tract end of the process.
start your own thread about that topic and request said studies, and don't derail this one..
and comparing alcoholism to supposed sugar addiction is ridiculous..-2 -
Did you not read this before you posted?!?!?ReeseG4350 wrote: »Obsession with sweets? First of all, there are some people who, genetically, do seem to have a stronger craving for sweets. This, in and of itself, cannot begin to explain the American problem of obesity and there are a number of factors involved.
Overeating may well be a part of it but not as great a factor as some might think. Too many, most, processed foods have added sugars. And it's a pernicious little secret. Even many canned foods - vegetables - can have added sugar, salt, etc. in addition to chemicals with twelve syllable names, none of which we need in our diet. This makes it very difficult to control the consumption of sugar. Even baby food can have added sugar and other unwanted additives. We are indoctrinated to it from infancy.
Years ago, Nestle Co. had baby food that was banned in the US for containing dangerous additives. What did they do? They shipped it all off to South America! THAT is the mindset of business in America. "If you can't push it through, hide it. If you can't hide it, sell it to someone else."
So we consume these hidden sugars, which makes losing weight all the more difficult and, in our Nintendo generation, it makes it all easier to gain.
Which brings me to another factor in our issue of Obesity in America: inactivity. Back in the late 1940s, early 50s America was recovering from WWII. Grandma kept the kids and women who had been housewives and mothers took over the jobs left vacant by men going off to war. They found they enjoyed getting their own paychecks and being in charge of their own lives. But then they were not home to cook all day for family dinner. So Mr. Birdseye helped out with frozen dinners. They came to be called "t.v. dinners" because entire families were eating in front of their new t.v. while watching George Burns and Red Skelton on the huge 14" screen. (I can recall my family having a monster large 22" Bendix television and the neighbors would come to our house to watch!) The beginnings of the obesity epidemic in America can actually be traced back to that very period.
What changed? People were eating pre-packaged, pre-processed, additive laden foods. They were not as active anymore because they sat in front of the t.v. instead of going outdoors.
It was a slow process but THAT was the starting point. Turning it around is going to be a slow process as well. But, quite literally, it starts with one step. We must encourage our children to be more active and less tv addicted. And the best way to do that is to be more active WITH them.
The second step is to be more conscientious about what we are feeding our families. Take a few extra minutes in the kitchen to cook wholesome foods rather than pre-packaged foods with additives. The slow cooker is a wonderful invention. Start with the roast and potatoes and carrots and such you froze up. Dump it in the slow cooker in the morning and a healthful, fresh meal is ready when you get home. And that leaves you with more time to DO together and actually BE a family.
So, Laciemn, as you can see, your 'simple' question about America's love affair with sugar has no simple answer.Ok, this is how I understand the anti-sugar addiction argument:
The body processes all sugars the same, regardless of the source. Your body cannot tell the difference between sugars.
Ergo, sugar addiction does not exist.
0 -
What about sugary alcoholic drinks? Double whammyDeirdreWoodwardSanders wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »
I still have some treats I have problems with. Brownies are something I can't control myself around. So I don't make them or buy them. Again, this is me controlling my behavior. Brownies aren't the problem, I am.
Ok, this is how I understand the anti-sugar addiction argument:
The body processes all sugars the same, regardless of the source. Your body cannot tell the difference between sugars.
Ergo, sugar addiction does not exist.
Therefore, eating all sugary foods in moderation is fine, because one type of sugar does not kick off some bodily process that other types of sugar do not also kick off (if you are addicted to cookies you should also be addicted to fruit).
Yet people continue to provide evidence that they do have trouble eating certain foods in moderation -- your issue with brownies, for instance.
Here's my problem with the argument -- if there are no bodily functions in play, what non-bodily function is occurring that is causing your body to want more brownies?
I think there are bodily functions at play, and they are at play LONG before the sugar gets processed in the GI tract.
Smells -- before the food even enters the body -- trigger a host of chemical reactions in the body. Taste does the same thing, as does chewing and swallowing. The food hasn't even entered into the bloodstream, but the body is reacting to the food in massively powerful ways.
It's at this point that people struggle with food addictions -- not at the GI tract end. It's at the front end where all kinds of chemical reactions are occurring in the brain, and all kinds of messages are being sent back and forth.
The pro-sugar addiction people -- or at least me -- are arguing that in some people, these chemical reactions and messages are more powerful than our willpower / self-control. Are we responsible for overeating? Yes -- we shouldn't have taken the first bite that kicks off the chemical reactions that we then struggle with.
I keep thinking about alcoholism -- just because someone is dry doesn't mean they aren't still an alcoholic. The same is true with drug users, smokers, and coffee drinkers. Even though their system is clean, they still crave. Their bodies want the substance and send powerful messages to the brain about getting the substance.
While sugar itself might not be addictive, the brownie is something your body wants and sends powerful messages to the brain about getting. How is that any different than a drug or alcohol or nicotine message in an addict who is clean?
I could be completely wrong. I'd like to hear some arguments (complete with studies!) that deal with the smell and taste end of the eating process, not just the GI tract end of the process.
start your own thread about that topic and request said studies, and don't derail this one..
and comparing alcoholism to supposed sugar addiction is ridiculous..
0 -
ReeseG4350 wrote: »Obsession with sweets? First of all, there are some people who, genetically, do seem to have a stronger craving for sweets. This, in and of itself, cannot begin to explain the American problem of obesity and there are a number of factors involved.
Overeating may well be a part of it but not as great a factor as some might think. Too many, most, processed foods have added sugars. And it's a pernicious little secret. Even many canned foods - vegetables - can have added sugar, salt, etc. in addition to chemicals with twelve syllable names, none of which we need in our diet. This makes it very difficult to control the consumption of sugar. Even baby food can have added sugar and other unwanted additives. We are indoctrinated to it from infancy.
Years ago, Nestle Co. had baby food that was banned in the US for containing dangerous additives. What did they do? They shipped it all off to South America! THAT is the mindset of business in America. "If you can't push it through, hide it. If you can't hide it, sell it to someone else."
So we consume these hidden sugars, which makes losing weight all the more difficult and, in our Nintendo generation, it makes it all easier to gain.
Which brings me to another factor in our issue of Obesity in America: inactivity. Back in the late 1940s, early 50s America was recovering from WWII. Grandma kept the kids and women who had been housewives and mothers took over the jobs left vacant by men going off to war. They found they enjoyed getting their own paychecks and being in charge of their own lives. But then they were not home to cook all day for family dinner. So Mr. Birdseye helped out with frozen dinners. They came to be called "t.v. dinners" because entire families were eating in front of their new t.v. while watching George Burns and Red Skelton on the huge 14" screen. (I can recall my family having a monster large 22" Bendix television and the neighbors would come to our house to watch!) The beginnings of the obesity epidemic in America can actually be traced back to that very period.
What changed? People were eating pre-packaged, pre-processed, additive laden foods. They were not as active anymore because they sat in front of the t.v. instead of going outdoors.
It was a slow process but THAT was the starting point. Turning it around is going to be a slow process as well. But, quite literally, it starts with one step. We must encourage our children to be more active and less tv addicted. And the best way to do that is to be more active WITH them.
The second step is to be more conscientious about what we are feeding our families. Take a few extra minutes in the kitchen to cook wholesome foods rather than pre-packaged foods with additives. The slow cooker is a wonderful invention. Start with the roast and potatoes and carrots and such you froze up. Dump it in the slow cooker in the morning and a healthful, fresh meal is ready when you get home. And that leaves you with more time to DO together and actually BE a family.
So, Laciemn, as you can see, your 'simple' question about America's love affair with sugar has no simple answer.
you can still eat said foods, be in a calorie deficit, and lose weight...
0 -
I love sweets.. did i lose weight eating sweets.. yes in moderation.. anyone can be addicted to any food but we need to learn self control0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I've been told I'm "addicted" to sugar. This is all new to me, I'd rather like the idea that I'm not addicted to sugar, I just make very bad choices. That's easier to fix than saying I'm addicted to something like I have to wring my hands in disgust, talk in hushed tones about my "addiction" and smoke cigarettes outside of churches every wednesday with the Anon crowd.
Here's one such study that I found a few minutes ago that states sugar is not addictive;
Eating is addictive but sugar, fat are not like drugs, study says
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140909093617.htm
0 -
I think it's partly people's tastes, what is maybe more accessible or easier for them to grab, and once you've built up a particular habit (in terms of comfort eating) it only increases the amount of comfort you get from that food because you've put that particular food on a pedestal. If you always reach for a cupcake when you're upset and eating it soothes you temporarily then it's going to be second nature for you to grab a cupcake. It's also what you learn from your environment. My family didn't know anything about portion control, so when I'm comfort eating I go for bulk over a particular type of food. It might also be that sweets are a sometimes food or a treat, your diet shouldn't solely consist of them, which in a diet-conscious world tends to equate to "totally off limits" because we're constantly having such bad, restrictive-eating advice thrown our way which I think makes people want them even more because now we're looking at them as contraband rather than something you can enjoy a little bit of every day.0
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »I wised up and trusted myself more
This little phrase hits the nail on the head.
It's easier to say I'm addicted to sugar, or to say it's evil (yes, I used to be part of that culture too), or to say you just couldn't help yourself when you ate ten cookies, rather than trust that you have the know-how and willpower to just have some, or to not have any because you don't want to right now, or even to store in the cabinet and not be in a constant struggle with yourself about whether you should or should not partake.
For those who argue sugar addiction- don't forget that sugar is in fruits and vegetables as well. Even when a food says no sugar added, it's still sweetened with something, which is usually fruit juice. You eat these things you're eating sugar.
There's no more evil or poison in sugar than there is good in steak, or vice versa.
0 -
Most food makes us feel better. I feel no more high on moderated sugar than I do anything else.
0 -
-
BAHAHAH this is why ilu.
I'm curious as to what people who say this think addiction means.
Addiction is not the same thing as physical dependence. Someone can be physically dependent, but not addicted, and vice versa.
I do agree that the term addiction is sometimes used too lightly, but I also think that many people think that physical dependence = addiction and thus discount people's claims of addictions to substances that do not cause physical dependence.
0 -
I think part of it comes down to the moral implications of certain foods. Meat, grease, and condiments like mayo are sort of are like stereotypical of fat people. If you don't want to "look like a fatty" in front of your friends, you aren't going to order a burger, even if the latte or dessert your ordered has just as many calories. Cakes and chocolate are sort of universally adored. I mean, are people going to judge you more if you are sipping a milkshake or digging into some mayo-laden fat monstrosity?
blerk?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions