CICO
Replies
-
Nope, a calorie is a calorie. For the record, 40% is about 400 grams of carbs for me... There's no limiting them.
I wish I had the calorie requirements to eat that many carbs. But I do need fat and protein in my diet, for overall health, and 400g of carbs wouldn't leave room for that (NOT that there is anything wrong with carbs, just that @Hornsby needs a lot more calories to meet his goals than I do to meet my current goals)0 -
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.
No. For a person that wants to delve into minutia, you're really failing if you ever see the body's hormones as ever doing a shut off. The body up and down regulates, but most metabolic processes of all types are constantly happening in the body.
The body is also constantly self-regulating. Even if eating an insulin spiking food down regulates fat oxidation in the interim, it lowering later will up-regulate fat oxidation at other points. If you're in regular daily deficit, the body does not have a choice to not oxidize fat, no matter what hormones you have, even if you were to try to fool the system doing something as dangerous as providing endogenous hormones, i.e. injecting insulin.0 -
Nope, a calorie is a calorie. For the record, 40% is about 400 grams of carbs for me... There's no limiting them.
I wish I had the calorie requirements to eat that many carbs. But I do need fat and protein in my diet, for overall health, and 400g of carbs wouldn't leave room for that (NOT that there is anything wrong with carbs, just that @Hornsby needs a lot more calories to meet his goals than I do to meet my current goals)
When people ask me I always say it's a sliding scale as far as how many carbs should eat. I focus on protein first (175 grams which is less than 20 percent of my intake mind you). Carbs second. Fats fall into place for me (around 80-100 grams) so I don't focus on them. Some of us eat a lot of calories, and I'm not sure Blambo realizes this. Would it be better for me to have 350 grams of protein? Or 200 grams of fat? I think not. Hell, I'm cutting right now at 1lb per week and still need 250 grams of carbs or I would never get to my goals...0 -
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.
No. For a person that wants to delve into minutia, you're really failing if you ever see the body's hormones as ever doing a shut off. The body up and down regulates, but most metabolic processes of all types are constantly happening in the body.
The body is also constantly self-regulating. Even if eating an insulin spiking food down regulates fat oxidation in the interim, it lowering later will up-regulate fat oxidation at other points. If you're in regular daily deficit, the body does not have a choice to not oxidize fat, no matter what hormones you have, even if you were to try to fool the system doing something as dangerous as providing endogenous hormones, i.e. injecting insulin.
I agree that deficits will result in fat metabolism. The problem is doing this all the time may slow down the metabolism until having a deficit is cery hard. Also spiking insulin and having liw blood sugar after can drive more eating.
What do you think of Jason Fungs book, "The Obesity Epidemic" and also of what Dr Peter Attia writes on eatingacademy.com? They both vlaim insulin is a major player 8n weigh gain/loss (hence a xalories isn't a calorie).
I think they claim a cal surplus is a necessary condition for weight gain but not a sufficient condition. Also that a cal deficit is a sufficient condition for weight loss but not always a necessry condition.0 -
CICO is a good simple model that doesn't need to be improved. It's useful because it's simple and accurate. If you try to overcomplicate it then it is no longer simple.
And then you spin off to chemistry class in your body and complex or restrictive diets instead of moderated eating. I read these threads and I swear I would love to be with a person for a week that says CICO doesn't work for them and track them to see just how out of whack what they say and what is actually true is.
What I see mostly is underestimating calories in and over estimating calories out. It is that simple.
And the fact that people are marketed to, socialized, and trained to think big meals are normal, and everything less is "starving". They have no clue how little the body really needs to run on.
0 -
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.
No. For a person that wants to delve into minutia, you're really failing if you ever see the body's hormones as ever doing a shut off. The body up and down regulates, but most metabolic processes of all types are constantly happening in the body.
The body is also constantly self-regulating. Even if eating an insulin spiking food down regulates fat oxidation in the interim, it lowering later will up-regulate fat oxidation at other points. If you're in regular daily deficit, the body does not have a choice to not oxidize fat, no matter what hormones you have, even if you were to try to fool the system doing something as dangerous as providing endogenous hormones, i.e. injecting insulin.
I agree that deficits will result in fat metabolism. The problem is doing this all the time may slow down the metabolism until having a deficit is cery hard. Also spiking insulin and having liw blood sugar after can drive more eating.
What do you think of Jason Fungs book, "The Obesity Epidemic" and also of what Dr Peter Attia writes on eatingacademy.com? They both vlaim insulin is a major player 8n weigh gain/loss (hence a xalories isn't a calorie).
I think they claim a cal surplus is a necessary condition for weight gain but not a sufficient condition. Also that a cal deficit is a sufficient condition for weight loss but not always a necessry condition.
Dr. Fung makes a lot of wild claims and doesnt have actual science to back it. The whole premise of his hypothesis is that if you inject insulin in a person they would gain weight.0 -
CICO is a good simple model that doesn't need to be improved. It's useful because it's simple and accurate. If you try to overcomplicate it then it is no longer simple.
And then you spin off to chemistry class in your body and complex or restrictive diets instead of moderated eating. I read these threads and I swear I would love to be with a person for a week that says CICO doesn't work for them and track them to see just how out of whack what they say and what is actually true is.
What I see mostly is underestimating calories in and over estimating calories out. It is that simple.
And the fact that people are marketed to, socialized, and trained to think big meals are normal, and everything less is "starving". They have no clue how little the body really needs to run on.
Sucks to eat small meals all the time!0 -
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.
No. For a person that wants to delve into minutia, you're really failing if you ever see the body's hormones as ever doing a shut off. The body up and down regulates, but most metabolic processes of all types are constantly happening in the body.
The body is also constantly self-regulating. Even if eating an insulin spiking food down regulates fat oxidation in the interim, it lowering later will up-regulate fat oxidation at other points. If you're in regular daily deficit, the body does not have a choice to not oxidize fat, no matter what hormones you have, even if you were to try to fool the system doing something as dangerous as providing endogenous hormones, i.e. injecting insulin.
I agree that deficits will result in fat metabolism. The problem is doing this all the time may slow down the metabolism until having a deficit is cery hard. Also spiking insulin and having liw blood sugar after can drive more eating.
What do you think of Jason Fungs book, "The Obesity Epidemic" and also of what Dr Peter Attia writes on eatingacademy.com? They both vlaim insulin is a major player 8n weigh gain/loss (hence a xalories isn't a calorie).
I think they claim a cal surplus is a necessary condition for weight gain but not a sufficient condition. Also that a cal deficit is a sufficient condition for weight loss but not always a necessry condition.
Dr. Fung makes a lot of wild claims and doesnt have actual science to back it. The whole premise of his hypothesis is that if you inject insulin in a person they would gain weight.
I believe that is exactly what type ii diabetics struggle with. His book is full of references to scientific studies. I haven't checked them out. I do agree some of his reasoning isn't solid but I do think he is on to something (he has a diabetes clinic and is successful in curing type ii diabetes from his accounts). See eatingacademy.com. Dr Attia's experiments are very interesting and his explanations too. He said he increased his cals going keto and went from 20+% bodyfat to 7% bodyfat.0 -
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.
No. For a person that wants to delve into minutia, you're really failing if you ever see the body's hormones as ever doing a shut off. The body up and down regulates, but most metabolic processes of all types are constantly happening in the body.
The body is also constantly self-regulating. Even if eating an insulin spiking food down regulates fat oxidation in the interim, it lowering later will up-regulate fat oxidation at other points. If you're in regular daily deficit, the body does not have a choice to not oxidize fat, no matter what hormones you have, even if you were to try to fool the system doing something as dangerous as providing endogenous hormones, i.e. injecting insulin.
I agree that deficits will result in fat metabolism. The problem is doing this all the time may slow down the metabolism until having a deficit is cery hard. Also spiking insulin and having liw blood sugar after can drive more eating.
What do you think of Jason Fungs book, "The Obesity Epidemic" and also of what Dr Peter Attia writes on eatingacademy.com? They both vlaim insulin is a major player 8n weigh gain/loss (hence a xalories isn't a calorie).
I think they claim a cal surplus is a necessary condition for weight gain but not a sufficient condition. Also that a cal deficit is a sufficient condition for weight loss but not always a necessry condition.
Dr. Fung makes a lot of wild claims and doesnt have actual science to back it. The whole premise of his hypothesis is that if you inject insulin in a person they would gain weight.
I believe that is exactly what type ii diabetics struggle with. His book is full of references to scientific studies. I haven't checked them out. I do agree some of his reasoning isn't solid but I do think he is on to something (he has a diabetes clinic and is successful in curing type ii diabetes from his accounts). See eatingacademy.com. Dr Attia's experiments are very interesting and his explanations too. He said he increased his cals going keto and went from 20+% bodyfat to 7% bodyfat.
Not all pre-diabetics or even people with type II have to severely restrict carbs to improve or put into remission their diabetes (btw, it can't be cured but only put into remission. Once you have it, you are always more susceptible for it to come back if not controlled). But even so, it's highly recognized in the community that those with IR issues need a diet restrictive in carbs, but it doesn't apply to all humans. If insulin was an issue and sole cause of weight gain (which btw, he doesn't believe calories cause weight gain), then those on high carb diets wouldn't lose fat.
And keto doesn't increase expenditure of calories, so if he increased calories, he also increase exercise or he was never tracking calories and doesn't have supporting data.0 -
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.
No. For a person that wants to delve into minutia, you're really failing if you ever see the body's hormones as ever doing a shut off. The body up and down regulates, but most metabolic processes of all types are constantly happening in the body.
The body is also constantly self-regulating. Even if eating an insulin spiking food down regulates fat oxidation in the interim, it lowering later will up-regulate fat oxidation at other points. If you're in regular daily deficit, the body does not have a choice to not oxidize fat, no matter what hormones you have, even if you were to try to fool the system doing something as dangerous as providing endogenous hormones, i.e. injecting insulin.
I agree that deficits will result in fat metabolism. The problem is doing this all the time may slow down the metabolism until having a deficit is cery hard. Also spiking insulin and having liw blood sugar after can drive more eating.
What do you think of Jason Fungs book, "The Obesity Epidemic" and also of what Dr Peter Attia writes on eatingacademy.com? They both vlaim insulin is a major player 8n weigh gain/loss (hence a xalories isn't a calorie).
I think they claim a cal surplus is a necessary condition for weight gain but not a sufficient condition. Also that a cal deficit is a sufficient condition for weight loss but not always a necessry condition.
Dr. Fung makes a lot of wild claims and doesnt have actual science to back it. The whole premise of his hypothesis is that if you inject insulin in a person they would gain weight.
I believe that is exactly what type ii diabetics struggle with. His book is full of references to scientific studies. I haven't checked them out. I do agree some of his reasoning isn't solid but I do think he is on to something (he has a diabetes clinic and is successful in curing type ii diabetes from his accounts). See eatingacademy.com. Dr Attia's experiments are very interesting and his explanations too. He said he increased his cals going keto and went from 20+% bodyfat to 7% bodyfat.
Not all pre-diabetics or even people with type II have to severely restrict carbs to improve or put into remission their diabetes (btw, it can't be cured but only put into remission. Once you have it, you are always more susceptible for it to come back if not controlled). But even so, it's highly recognized in the community that those with IR issues need a diet restrictive in carbs, but it doesn't apply to all humans. If insulin was an issue and sole cause of weight gain (which btw, he doesn't believe calories cause weight gain), then those on high carb diets wouldn't lose fat.
And keto doesn't increase expenditure of calories, so if he increased calories, he also increase exercise or he was never tracking calories and doesn't have supporting data.
One of his points is that starvation diets are hard to sustain. When people get off the diet, it does matter what type of cals you eat. High glycemic (spelling?) food causes insulin spikes which is necessary for storing fat. Insulin also shuts off the hormones that make it possible to burn fat. Not all calories are the same. Because of this, people get fat again. I bet a large portion of the people at mfp have lost and gained at least once or more.
No. For a person that wants to delve into minutia, you're really failing if you ever see the body's hormones as ever doing a shut off. The body up and down regulates, but most metabolic processes of all types are constantly happening in the body.
The body is also constantly self-regulating. Even if eating an insulin spiking food down regulates fat oxidation in the interim, it lowering later will up-regulate fat oxidation at other points. If you're in regular daily deficit, the body does not have a choice to not oxidize fat, no matter what hormones you have, even if you were to try to fool the system doing something as dangerous as providing endogenous hormones, i.e. injecting insulin.
I agree that deficits will result in fat metabolism. The problem is doing this all the time may slow down the metabolism until having a deficit is cery hard. Also spiking insulin and having liw blood sugar after can drive more eating.
What do you think of Jason Fungs book, "The Obesity Epidemic" and also of what Dr Peter Attia writes on eatingacademy.com? They both vlaim insulin is a major player 8n weigh gain/loss (hence a xalories isn't a calorie).
I think they claim a cal surplus is a necessary condition for weight gain but not a sufficient condition. Also that a cal deficit is a sufficient condition for weight loss but not always a necessry condition.
Dr. Fung makes a lot of wild claims and doesnt have actual science to back it. The whole premise of his hypothesis is that if you inject insulin in a person they would gain weight.
I believe that is exactly what type ii diabetics struggle with. His book is full of references to scientific studies. I haven't checked them out. I do agree some of his reasoning isn't solid but I do think he is on to something (he has a diabetes clinic and is successful in curing type ii diabetes from his accounts). See eatingacademy.com. Dr Attia's experiments are very interesting and his explanations too. He said he increased his cals going keto and went from 20+% bodyfat to 7% bodyfat.
Not all pre-diabetics or even people with type II have to severely restrict carbs to improve or put into remission their diabetes (btw, it can't be cured but only put into remission. Once you have it, you are always more susceptible for it to come back if not controlled). But even so, it's highly recognized in the community that those with IR issues need a diet restrictive in carbs, but it doesn't apply to all humans. If insulin was an issue and sole cause of weight gain (which btw, he doesn't believe calories cause weight gain), then those on high carb diets wouldn't lose fat.
And keto doesn't increase expenditure of calories, so if he increased calories, he also increase exercise or he was never tracking calories and doesn't have supporting data.
I don't think either Fung or Attia state that insulin is the only cause of weight gain. Attia states a calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (which means other factors must be present also-high insulin). That is why he he claims a person can have higher calories as long as the insulin doesn't go up and you will not gain the same weight as you would if the insulin were elevated. I trust what Attia says, he is a medical researcher and tracks things to obsessive levels. I think he knows very closely what he did/didn't consume.
Keto puts your body in fat burn mode and I do think it helps with getting rid of fat. I'm not a keto proponent for other reasons though. You should read some of Attia's stuff. He is an endurance athlete. Swam to Catalina and back and at that time was 20+% body fat and insulin resistant. He exercised about 4-hours a day at the time (according to his writings). He also claims to not have done more exercise and on keto went to 7% body fat with increased calories. There are before and aft pics of him and he did slim down. I trust he kept accurate records since he does a lot of experimentation (himself as a subject) and seems to be rigorous that way.0 -
I don't think either Fung or Attia state that insulin is the only cause of weight gain. Attia states a calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (which means other factors must be present also-high insulin). That is why he he claims a person can have higher calories as long as the insulin doesn't go up and you will not gain the same weight as you would if the insulin were elevated. I trust what Attia says, he is a medical researcher and tracks things to obsessive levels. I think he knows very closely what he did/didn't consume.
Keto puts your body in fat burn mode and I do think it helps with getting rid of fat. I'm not a keto proponent for other reasons though. You should read some of Attia's stuff. He is an endurance athlete. Swam to Catalina and back and at that time was 20+% body fat and insulin resistant. He exercised about 4-hours a day at the time (according to his writings). He also claims to not have done more exercise and on keto went to 7% body fat with increased calories. There are before and aft pics of him and he did slim down. I trust he kept accurate records since he does a lot of experimentation (himself as a subject) and seems to be rigorous that way.
The problem with the hypothesis, is insulin doesn't need to be high to gain weight. Dietary fat suppressed hormone senstive lipase, which inhibits the body from burning fat and causes lipogenesis. Anyone could easily gain on a high fat diet if calories are not in check (especially those of us who do not get full on high fat diets). Keto burns more fat, because dietary fat consumption is significantly increased as well.
To be fair, I haven't read any of Attia stuff, only the Dr. Fung and his theories are a bit out there.
0 -
I don't think either Fung or Attia state that insulin is the only cause of weight gain. Attia states a calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (which means other factors must be present also-high insulin). That is why he he claims a person can have higher calories as long as the insulin doesn't go up and you will not gain the same weight as you would if the insulin were elevated. I trust what Attia says, he is a medical researcher and tracks things to obsessive levels. I think he knows very closely what he did/didn't consume.
Keto puts your body in fat burn mode and I do think it helps with getting rid of fat. I'm not a keto proponent for other reasons though. You should read some of Attia's stuff. He is an endurance athlete. Swam to Catalina and back and at that time was 20+% body fat and insulin resistant. He exercised about 4-hours a day at the time (according to his writings). He also claims to not have done more exercise and on keto went to 7% body fat with increased calories. There are before and aft pics of him and he did slim down. I trust he kept accurate records since he does a lot of experimentation (himself as a subject) and seems to be rigorous that way.
The problem with the hypothesis, is insulin doesn't need to be high to gain weight. Dietary fat suppressed hormone senstive lipase, which inhibits the body from burning fat and causes lipogenesis. Anyone could easily gain on a high fat diet if calories are not in check (especially those of us who do not get full on high fat diets). Keto burns more fat, because dietary fat consumption is significantly increased as well.
To be fair, I haven't read any of Attia stuff, only the Dr. Fung and his theories are a bit out there.
They have a lot of data points supporting their positions. Attia's stuff is facinating.0 -
I don't think either Fung or Attia state that insulin is the only cause of weight gain. Attia states a calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (which means other factors must be present also-high insulin). That is why he he claims a person can have higher calories as long as the insulin doesn't go up and you will not gain the same weight as you would if the insulin were elevated. I trust what Attia says, he is a medical researcher and tracks things to obsessive levels. I think he knows very closely what he did/didn't consume.
Keto puts your body in fat burn mode and I do think it helps with getting rid of fat. I'm not a keto proponent for other reasons though. You should read some of Attia's stuff. He is an endurance athlete. Swam to Catalina and back and at that time was 20+% body fat and insulin resistant. He exercised about 4-hours a day at the time (according to his writings). He also claims to not have done more exercise and on keto went to 7% body fat with increased calories. There are before and aft pics of him and he did slim down. I trust he kept accurate records since he does a lot of experimentation (himself as a subject) and seems to be rigorous that way.
The problem with the hypothesis, is insulin doesn't need to be high to gain weight. Dietary fat suppressed hormone senstive lipase, which inhibits the body from burning fat and causes lipogenesis. Anyone could easily gain on a high fat diet if calories are not in check (especially those of us who do not get full on high fat diets). Keto burns more fat, because dietary fat consumption is significantly increased as well.
To be fair, I haven't read any of Attia stuff, only the Dr. Fung and his theories are a bit out there.
They have a lot of data points supporting their positions. Attia's stuff is facinating.
And i am sure there is just as much data supportingthe other positions. In fact, kevin hall did a study which held protein constant (which almost no low carb studies do) and it didnt show any additional benefit going lc vs high carb/high sugar. If insulin was a concern both groups wouldnt have seen equal fat loss.0 -
I don't think either Fung or Attia state that insulin is the only cause of weight gain. Attia states a calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (which means other factors must be present also-high insulin). That is why he he claims a person can have higher calories as long as the insulin doesn't go up and you will not gain the same weight as you would if the insulin were elevated. I trust what Attia says, he is a medical researcher and tracks things to obsessive levels. I think he knows very closely what he did/didn't consume.
Keto puts your body in fat burn mode and I do think it helps with getting rid of fat. I'm not a keto proponent for other reasons though. You should read some of Attia's stuff. He is an endurance athlete. Swam to Catalina and back and at that time was 20+% body fat and insulin resistant. He exercised about 4-hours a day at the time (according to his writings). He also claims to not have done more exercise and on keto went to 7% body fat with increased calories. There are before and aft pics of him and he did slim down. I trust he kept accurate records since he does a lot of experimentation (himself as a subject) and seems to be rigorous that way.
The problem with the hypothesis, is insulin doesn't need to be high to gain weight. Dietary fat suppressed hormone senstive lipase, which inhibits the body from burning fat and causes lipogenesis. Anyone could easily gain on a high fat diet if calories are not in check (especially those of us who do not get full on high fat diets). Keto burns more fat, because dietary fat consumption is significantly increased as well.
To be fair, I haven't read any of Attia stuff, only the Dr. Fung and his theories are a bit out there.
They have a lot of data points supporting their positions. Attia's stuff is facinating.
And i am sure there is just as much data supportingthe other positions. In fact, kevin hall did a study which held protein constant (which almost no low carb studies do) and it didnt show any additional benefit going lc vs high carb/high sugar. If insulin was a concern both groups would have seen equal fat loss.
Did you mean would have seen unequal fat loss? Give Attia's stuff a read!0 -
I don't think either Fung or Attia state that insulin is the only cause of weight gain. Attia states a calorie surplus is a necessary condition for fat gain (which means other factors must be present also-high insulin). That is why he he claims a person can have higher calories as long as the insulin doesn't go up and you will not gain the same weight as you would if the insulin were elevated. I trust what Attia says, he is a medical researcher and tracks things to obsessive levels. I think he knows very closely what he did/didn't consume.
Keto puts your body in fat burn mode and I do think it helps with getting rid of fat. I'm not a keto proponent for other reasons though. You should read some of Attia's stuff. He is an endurance athlete. Swam to Catalina and back and at that time was 20+% body fat and insulin resistant. He exercised about 4-hours a day at the time (according to his writings). He also claims to not have done more exercise and on keto went to 7% body fat with increased calories. There are before and aft pics of him and he did slim down. I trust he kept accurate records since he does a lot of experimentation (himself as a subject) and seems to be rigorous that way.
The problem with the hypothesis, is insulin doesn't need to be high to gain weight. Dietary fat suppressed hormone senstive lipase, which inhibits the body from burning fat and causes lipogenesis. Anyone could easily gain on a high fat diet if calories are not in check (especially those of us who do not get full on high fat diets). Keto burns more fat, because dietary fat consumption is significantly increased as well.
To be fair, I haven't read any of Attia stuff, only the Dr. Fung and his theories are a bit out there.
They have a lot of data points supporting their positions. Attia's stuff is facinating.
And i am sure there is just as much data supportingthe other positions. In fact, kevin hall did a study which held protein constant (which almost no low carb studies do) and it didnt show any additional benefit going lc vs high carb/high sugar. If insulin was a concern both groups would have seen equal fat loss.
Did you mean would have seen unequal fat loss? Give Attia's stuff a read!
I meant wouldnt have seen equal loss.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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K 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