Low carb... Is it a diet fad?
Options
Replies
-
:laugh:0
-
sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
no where in this thread were they mentioned.
If one has a medical reason to do LCHF then sure, do it…however, that does not make it healthier than any other way of eating.
Thanks doctor.
I was not aware that you were one…
0 -
sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
no where in this thread were they mentioned.
If one has a medical reason to do LCHF then sure, do it…however, that does not make it healthier than any other way of eating.
Thanks doctor.
I was not aware that you were one…
LOL. What?
I think I'll bow out of our little debate here. I feel like this is moving towards grade school responses such as " I know you are. What am I?"0 -
sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
no where in this thread were they mentioned.
If one has a medical reason to do LCHF then sure, do it…however, that does not make it healthier than any other way of eating.
Thanks doctor.
I was not aware that you were one…
LOL. What?
I think I'll bow out of our little debate here. I feel like this is moving towards grade school responses such as " I know you are. What am I?"
Why did you feel the need to make that comment then? Now you You want to walk it back? Ok0 -
Just be warned, you'll get the usual Keto fans posting all sorts of fantastical claims for low carb if you start a low carb thread.
The average person here loses weight fine by just counting calories and without all the restrictions of keeping in ketosis. They don't bother posting about a cult diet fad.
Truth, I'm guilty of promoting the eating style that I believe in, study extensively, and follow currently.
And while CICO is great for weight loss, it does nothing to address the real reason anybody wants to lose weight, health.
Can you lose weight and become healthier with CICO?
Yes
Can you lose weight and become healthier with Ketogenics?
Yes
Then why do Ketogenics?
Because for a fat person who has no idea what portions or dieting is, telling them to go low-calorie and low-fat usually means to go high-carb high-sugar. Which wrecks havoc on the body's hormone system and fat burning ability. Low-fat leads to hunger, which leads to going over your calorie restriction, which leads to just giving up. Not to mention how wrong most people are at counting calories or estimating weight or portion sizes of food.
Telling people not to eat carbs is simple and effective, without any of the usual pitfalls most people fall into. Many Ketoers suggest not even counting calories, to focus strictly on counting carbs, and that the calories, and the weight, will take care of itself.
Yes, you can lose weight just fine by counting calories and being strict to that. But I think there's a better way that leaves you feeling better and not completely deprived of good food.
I guess the Blue Zones, Vegans, Vegetarians, and so many more are doing it wrong. Lets completely ignore the blue zones are the longest living people on the planet with 70 to 80% of their diet in carbs. Lets also ignore the fact that eating high carb doesn't mean eating low nutrient foods. You can be very high carb and be extremely healthy. I don't know of a single doctor who would suggest that fruits, veggies, quinoa, oatmeal, legumes, yams, etc.. would be bad for your health. And if you are eating a high carb diet and feeling deprived, then you are doing it wrong. You are probably not eating adequate protein, enough fiber, cutting calories too much or the wrong combination of foods. People who make these comments, just never learned how to implement such a strategy.
Another thing to consider, is not everyone does well on high fat diets (I don't since fat doesn't fill me up) nor do they do well on very restrictive diets as they can lead to binges. If you like overly restrictive diets (which some do) and your body response well to fat, and MOST importantly, can sustain that type of eating style, then more power to you. But to suggest that Keto is the end all, be all, best diet strategy is a bit short sighted IMO.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ChickaDee2012 wrote: »For those reasons, and because I care about my health, I've chosen to go low carb, which means, cutting way down on processed stuff, sugars, flours and the like. But I didn't stop there, I've chosen to go Low Carb High Fat (this means healthy fats and not a GO pass for all the bacon you can eat), for my own personal situation and because it's HEALTHY, while still aiding weight loss. I would NOT have even thought to do this in my 20s, 30s or 40s.
Low carb is NOT healthier than other diets. Sure, it's possible to do LCHF in a healthy manner (although sadly I don't see this pushed as much). It's also easy to modify your diet to be more healthful (if necessary) without cutting carbs. I'm all for LCHF if someone finds it a more enjoyable or pleasant way to achieve a deficit or maintain weight, for them, but find it frustrating when people start claiming that eating carbs is somehow not healthy. It is certainly possible for someone to make poor choices as to the types and amounts of certain foods containing carbs (and often fat too) in their diets, just as it's possible to make poor choices when eating LCHF.
This is a bit of a blanket statement. For many people, a LCHF diet is healthier for them than other diets are.
Yes, keto can be helpful for epilepsy in some cases and don't deny that there may be other conditions it can help with. (I don't buy that it's needed to prevent IR in mass numbers of people; lots of traditional healthy diets that are high carb result in pretty much no T2D, after all.)
However, sure, with a specific medical issue some specific diet may be necessary. There are posters here who have been prescribed super low fat diets, and they didn't claim that meant low fat was healthier, as in "I went low carb because I wanted a healthier diet," which is the claim I was addressing that sounded as if it was making a more general claim (although the poster wasn't and we seem to be more on the same page than I originally had thought).0 -
toad_allyinlove wrote: »Low carb is it fact or fiction? Fad or good? What do you guys think? Pro's or con's?
What you're looking for is called "Ketogenics", low-carb high-fat. It's a lifestyle and a complete change to mainstream eating misconceptions.
Carbohydrates are just sugars, sugars which need insulin to be processed, insulin which spikes when you eat carbs and stops the fat burning process.
Do the research, learn about the benefits of eliminating sugar from your diet, eliminating carbs from your diet, and adding filling and delicious fats and proteins to it.
Is it fact? Yes, Ketogenics is studied pretty extensively, with many scientific books written about it. The studies done around low-carb diets are incredibly telling.
Is it long-term sustainable? Absolutely, becoming "Keto-adapted" transforms how your body processes carbs and fats, and changes your metabolism significantly for the better.
Is it a fad? Nope, the traction Ketogenics is gaining for weight loss, as well as athletic performance, is tremendous. I think it will be the dominant eating diet in the next 10 years, and low-fat high-sugar high-carb will be considered one of the most harmful in human diet eating history.
What do I think? Everyone should give Ketogenics at least a legitimate 3 month shot. No carbs for 3 months. It's a challenge a lot of people can't accomplish. Why? It separates those who are dedicated to changing their body, and those who buy Fitbits then eat pancakes, burgers, and drink beer all weekend long.
Some of the cons: Bread is gone, that's tragic for a bread lover like myself. Lettuce is a poor sandwich substitute for real bread. Another con is how obsessed with carb counting you become, and even things with moderate amounts of carbs (20g) becomes entirely too much i.e. Fruit, yogurt, rice cakes
If you can overcome the first month of hurdles, change your mindset and outlook on what food is and what it means in your life, Ketogenics will absolutely lead to weight loss, fitness love, and eventually massive physical athletic benefits.
So lets discuss insulin. While you are correct that insulin is spiked post carb consumption, it is also spiked post protein consumption. So you would be correct in saying that insulin stimulates lipogenesis (fat creation) but it also stimulates muscle protein synthesis. Over time, your body will regulate insulin levels and your body will start to break down body fat again (lipolysis). So throughout the day, your body will continue to cycle between the two (breaking down fat, adding new fat) but at the end of the day, if lipolysis exceeds lipogenesis, you will have an overall reduction in body fat.
So if insulin levels are low, then how would one store body fat? Well the good news is, your body will always have a way to store body fat due to an enzyme called Hormone Sensitive Lipase. And yes, during lipogenesis, this hormone can help break down fat, but in an low carb environment dietary fat can suppress this.
Regarding professional athletes, I don't know any that are keto all year round. I know several that use it during the off season but once the season starts, they are back to high carb diets. If you have a few I could look at, I would enjoy reading their story. I know for me, the more I cut carbs, the worse my performance is.0 -
sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ChickaDee2012 wrote: »For those reasons, and because I care about my health, I've chosen to go low carb, which means, cutting way down on processed stuff, sugars, flours and the like. But I didn't stop there, I've chosen to go Low Carb High Fat (this means healthy fats and not a GO pass for all the bacon you can eat), for my own personal situation and because it's HEALTHY, while still aiding weight loss. I would NOT have even thought to do this in my 20s, 30s or 40s.
Low carb is NOT healthier than other diets. Sure, it's possible to do LCHF in a healthy manner (although sadly I don't see this pushed as much). It's also easy to modify your diet to be more healthful (if necessary) without cutting carbs. I'm all for LCHF if someone finds it a more enjoyable or pleasant way to achieve a deficit or maintain weight, for them, but find it frustrating when people start claiming that eating carbs is somehow not healthy. It is certainly possible for someone to make poor choices as to the types and amounts of certain foods containing carbs (and often fat too) in their diets, just as it's possible to make poor choices when eating LCHF.
This is a bit of a blanket statement. For many people, a LCHF diet is healthier for them than other diets are.
Yes, keto can be helpful for epilepsy in some cases and don't deny that there may be other conditions it can help with. (I don't buy that it's needed to prevent IR in mass numbers of people; lots of traditional healthy diets that are high carb result in pretty much no T2D, after all.)
However, sure, with a specific medical issue some specific diet may be necessary. There are posters here who have been prescribed super low fat diets, and they didn't claim that meant low fat was healthier, as in "I went low carb because I wanted a healthier diet," which is the claim I was addressing that sounded as if it was making a more general claim (although the poster wasn't and we seem to be more on the same page than I originally had thought).
And considering the magnitude of research on multiple diets and the association of disease, I think it's safe to say, any diet that helps you lose weight, while adding foods that are high in nutrients, will provide you a wealth of benefits... pretty much all that were stated on the first page.
If one uses LCHF to achieve those goals, great, but for some LCHF has had adverse affects.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.0 -
.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
Healthier... better... does it really matter if it helps you achieve a goal?
Any diet that helps you do that is healthier. And there is NO universal healthier diet. Maybe we can all agree on that?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
CICO is not a diet.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
Healthier... better... does it really matter if it helps you achieve a goal?
Any diet that helps you do that is healthier. And there is NO universal healthier diet. Maybe we can all agree on that?
I would contend that the best diet is the one that leads to a sustainable lifestyle change in order to maintain a healthy weight, which is really the key to better health. Since all diets work when you are on them and 90% or more of dieters return to their previous weight, or even higher, regardless of the diet they choose then the only thing we can conclude is that, universally, diets aren't suited for long term health.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
CICO is not a diet.
Of course not. Never said it did.
CI<CO is the main principe behind weight loss. If your calories in is not less than calories out one can not lose weight. A diet is a choice of foods that you eat. That's it. Your diet may influence your weight, making it easier or harder to lose weight, or make it easier or harder to stay healthy. How a diet affects an individual will vary. Some diets work better (for health or weight loss) in different circumstances than others.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
Depends on the circumstances. My son has a tree nut allergy. In order to live healthier, or just live, a diet without nuts is needed.
No individual's diet will perfectly suit another, especially when health issues are involved... which will be true for most people eventually.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »sorry, LCHF is not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros….
I do hit my micros and macros though.
I had a piece of cake the other day. It was small but had sugar. I also had a higher carb meal (for me). Within 24 hours my autoimmune arthritis was acting up rather badly (first time in past 6 months when I avoided sugary cake) and my blood glucose was up for over 24 hours...
So in your opinion, LCHF is still not healthier for some people with health issues like that?
its not healthier than any other way of eating that hits micros and macros, period.
I don't believe we were discussing medical conditions in this thread.
Medical conditions determine a large part of some people's health.
Gluten free isn't healthier than not gluten free either, even though there's people with medical conditions that should never take anything containing it.
True... Gluten free is only healthier for those people with gluten sensitivity. A healthier way to eat for some people.
I am not sure if that is what you are getting at here.
It means it's not healthier, it's just better for some people because something is inherently wrong with how their body works.
Peanut allergy the same. Any other allergies, PKU and aspartame, and so on.
Would you raise your eyebrows if a post on here would say "I chose to not eat peanuts because I want to live healthier."?
And to spell it out, LCHF is only healthier if you have a medical condition that prescribes it.
I guess we could apply that to all diets in existence. A diet is only healthier if there is a medical need for that specific diet.
No, some diets are healthier than other diets.
Low carb is not one. One can do a healthy or a super non healthy version of low carb, and even the healthy version will be no more healthy than many other good diets.
On the other hand, I'm allergic to penicillin. That doesn't make penicillin bad for the average person who has an infection it would help with. It would be bad for me. I would not claim it was "unhealthy."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions