Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Would a neg result lead many people to change their eating/moving ways?
GaleHawkins
Posts: 8,159 Member
in Debate Club
ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(16)30256-0/fulltext
Blood test shows chance of suffering heart attack within five years.
Blood test shows chance of suffering heart attack within five years.
0
Replies
-
Well, this study seems to be more specific to those who already have heart disease - hypertension.
Although I see the significance of putting a number into one's risk factors, shouldn't the fact that you already have high blood pressure be the thing that makes you want to get healthier? It's not, though, for so many (my husband included!).
I feel like this study is simply more to show the association between the protective effects on the heart of having these + markers and decreased risk of heart attack in those with preexisting heart disease.
Currently, the way physicians attempt to calculate your risk of MI is by taking into account several known risk factors, such as other chronic diseases such as smoking, obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and non-modifiable risk factor of familial history. Perhaps this is a new factor to put into that equation.
3 -
I agree with the post above re: the article. As to the question in your title I think the answer is yes. Many people do make lifestyle changes when given negative health results. Many others do not.1
-
What I was thinking about was a guy who was telling me he had high sugar. He mentioned how he was feeling bad the last time he saw me and when he got home and his BG level was 750 when it is normally only 500.
I asked him if he understood 100 was normal and 500/750 was beyond serious. He said that was what his doctor told him and that his doctor does not know how he is still walking and talking at age 50+.
If I was about to hit a brick wall at 100 MPH I would be putting on the brakes but I think a lot of lay people struggle with getting the big health picture. If he was told he had high risks of heart disease I do not think he would change his eating to help prevent it since he is not working to actively manage the BG levels.
He was complaining about the knots from taking Insulin so I expect he is under dosing.1 -
In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:10 -
He's being really stupid about his Blood Glucose level. We're on a monitoring program at work where prevention is being encouraged, rather than cure. This is sponsored by our medical insurance company.
A lot is being made of changing the lifestyles of those found to be pre-diabetic, to prevent the development of full diabetes. This approach also helps in relation to the other NCDs - Hypertension and Heart Attack / Strokes.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
At what point do you decide worrying is more important though? If I'm not allergic to peanuts, then I can eat them because I don't have a medical issue, right? But, you can develop new allergies. Should I avoid eating peanuts because I may become allergic to peanuts? It's definitely safer that way.4 -
Poor test results are what got me moving an changing my ways. Sadly, I was not good about being proactive about my health. I am better than I used to be but I often still need that kick in the butt. If I KNEW a behavior would lead to a bad health outcome I would absolutely change it. If there is just a chance of a bad outcome, I might not be as good, although I'd like to say I would change a possible problem causing behavior.1
-
Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
At what point do you decide worrying is more important though? If I'm not allergic to peanuts, then I can eat them because I don't have a medical issue, right? But, you can develop new allergies. Should I avoid eating peanuts because I may become allergic to peanuts? It's definitely safer that way.
I'm not talking about allergies.
What made me think of this is my uncle, he got warned years ago that he would develop diabetes if he carried on the way he was, he was never overweight, but he pretty much lived on high carb and very high sugar foods. Long story short, he's been lying in the hospital for the last 2 weeks with a diabetes related illness, and yes he did develop type 2 like his doctor predicted. Had he not been so ignorant about his lifestyle he wouldn't be where he is now.
He was firmly in the camp of "don't worry about it, i don't have a medical condition"... yet. We can get away with pretty much anything when we're young and dumb, but eventually irresponsible and the devil may care attitude will catch up to us all.4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
At what point do you decide worrying is more important though? If I'm not allergic to peanuts, then I can eat them because I don't have a medical issue, right? But, you can develop new allergies. Should I avoid eating peanuts because I may become allergic to peanuts? It's definitely safer that way.
I'm not talking about allergies.
What made me think of this is my uncle, he got warned years ago that he would develop diabetes if he carried on the way he was, he was never overweight, but he pretty much lived on high carb and very high sugar foods. Long story short, he's been lying in the hospital for the last 2 weeks with a diabetes related illness, and yes he did develop type 2 like his doctor predicted. Had he not been so ignorant about his lifestyle he wouldn't be where he is now.
He was firmly in the camp of "don't worry about it, i don't have a medical condition"... yet. We can get away with pretty much anything when we're young and dumb, but eventually irresponsible and the devil may care attitude will catch up to us all.
I guess I wouldn't put "warned by a doctor to stop doing x, y, and z" as "I don't have a medical condition".3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>1 -
When my father was 61 my wife checked his blood pressure and found it very high and told him he needed to have a doctor check it out. He said he was tough. Five years later he finally decided he should see a doctor since he had Medicare coverage. He had already had a heart attack in the past to doctor told him. Dad said it was when he was combining soybeans and broke and he was trying to fix it. He had CHF by then and died from it about 5 years later.
A test that runs up a red flag is worthless if one will not act on the info. As for the guy that gets to feeling bad when his BG hits 750 stresses me every time that I see him because he sees no urgency to address it in a meaningful way and also when I meet him driving.0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>
My point is, that the stock standard reply to people worrying about their excess intake of this or that is irresponsible.
A newbie could come in posting worrying about their 150g+ of sugar or whatever per day, and they'll get that dont worry, medical condition reply every single time. How does anyone here know that their woe isnt going to cause a medical condition in the future?? Sure it may not and they could live a long, lucky and healthy life, or they could err on the side of caution and try a more moderate/healthy approach.
I know I'm rambling, I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and I'm sick of reading that same reply over and over again..3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »What I was thinking about was a guy who was telling me he had high sugar. He mentioned how he was feeling bad the last time he saw me and when he got home and his BG level was 750 when it is normally only 500.
I asked him if he understood 100 was normal and 500/750 was beyond serious. He said that was what his doctor told him and that his doctor does not know how he is still walking and talking at age 50+.
If I was about to hit a brick wall at 100 MPH I would be putting on the brakes but I think a lot of lay people struggle with getting the big health picture. If he was told he had high risks of heart disease I do not think he would change his eating to help prevent it since he is not working to actively manage the BG levels.
He was complaining about the knots from taking Insulin so I expect he is under dosing.
Does he understand the consequences? Because based on his response of being normally around 500 and not seeming too interested in fixing that (maybe he is, it's hard to tell from your description), he likely doesn't get how serious this is. When illness is abstract for people, they are less likely to make the changes toward correcting it. Or they may not have the knowledge of how to correct it. Or they are scared of making the changes. The human mind does some terrible things to its body.0 -
Someone failed to check the odds ratio. That test does NOT shows chance of suffering heart attack within five years.4
-
Yeah, I definitely get what you're saying. While yes there is a certain point when it becomes obsessive to track certain things to a specific degree, I think that being mindful of and keeping a general eye on certain things is useful.Christine_72 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>
My point is, that the stock standard reply to people worrying about their excess intake of this or that is irresponsible.
A newbie could come in posting worrying about their 150g+ of sugar or whatever per day, and they'll get that dont worry, medical condition reply every single time. How does anyone here know that their woe isnt going to cause a medical condition in the future?? Sure it may not and they could live a long, lucky and healthy life, or they could err on the side of caution and try a more moderate/healthy approach.
I know I'm rambling, I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and I'm sick of reading that same reply over and over again..
1 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »What I was thinking about was a guy who was telling me he had high sugar. He mentioned how he was feeling bad the last time he saw me and when he got home and his BG level was 750 when it is normally only 500.
I asked him if he understood 100 was normal and 500/750 was beyond serious. He said that was what his doctor told him and that his doctor does not know how he is still walking and talking at age 50+.
If I was about to hit a brick wall at 100 MPH I would be putting on the brakes but I think a lot of lay people struggle with getting the big health picture. If he was told he had high risks of heart disease I do not think he would change his eating to help prevent it since he is not working to actively manage the BG levels.
He was complaining about the knots from taking Insulin so I expect he is under dosing.
Does he understand the consequences? Because based on his response of being normally around 500 and not seeming too interested in fixing that (maybe he is, it's hard to tell from your description), he likely doesn't get how serious this is. When illness is abstract for people, they are less likely to make the changes toward correcting it. Or they may not have the knowledge of how to correct it. Or they are scared of making the changes. The human mind does some terrible things to its body.
He hears the doctor but the understanding has not arrived because I was talking frankly with him and he would say that is the same thing his doctor is telling him. I am concerned about a diabetic coma when he is driving hurting others as well as his personal health.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>
My point is, that the stock standard reply to people worrying about their excess intake of this or that is irresponsible.
A newbie could come in posting worrying about their 150g+ of sugar or whatever per day, and they'll get that dont worry, medical condition reply every single time. How does anyone here know that their woe isnt going to cause a medical condition in the future?? Sure it may not and they could live a long, lucky and healthy life, or they could err on the side of caution and try a more moderate/healthy approach.
I know I'm rambling, I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and I'm sick of reading that same reply over and over again..
Usually that's in the context of someone worrying about fruit consumption. There's no credible evidence that I'm aware of that high fruit consumption poses a risk. Someone with diabetes or IR still has a greater need to watch and balance carbs, but it's not true that eating fruit causes T2D. And, significantly, the recommendations for limiting added sugar base their reasoning on: (1) calories/obesity; (2) having a balanced diet; and (3) tooth decay. That's why I always say that unless you have a reason to worry about carbs more generally (i.e., balance carbs) OR are going over calories or not getting in enough protein, healthy fats, or vegetables, and if you have a diet that is filling for you, there's no reason to worry about fruit.
If there's some evidence I'm not aware of that eating fruit (or 50%-55% or so carbs, for that matter, as is pretty average) CAUSES a health condition in someone without it, I'd warn against it. This also is why I tend to suggest eating a healthful diet, plenty of vegetables, higher fiber/whole food carbs, so on (and why I watch sat fat some even though to date my cholesterol has always been excellent, even when I was fat), as well as being active if at all possible.4 -
For some people, a neg. test result or diagnosis doesn't motivate them to change, they will just take "a pill" to correct the problem instead of addressing the cause. For example, someone mentioned to me the other day they were having problems with the side effects of their new medicine. She was just diagnosed as diabetic but told her doctor she wanted to take medicine because she didn't want to give up her sweets and food she likes to eat. She already knows some of the side effects of being diabetic as her husband already suffers from neuropathy due to diabetes.1
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »ebiomedicine.com/article/S2352-3964(16)30256-0/fulltext
Blood test shows chance of suffering heart attack within five years.
I don't think a negative test result or warning from a doctor would make everyone change. Some people would.
I would make changes but other members of my family do not and will not even having had a heart attack already.
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
At what point do you decide worrying is more important though? If I'm not allergic to peanuts, then I can eat them because I don't have a medical issue, right? But, you can develop new allergies. Should I avoid eating peanuts because I may become allergic to peanuts? It's definitely safer that way.
This seems a poor example. Allergies aren't something that have associated risk factors. But many other things have associated risk factors.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>
My point is, that the stock standard reply to people worrying about their excess intake of this or that is irresponsible.
A newbie could come in posting worrying about their 150g+ of sugar or whatever per day, and they'll get that dont worry, medical condition reply every single time. How does anyone here know that their woe isnt going to cause a medical condition in the future?? Sure it may not and they could live a long, lucky and healthy life, or they could err on the side of caution and try a more moderate/healthy approach.
I know I'm rambling, I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and I'm sick of reading that same reply over and over again..
Usually that's in the context of someone worrying about fruit consumption. There's no credible evidence that I'm aware of that high fruit consumption poses a risk. Someone with diabetes or IR still has a greater need to watch and balance carbs, but it's not true that eating fruit causes T2D. And, significantly, the recommendations for limiting added sugar base their reasoning on: (1) calories/obesity; (2) having a balanced diet; and (3) tooth decay. That's why I always say that unless you have a reason to worry about carbs more generally (i.e., balance carbs) OR are going over calories or not getting in enough protein, healthy fats, or vegetables, and if you have a diet that is filling for you, there's no reason to worry about fruit.
If there's some evidence I'm not aware of that eating fruit (or 50%-55% or so carbs, for that matter, as is pretty average) CAUSES a health condition in someone without it, I'd warn against it. This also is why I tend to suggest eating a healthful diet, plenty of vegetables, higher fiber/whole food carbs, so on (and why I watch sat fat some even though to date my cholesterol has always been excellent, even when I was fat), as well as being active if at all possible.
That answer gets tossed out for a lot more than fruit. And most posts don't go into details about balancing diet or anything else you posted above. Most just say "unless you have a medical condition you don't need to worry about it", end post.4 -
Yep. Sodium is another example.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>
My point is, that the stock standard reply to people worrying about their excess intake of this or that is irresponsible.
A newbie could come in posting worrying about their 150g+ of sugar or whatever per day, and they'll get that dont worry, medical condition reply every single time. How does anyone here know that their woe isnt going to cause a medical condition in the future?? Sure it may not and they could live a long, lucky and healthy life, or they could err on the side of caution and try a more moderate/healthy approach.
I know I'm rambling, I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and I'm sick of reading that same reply over and over again..
Usually that's in the context of someone worrying about fruit consumption. There's no credible evidence that I'm aware of that high fruit consumption poses a risk. Someone with diabetes or IR still has a greater need to watch and balance carbs, but it's not true that eating fruit causes T2D. And, significantly, the recommendations for limiting added sugar base their reasoning on: (1) calories/obesity; (2) having a balanced diet; and (3) tooth decay. That's why I always say that unless you have a reason to worry about carbs more generally (i.e., balance carbs) OR are going over calories or not getting in enough protein, healthy fats, or vegetables, and if you have a diet that is filling for you, there's no reason to worry about fruit.
If there's some evidence I'm not aware of that eating fruit (or 50%-55% or so carbs, for that matter, as is pretty average) CAUSES a health condition in someone without it, I'd warn against it. This also is why I tend to suggest eating a healthful diet, plenty of vegetables, higher fiber/whole food carbs, so on (and why I watch sat fat some even though to date my cholesterol has always been excellent, even when I was fat), as well as being active if at all possible.
That answer gets tossed out for a lot more than fruit. And most posts don't go into details about balancing diet or anything else you posted above. Most just say "unless you have a medical condition you don't need to worry about it", end post.
3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Yep. Sodium is another example.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>
My point is, that the stock standard reply to people worrying about their excess intake of this or that is irresponsible.
A newbie could come in posting worrying about their 150g+ of sugar or whatever per day, and they'll get that dont worry, medical condition reply every single time. How does anyone here know that their woe isnt going to cause a medical condition in the future?? Sure it may not and they could live a long, lucky and healthy life, or they could err on the side of caution and try a more moderate/healthy approach.
I know I'm rambling, I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and I'm sick of reading that same reply over and over again..
Usually that's in the context of someone worrying about fruit consumption. There's no credible evidence that I'm aware of that high fruit consumption poses a risk. Someone with diabetes or IR still has a greater need to watch and balance carbs, but it's not true that eating fruit causes T2D. And, significantly, the recommendations for limiting added sugar base their reasoning on: (1) calories/obesity; (2) having a balanced diet; and (3) tooth decay. That's why I always say that unless you have a reason to worry about carbs more generally (i.e., balance carbs) OR are going over calories or not getting in enough protein, healthy fats, or vegetables, and if you have a diet that is filling for you, there's no reason to worry about fruit.
If there's some evidence I'm not aware of that eating fruit (or 50%-55% or so carbs, for that matter, as is pretty average) CAUSES a health condition in someone without it, I'd warn against it. This also is why I tend to suggest eating a healthful diet, plenty of vegetables, higher fiber/whole food carbs, so on (and why I watch sat fat some even though to date my cholesterol has always been excellent, even when I was fat), as well as being active if at all possible.
That answer gets tossed out for a lot more than fruit. And most posts don't go into details about balancing diet or anything else you posted above. Most just say "unless you have a medical condition you don't need to worry about it", end post.
As someone who does say "unless you have medical issues with...", I say it because, for most people, eating more sugar or sodium or whatever isn't the cause of the medical problem. Curbing the consumption of said item (sugar, sodium, etc.) *may* help alleviate the medical symptoms, but not cure it. Using myself as an example, it doesn't matter how little sodium I consume, I will still and always have HBP. I didn't used to have HBP until the medical professionals changed the number range for what's considered "normal", "high normal", pre-hypertensive, and hypertensive.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »In answer to your title,I'm in the camp of prevention is better than cure. Probably off topic.. But it drives me nuts when i hear that oft repeated line of " Don't worry about >insert< unless you have a medical condition". Yaay lets wait until it's it's too late and we already have the medical issue before we do something about it.
Sorry, but I've read the above mentioned comment like 10 times this morning, and it's getting on my last nerve :mad:
If I don't have a medical reason to track my sugar (because I already track carbs) why would I track my sugar? <confused>
My point is, that the stock standard reply to people worrying about their excess intake of this or that is irresponsible.
A newbie could come in posting worrying about their 150g+ of sugar or whatever per day, and they'll get that dont worry, medical condition reply every single time. How does anyone here know that their woe isnt going to cause a medical condition in the future?? Sure it may not and they could live a long, lucky and healthy life, or they could err on the side of caution and try a more moderate/healthy approach.
I know I'm rambling, I just woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning, and I'm sick of reading that same reply over and over again..
Usually that's in the context of someone worrying about fruit consumption. There's no credible evidence that I'm aware of that high fruit consumption poses a risk. Someone with diabetes or IR still has a greater need to watch and balance carbs, but it's not true that eating fruit causes T2D. And, significantly, the recommendations for limiting added sugar base their reasoning on: (1) calories/obesity; (2) having a balanced diet; and (3) tooth decay. That's why I always say that unless you have a reason to worry about carbs more generally (i.e., balance carbs) OR are going over calories or not getting in enough protein, healthy fats, or vegetables, and if you have a diet that is filling for you, there's no reason to worry about fruit.
If there's some evidence I'm not aware of that eating fruit (or 50%-55% or so carbs, for that matter, as is pretty average) CAUSES a health condition in someone without it, I'd warn against it. This also is why I tend to suggest eating a healthful diet, plenty of vegetables, higher fiber/whole food carbs, so on (and why I watch sat fat some even though to date my cholesterol has always been excellent, even when I was fat), as well as being active if at all possible.
That answer gets tossed out for a lot more than fruit. And most posts don't go into details about balancing diet or anything else you posted above. Most just say "unless you have a medical condition you don't need to worry about it", end post.
I always talk about those things and see others in the same threads doing it, so I disagree.
I mostly see it in "worried about going over sugar, I get my sugar from fruit mostly" posts. I think it comes up in other questions about macros, though--"fat or carbs or protein too high, should I stop eating or get to my calorie goal"?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions