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.
CICO is not the whole equation
Replies
-
samhennings wrote: »Aside from particular medical conditions, Sugar is not inherently bad.
That is a distinction that needs to be made. It is not "slamming" anyone, its pointing out a very simple fact.
Without that little piece of knowledge, someone who doesnt know better could take on a very difficult to adhere to diet of trying to exclude X Y and Z "Because sugar", when instead they may find moderation a much more manageable alternative.
I believe most post here with an eye on longevity as well, and so eating in moderation, as opposed to a practised "diet" is also popular. Given that it is a lifestyle change and therefor long term, as opposed to a dieting phase followed by what?
Essentially, cutting out anything (save for medical reasons) really isnt necessary, and could make for a difficult journey.
And of course, common sense really should apply. Ive seen countless people state that Ice Cream can play a part in a healthy diet - as long as it fits within your calories. I have never seen anybody state "eat a gallon of ice cream each day". When I saw that message myself early on in my time here, it was obvious what the meaning was.
You cut back sugar, and lost weight.
Let me ask you - were you eating bowls of sugar? Or sugary treats laden with calories (and fat, and more, usually)?
Was it the sugar specifically that was causing you to put on weight? Or the treat that contained sugar and other ingredients also?
Ill take a guess and say you werent just eating bowls of sugar, and cut back, but that you were having treats.
So Ill point out another fact - "just sugar" likely wasnt your issue.
Rather, sugary treats, thanks to high fat a lot of the time, are very calorific. You didnt have a sugar issue, you just consumed to many calories.
You could also have a bit more sugar if you like, providing it fits with your calorie limit, and not put on any more weight. That would include ice cream ;O)
Sugar is not inherently good or bad. It is a source of energy. In the right context its brilliant, in the wrong context it isnt. Just like most things.
Pfft, I eat pure sugar all of the time, and (ahmaighad!) it's dextrose: the most evil of all the high GI carbs. I'm pretty sure the conductor of the Beetus train will be knocking on my door at any moment.3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Aside from particular medical conditions, Sugar is not inherently bad.
That is a distinction that needs to be made. It is not "slamming" anyone, its pointing out a very simple fact.
Without that little piece of knowledge, someone who doesnt know better could take on a very difficult to adhere to diet of trying to exclude X Y and Z "Because sugar", when instead they may find moderation a much more manageable alternative.
I believe most post here with an eye on longevity as well, and so eating in moderation, as opposed to a practised "diet" is also popular. Given that it is a lifestyle change and therefor long term, as opposed to a dieting phase followed by what?
Essentially, cutting out anything (save for medical reasons) really isnt necessary, and could make for a difficult journey.
And of course, common sense really should apply. Ive seen countless people state that Ice Cream can play a part in a healthy diet - as long as it fits within your calories. I have never seen anybody state "eat a gallon of ice cream each day". When I saw that message myself early on in my time here, it was obvious what the meaning was.
You cut back sugar, and lost weight.
Let me ask you - were you eating bowls of sugar? Or sugary treats laden with calories (and fat, and more, usually)?
Was it the sugar specifically that was causing you to put on weight? Or the treat that contained sugar and other ingredients also?
Ill take a guess and say you werent just eating bowls of sugar, and cut back, but that you were having treats.
So Ill point out another fact - "just sugar" likely wasnt your issue.
Rather, sugary treats, thanks to high fat a lot of the time, are very calorific. You didnt have a sugar issue, you just consumed to many calories.
You could also have a bit more sugar if you like, providing it fits with your calorie limit, and not put on any more weight. That would include ice cream ;O)
Sugar is not inherently good or bad. It is a source of energy. In the right context its brilliant, in the wrong context it isnt. Just like most things.
Pfft, I eat pure sugar all of the time, and (ahmaighad!) it's dextrose: the most evil of all the high GI carbs. I'm pretty sure the conductor of the Beetus train will be knocking on my door at any moment.
Pre or post training I assume?0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Aside from particular medical conditions, Sugar is not inherently bad.
That is a distinction that needs to be made. It is not "slamming" anyone, its pointing out a very simple fact.
Without that little piece of knowledge, someone who doesnt know better could take on a very difficult to adhere to diet of trying to exclude X Y and Z "Because sugar", when instead they may find moderation a much more manageable alternative.
I believe most post here with an eye on longevity as well, and so eating in moderation, as opposed to a practised "diet" is also popular. Given that it is a lifestyle change and therefor long term, as opposed to a dieting phase followed by what?
Essentially, cutting out anything (save for medical reasons) really isnt necessary, and could make for a difficult journey.
And of course, common sense really should apply. Ive seen countless people state that Ice Cream can play a part in a healthy diet - as long as it fits within your calories. I have never seen anybody state "eat a gallon of ice cream each day". When I saw that message myself early on in my time here, it was obvious what the meaning was.
You cut back sugar, and lost weight.
Let me ask you - were you eating bowls of sugar? Or sugary treats laden with calories (and fat, and more, usually)?
Was it the sugar specifically that was causing you to put on weight? Or the treat that contained sugar and other ingredients also?
Ill take a guess and say you werent just eating bowls of sugar, and cut back, but that you were having treats.
So Ill point out another fact - "just sugar" likely wasnt your issue.
Rather, sugary treats, thanks to high fat a lot of the time, are very calorific. You didnt have a sugar issue, you just consumed to many calories.
You could also have a bit more sugar if you like, providing it fits with your calorie limit, and not put on any more weight. That would include ice cream ;O)
Sugar is not inherently good or bad. It is a source of energy. In the right context its brilliant, in the wrong context it isnt. Just like most things.
Pfft, I eat pure sugar all of the time, and (ahmaighad!) it's dextrose: the most evil of all the high GI carbs. I'm pretty sure the conductor of the Beetus train will be knocking on my door at any moment.
Frankly I dont even know how you are alive to be posting here!7 -
Lol, so people you disagree with, resorts you to name calling? That's usually the course someone takes when they lack skills in actually debating.
And the "get a life" comment is also a reflection of someone who worries more about others lives than their own. Why are you here? To learn, educate or troll? So far I can't tell.
Especially ironic after this post:But the point is - it works for me. If something else works for you -great -I am happy for you. I dont feel the need to call someone an idiot because they dont do what I do.
Hey I reserve the right to change my mind. Not to mention that you start off just making innocent statement and you see the crap that you get back - well of course you come to the conclusion that there are some people who take joy in putting others down.
The only post I saw putting others down was yours. Just because people don't agree that it's necessary to cut out sugar or go low carb or whatever your dietary solution of choice is doesn't mean they don't care about nutrition, and saying that they don't is rather insulting even without the direct, unquestionable insults that were included in your post. No one else called others a product made by Massengill, after all.
As for "attacks," I think you are reading them in where they don't exist.sugar is not good for you in large quantities.
QUANTITIES is the point. Saying it's fine to include sugar in the diet does not mean "in any dosage." Among other things, of course you shouldn't eat so much that you crowd out other things you need or go over an appropriate number of calories. Is there an amount of sugar beyond that that's a problem? I haven't seen any evidence -- for example, there's a lot of sugar in fruit and yet many people seem to do well eating a diet with lots of sugar from fruit (not so much that calories are excessive or they fail to get in other nutrients, which is easier in that there are nutrients in fruit, of course).
It is presumed, by me, anyway, that people will exercise common sense.You have the same group of 10-15 people on certain topics who think it is their duty to make people feel stupid.
People can't make you feel stupid, IMO. I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but it sounds like there might be a misunderstanding, as no one is saying "eat as much sugar as you possibly could" or "ignore nutrition." Nor is anyone shutting others down, although OF COURSE incorrect information is corrected. Is that what you mean? I don't think it's kind at all, or responsible, to allow bad information to stand unchallenged just because someone who posted it might be embarrassed to have the bad information pointed out. First of all, if it's wrong people see that and know it, whether they mention it or not, and it could mislead those who haven't looked into the topic. Second, everyone is mistaken about something on occasion -- it shouldn't be seen as some big deal to be wrong. Politeness does not require that we pretend everything is equally true -- that's actually a really scary idea that I think is used to stifle disagreement sometimes or to make people throw up their hands and decide it's impossible to ever really know anything, as I know some think about nutrition. Nutrition really shouldn't be considered to be that difficult a topic.The people sitting out there who are struggle who read the attacks - so they just continue on thinking "well the guy/girl with the photo shoot body says its crazy to give up sugar so I guess I shouldn't even though I have been at 275 even though I have been on a diet for 10 years and I eat a gallon of ice cream each day but hey the fitness model says she eats ice cream everyday".
This is more insulting than anything the "sugar is okay" people have said, IMO, as just because someone is overweight doesn't mean they are eating a gallon of ice cream per day or any such thing -- many of us have posted about how we ate reasonably nutritious diets when fat (but for the calories). When fat I occasionally ate a pint of ice cream, but I knew that was a LOT and didn't see it as no big thing. Plus, the people saying they eat sugar regularly given examples of how much and how it fits into their calories. No one is unaware that ice cream has lots of calories if you eat a lot of it. Again, why are you assuming that people struggling with their weight wouldn't know this or would not be able to apply common sense to "I eat some sugar." Indeed, "I eat some sugar" and "if you eat a lot of high cal sweets that would be a good place to cut down" are not remotely inconsistent and both are said.Notice - my slam was a general one - I did not pick out a person for public shaming. I have a very hard time being mean to people - I consider that weakness of mine - but at the same time I read these forms and get angry at the amt of bullying I read.
And by the general slam you slammed a LOT of people in this thread, maybe even those you didn't intend. Personally I consider general comments like that to be much ruder (and passive aggressive) vs. directly responding to someone you disagree with (which you can do without insults, also).15 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Aside from particular medical conditions, Sugar is not inherently bad.
That is a distinction that needs to be made. It is not "slamming" anyone, its pointing out a very simple fact.
Without that little piece of knowledge, someone who doesnt know better could take on a very difficult to adhere to diet of trying to exclude X Y and Z "Because sugar", when instead they may find moderation a much more manageable alternative.
I believe most post here with an eye on longevity as well, and so eating in moderation, as opposed to a practised "diet" is also popular. Given that it is a lifestyle change and therefor long term, as opposed to a dieting phase followed by what?
Essentially, cutting out anything (save for medical reasons) really isnt necessary, and could make for a difficult journey.
And of course, common sense really should apply. Ive seen countless people state that Ice Cream can play a part in a healthy diet - as long as it fits within your calories. I have never seen anybody state "eat a gallon of ice cream each day". When I saw that message myself early on in my time here, it was obvious what the meaning was.
You cut back sugar, and lost weight.
Let me ask you - were you eating bowls of sugar? Or sugary treats laden with calories (and fat, and more, usually)?
Was it the sugar specifically that was causing you to put on weight? Or the treat that contained sugar and other ingredients also?
Ill take a guess and say you werent just eating bowls of sugar, and cut back, but that you were having treats.
So Ill point out another fact - "just sugar" likely wasnt your issue.
Rather, sugary treats, thanks to high fat a lot of the time, are very calorific. You didnt have a sugar issue, you just consumed to many calories.
You could also have a bit more sugar if you like, providing it fits with your calorie limit, and not put on any more weight. That would include ice cream ;O)
Sugar is not inherently good or bad. It is a source of energy. In the right context its brilliant, in the wrong context it isnt. Just like most things.
Pfft, I eat pure sugar all of the time, and (ahmaighad!) it's dextrose: the most evil of all the high GI carbs. I'm pretty sure the conductor of the Beetus train will be knocking on my door at any moment.
Pre or post training I assume?
Yeah, usually pre-, especially if I am on a keto run. I'll eat a whole roll of Spree or just dump a scoop of dex into my pwo, or water if I'm already stimmed out for the day.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Aside from particular medical conditions, Sugar is not inherently bad.
That is a distinction that needs to be made. It is not "slamming" anyone, its pointing out a very simple fact.
Without that little piece of knowledge, someone who doesnt know better could take on a very difficult to adhere to diet of trying to exclude X Y and Z "Because sugar", when instead they may find moderation a much more manageable alternative.
I believe most post here with an eye on longevity as well, and so eating in moderation, as opposed to a practised "diet" is also popular. Given that it is a lifestyle change and therefor long term, as opposed to a dieting phase followed by what?
Essentially, cutting out anything (save for medical reasons) really isnt necessary, and could make for a difficult journey.
And of course, common sense really should apply. Ive seen countless people state that Ice Cream can play a part in a healthy diet - as long as it fits within your calories. I have never seen anybody state "eat a gallon of ice cream each day". When I saw that message myself early on in my time here, it was obvious what the meaning was.
You cut back sugar, and lost weight.
Let me ask you - were you eating bowls of sugar? Or sugary treats laden with calories (and fat, and more, usually)?
Was it the sugar specifically that was causing you to put on weight? Or the treat that contained sugar and other ingredients also?
Ill take a guess and say you werent just eating bowls of sugar, and cut back, but that you were having treats.
So Ill point out another fact - "just sugar" likely wasnt your issue.
Rather, sugary treats, thanks to high fat a lot of the time, are very calorific. You didnt have a sugar issue, you just consumed to many calories.
You could also have a bit more sugar if you like, providing it fits with your calorie limit, and not put on any more weight. That would include ice cream ;O)
Sugar is not inherently good or bad. It is a source of energy. In the right context its brilliant, in the wrong context it isnt. Just like most things.
Pfft, I eat pure sugar all of the time, and (ahmaighad!) it's dextrose: the most evil of all the high GI carbs. I'm pretty sure the conductor of the Beetus train will be knocking on my door at any moment.
I'll one up you... I have been know to chug those single serving packages of sugar on occasion. Straight up from the package too!
Then again, my blood sugar sometimes collapses on me and when I'm out of the house, that's the quickest way of getting it back into a safe range and it's usually quite easy to get your hands on pure sugar. Most restaurants don't mind giving you a fix if you ask for it. Heck, it's even doctor approved since my hypoglycemia doesn't seem to have any underlying medical cause that could be treated. She shrugs and has me in for a check-up and blood panel every 6 months, they've been clean except for cholesterol.
I
sugar! 5 -
Lol, no you didn't change your mind. You just showed your truer colors. Someone who would actually cordially debate wouldn't resort to calling people D bags.Hey I reserve the right to change my mind. Not to mention that you start off just making innocent statement and you see the crap that you get back - well of course you come to the conclusion that there are some people who take joy in putting others down.
But that wasn't your initial statement. I could go back and quote you again if you like. Had you said that in the beginning, then I would have agreed with you, since ANYTHING in excess isn't that great for the body.I dont get why someone should come under attack for stating a simple point. Sorry people - by and large - sugar is not good for you in large quantities. I will stand by that statement all day. I come on here and read a lot and I have learned tons that have truly helped me. But I see the same people over and over who just attack. I also notice that most of them fit a certain profile and it just gets old.
If you feel that way then report it. If the responses are in violation of community guidelines, they will edited and the person warned if warranted.I am not a troll - but I do feel like I am being pushed more in that direction at times because the responses on here are so predictable. You have the same group of 10-15 people on certain topics who think it is their duty to make people feel stupid.
So the response is to shut others down because you disagree? Again, how about cordially debating? You may not win them over, but the whole point of debate is to let others see opposing views and letting them make their decision based on what they feel is more truthful.To clarify - I dont really worry a wit about about people's lives other than the people close to me. I am very open minded person and thus the reason for my outburst when I see so many who just want to shut people down in the rudest of terms.
That's great then. But to say that "sugar is bad" is a blanket statement and applying it as if it's actual scientifically true, you should then expect those that actually have studied it to respond in kind.I have done this stuff for years - I have lost lots of weight got into great shape - gained some weight back - lost those 10 extra Lbs - all that. I have never been truly heavy so I cant put myself in that position - but for the most part I have gone through a lot of it. I know what has worked for me. I am not an extreme person. Just someone who looks at things with a bit of logic and figures out what has worked for me.
So I try share some thoughts and told I am wrong. Which is amazing because it has worked for me. I am not talking in the abstract - I was making a point that worked for me in real life. I cut back sugar - I lost weight. Very simple - very easy.
Hardly from perfect in diet and exercise. My clients train harder than I do. I eat any and everything. Yesterday downing a whole bag of Almond M&M's (Like 2000 calories). What I do have is EXPERIENCE in training people to lose weight that's SUSTAINABLE for them for life. Some people NEED to reduce sugar, but that's on a case by case basis. Just because it worked for you doesn't mean it needs to be applied to everyone else. Some people lose weight running. Some lifting weights. Others with no exercise at all. I think you just took it personally when told that your position doesn't have to be followed.But then I get slammed by someone who is so perfect in diet and exercise because I dont do it their way. The people sitting out there who are struggle who read the attacks - so they just continue on thinking "well the guy/girl with the photo shoot body says its crazy to give up sugar so I guess I shouldn't even though I have been at 275 even though I have been on a diet for 10 years and I eat a gallon of ice cream each day but hey the fitness model says she eats ice cream everyday".
I'm sure I see it more than you do. But I also KNOW from doing it as a profession that people who do extremes that they cannot stick to will ultimately fail in the long run. My job is to teach them that they DON'T need to do extremes, just change some bad habits. Hence the rebuttal on "sugar is bad". That's like someone saying squats are bad for knees because they injured themselves doing it, when it's not actually true for the majority of people in the world.I am trying to help. But I am not trying to help those who have it all under control - who can balance a diet and spend 2 hrs at the gym each day and have bodies most would kill for. Those types are not real in the sense that there are so few. Most people struggle. I see it everyday in all walks of life.
Wait, so when someone gets a rebuttal to their statement, that's "bullying"? People can't disagree with a statement of why they disagree and wanting to further discuss the differences and actual reasons on their stances?But instead of people on here being open-minded I see a lot of people that live to slam others. Notice - my slam was a general one - I did not pick out a person for public shaming. I have a very hard time being mean to people - I consider that weakness of mine - but at the same time I read these forms and get angry at the amt of bullying I read.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
19 -
Niner pretty much already dunked you as hard as is needed, but I do feel compelled to add this: absolutist statements, especially when it comes to nutrition, are going to accomplish nothing, and are usually wrong. I say usually so as to avoid any smart-*kitten* chiming in with "but potassium cyanide is always bad for you".
The truth is almost always colored in shades of grey.16 -
Threads like this remind me of why so many people fail at weight loss, over complicating processes and focusing on minutia.22
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Aside from particular medical conditions, Sugar is not inherently bad.
That is a distinction that needs to be made. It is not "slamming" anyone, its pointing out a very simple fact.
Without that little piece of knowledge, someone who doesnt know better could take on a very difficult to adhere to diet of trying to exclude X Y and Z "Because sugar", when instead they may find moderation a much more manageable alternative.
I believe most post here with an eye on longevity as well, and so eating in moderation, as opposed to a practised "diet" is also popular. Given that it is a lifestyle change and therefor long term, as opposed to a dieting phase followed by what?
Essentially, cutting out anything (save for medical reasons) really isnt necessary, and could make for a difficult journey.
And of course, common sense really should apply. Ive seen countless people state that Ice Cream can play a part in a healthy diet - as long as it fits within your calories. I have never seen anybody state "eat a gallon of ice cream each day". When I saw that message myself early on in my time here, it was obvious what the meaning was.
You cut back sugar, and lost weight.
Let me ask you - were you eating bowls of sugar? Or sugary treats laden with calories (and fat, and more, usually)?
Was it the sugar specifically that was causing you to put on weight? Or the treat that contained sugar and other ingredients also?
Ill take a guess and say you werent just eating bowls of sugar, and cut back, but that you were having treats.
So Ill point out another fact - "just sugar" likely wasnt your issue.
Rather, sugary treats, thanks to high fat a lot of the time, are very calorific. You didnt have a sugar issue, you just consumed to many calories.
You could also have a bit more sugar if you like, providing it fits with your calorie limit, and not put on any more weight. That would include ice cream ;O)
Sugar is not inherently good or bad. It is a source of energy. In the right context its brilliant, in the wrong context it isnt. Just like most things.
Pfft, I eat pure sugar all of the time, and (ahmaighad!) it's dextrose: the most evil of all the high GI carbs. I'm pretty sure the conductor of the Beetus train will be knocking on my door at any moment.
I might have regularly sucked on sugar cubes as a kid..........Spoiler alert, I was a competitive gymnast training 5 days a week. Skinny as a rake. Probably needed the calories!6 -
Christine_72 wrote: »@SymbolismNZ If you like ice cream but dont like the macros, you should check out "Peters no sugar added vanilla ice cream", this is what I have and tastes better than regular ice cream.
Per 200g (my serving size)- 244 calories
- 17g carbs
- 13g Fibre
- 11g protein
- 6g Fat
- 17g sugar
Best thing I ever did was get an ice cream maker. I just made a cantaloupe sorbet this week from the vegetarian times website: http://www.vegetariantimes.com/recipe/cantaloupe–black-pepper-sorbet
calories 95
% Daily Value *
Total Fat 2 g 3 %
Saturated Fat 0 g 1 %
Monounsaturated Fat 1 g
Polyunsaturated Fat 0 g
Trans Fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0 %
Sodium 84 mg 4 %
Potassium 248 mg 7 %
Total Carbohydrate 22 g 7 %
Dietary Fiber 0 g 1 %
Sugars 21 g
Protein 0 g 1 %
Vitamin A 27 %
Vitamin C 25 %
Calcium 0 %
Iron 0 %
0 -
Lol, not uncommon for me to down a few Skittles before going out for a run.Gallowmere1984 wrote: »samhennings wrote: »Aside from particular medical conditions, Sugar is not inherently bad.
That is a distinction that needs to be made. It is not "slamming" anyone, its pointing out a very simple fact.
Without that little piece of knowledge, someone who doesnt know better could take on a very difficult to adhere to diet of trying to exclude X Y and Z "Because sugar", when instead they may find moderation a much more manageable alternative.
I believe most post here with an eye on longevity as well, and so eating in moderation, as opposed to a practised "diet" is also popular. Given that it is a lifestyle change and therefor long term, as opposed to a dieting phase followed by what?
Essentially, cutting out anything (save for medical reasons) really isnt necessary, and could make for a difficult journey.
And of course, common sense really should apply. Ive seen countless people state that Ice Cream can play a part in a healthy diet - as long as it fits within your calories. I have never seen anybody state "eat a gallon of ice cream each day". When I saw that message myself early on in my time here, it was obvious what the meaning was.
You cut back sugar, and lost weight.
Let me ask you - were you eating bowls of sugar? Or sugary treats laden with calories (and fat, and more, usually)?
Was it the sugar specifically that was causing you to put on weight? Or the treat that contained sugar and other ingredients also?
Ill take a guess and say you werent just eating bowls of sugar, and cut back, but that you were having treats.
So Ill point out another fact - "just sugar" likely wasnt your issue.
Rather, sugary treats, thanks to high fat a lot of the time, are very calorific. You didnt have a sugar issue, you just consumed to many calories.
You could also have a bit more sugar if you like, providing it fits with your calorie limit, and not put on any more weight. That would include ice cream ;O)
Sugar is not inherently good or bad. It is a source of energy. In the right context its brilliant, in the wrong context it isnt. Just like most things.
Pfft, I eat pure sugar all of the time, and (ahmaighad!) it's dextrose: the most evil of all the high GI carbs. I'm pretty sure the conductor of the Beetus train will be knocking on my door at any moment.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
4 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »@SymbolismNZ If you like ice cream but dont like the macros, you should check out "Peters no sugar added vanilla ice cream", this is what I have and tastes better than regular ice cream.
Per 200g (my serving size)- 244 calories
- 17g carbs
- 13g Fibre
- 11g protein
- 6g Fat
- 17g sugar
Best thing I ever did was get an ice cream maker. I just made a cantaloupe sorbet this week from the vegetarian times website: http://www.vegetariantimes.com/recipe/cantaloupe–black-pepper-sorbet
calories 95
% Daily Value *
Total Fat 2 g 3 %
Saturated Fat 0 g 1 %
Monounsaturated Fat 1 g
Polyunsaturated Fat 0 g
Trans Fat 0 g
Cholesterol 0 mg 0 %
Sodium 84 mg 4 %
Potassium 248 mg 7 %
Total Carbohydrate 22 g 7 %
Dietary Fiber 0 g 1 %
Sugars 21 g
Protein 0 g 1 %
Vitamin A 27 %
Vitamin C 25 %
Calcium 0 %
Iron 0 %
I'll stick to Baskin Robbins. Lol0 -
I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
0 -
Wow... That's about 4 lbs of sugar per week (in just coffee). I was curious and googled. There is 1755kcal in a pound of sugar. That's 7020 kcal per week or about 1000 kcal per day... in sugar. There's 4 calories of sugar per gram. 4 g of sugar per teaspoon. That's 250 g of sugar per day, or over 60 teaspoons of sugar. Is that right?CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
Does he have a glucometre? Is his postprandial blood glucose normal? If so, he is truly designed as a sugar burner.
2 -
Wow... That's about 4 lbs of sugar per week (in just coffee). I was curious and googled. There is 1755kcal in a pound of sugar. That's 7020 kcal per week or about 1000 kcal per day... in sugar. There's 4 calories of sugar per gram. 4 g of sugar per teaspoon. That's 250 g of sugar per day, or over 60 teaspoons of sugar. Is that right?CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
Does he have a glucometre? Is his postprandial blood glucose normal? If so, he is truly designed as a sugar burner.
I dont know if thats right or not lol he has NO sugar issues at all. as for checking his postprandial blood glucose, we dont have a meter because everytime he has been checked or had blood work done its always normal so the dr doesnt think he needs to check it as he has never had any issues,he has no symptoms of anything either. but hes always on the go. hes had all kinds of tests over the year and even a stress test and so on and they come back with flying colors. dr says hes as healthy as someone half his age. I dont get it either.I know maybe we should get one just for craps and giggles. but they arent cheap here and you have to have a script to get the test strips and stuff through insurance. cant really afford to pay out of pocket for those things.hes done this for years too. he drinks more coffee than sodas and stuff but still. a 4lb bag would last me forever as long as my daughter didnt need it to bake lol.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
Wow... That's about 4 lbs of sugar per week (in just coffee). I was curious and googled. There is 1755kcal in a pound of sugar. That's 7020 kcal per week or about 1000 kcal per day... in sugar. There's 4 calories of sugar per gram. 4 g of sugar per teaspoon. That's 250 g of sugar per day, or over 60 teaspoons of sugar. Is that right?CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
Does he have a glucometre? Is his postprandial blood glucose normal? If so, he is truly designed as a sugar burner.
I dont know if thats right or not lol he has NO sugar issues at all. as for checking his postprandial blood glucose, we dont have a meter because everytime he has been checked or had blood work done its always normal so the dr doesnt think he needs to check it as he has never had any issues,he has no symptoms of anything either. but hes always on the go. hes had all kinds of tests over the year and even a stress test and so on and they come back with flying colors. dr says hes as healthy as someone half his age. I dont get it either.I know maybe we should get one just for craps and giggles. but they arent cheap here and you have to have a script to get the test strips and stuff through insurance. cant really afford to pay out of pocket for those things.hes done this for years too. he drinks more coffee than sodas and stuff but still. a 4lb bag would last me forever as long as my daughter didnt need it to bake lol.
That's darn impressive insulin sensitivity if he is keeping his BG normal.
If you do get a BG meter, sometimes you can get them free if you buy the test strips. Up here, Alberta Canada, the test strips are the expensive part. We can get them without a prescription but it is over the counter.
I think I last bought a 1kg bag of sugar back in 2015. LOL
0 -
I probably put away at least 100 grams of sugar (including fruit) a day and maybe sometimes more at parties. No BG level issues likely because I still burn off a lot of calories. I average 19,000 steps a day and that doesn't include any of my lifting. I'm also a fidgety person and keeping still isn't in the cards for me ever since I was a little kid.
Should some keep sugar levels lower? Of course. Some going over 50 grams a day may NOT be ideal. But that doesn't mean sugar is "BAD" in anyway. It just means that some don't tolerate it well in higher dosages.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition 1 -
I never realized that I had sugar issues until I suddenly cut back on sugar when starting on my first weight loss program. That is when I experienced "withdrawal-like" symptoms.
When I would manage to lose a couple pounds, then my body seemed to want to refill it's glycogen reserves asap with handy candy or a quick snack. Even though I was eating 6 small meals a day, I felt like I was hungry all day.
Now that I've been doing intermittent fasting and have cut back on sugar and refined flour, I feel much better. But not everyone thrives on this, I realize.
The other thing worth pointing out is that athletes and fitness buffs tend to need extra carbs and burn off sugar quickly. Therefore sugar doesn't necessarily even get stored in their bodies as excess calories. I do agree with the premise mentioned upthread that "aside from certain medical conditions, sugar is not inherently bad."
Excess calories from any food types will cause weight gain and possibly consequential health issues over time. So aside from health constaints, people can restrict calories from any macro combination and manage to lose weight.
I think that most people on MFP already know about adjusting CI based on CO energy expenditure. Once I learned about NEAT, TDEE, RMR, BMR, etc., it really helped me to determine baselines so that I could adjust incoming calories mindfully, consciously and purposefully.2 -
I think a lot of people who talk about sugar withdrawals are actually experiencing caffeine withdrawal. I see it often on this site that new people stop taking sugar/sweet creamers/Starbucks syrupy drinks in their coffee and/or stop drinking soda of any kind (because evil sugar and evil aspartame so all soda is off limits). They then complain of sugar withdrawals when in fact it's the caffeine in coffee and/or soda.
Of course this is just theory, never being a big consumer of salt or sugar myself. I did give up coffee once though and certainly had withdrawals then.9 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I think a lot of people who talk about sugar withdrawals are actually experiencing caffeine withdrawal. I see it often on this site that new people stop taking sugar/sweet creamers/Starbucks syrupy drinks in their coffee and/or stop drinking soda of any kind (because evil sugar and evil aspartame so all soda is off limits). They then complain of sugar withdrawals when in fact it's the caffeine in coffee and/or soda.
Of course this is just theory, never being a big consumer of salt or sugar myself. I did give up coffee once though and certainly had withdrawals then.
This is consistent with what I've seen on this site. And I too can mostly take or leave sugar (other than in fruit or veg, of course) and never added it to drinks or enjoyed sugary drinks as an adult,* but know from personal experience that caffeine withdrawal is a thing. I've cut out added sugar for fun and giggles, or as an experiment and for other reasons, and it was easy and unremarkable (and I added it back in smaller amounts, or really more controlled amounts, since before I'd alternate not eating it much at all with periods where I'd eat it much more because I ate snacky stuff at work and the stuff at work was often sweet (but my eating it wasn't due to that)).
Another thing I wonder about is the suggestion that dieting=eating lots of small meals. For me that makes me unsatisfied and hungrier, and it's certainly possible people are making that change and blaming cutting out sugar or some such. And I do think a lot of people emotionally eat and many probably focus mostly on sugary foods (again for reasons more based on palatability and how we think of it vs. physical reasons). It's difficult to really separate out these things. (I emotionally eat which is why I cut out added sugar for a period, but found it was more about controlling timing and why I ate than what I ate.)
*I do wonder how much childhood eating plays a role in all this, as I ate sweet things as a kid and was never particularly deprived of them or anything -- we certainly weren't the family not allowed sweets -- but I didn't enjoy sugary cereals and, more to the point, we drank koolaid in the summers as younger kids but not really much pop as we were older (rare treat, associated with McD's--also a rare treat--mostly), and most meals were pretty balanced with an after school snack but not tons of sweet stuff. Candy itself was something I mainly recall eating around Halloween and cake at birthday parties. Cookies, sure, but a cookie, not a bunch.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I think a lot of people who talk about sugar withdrawals are actually experiencing caffeine withdrawal. I see it often on this site that new people stop taking sugar/sweet creamers/Starbucks syrupy drinks in their coffee and/or stop drinking soda of any kind (because evil sugar and evil aspartame so all soda is off limits). They then complain of sugar withdrawals when in fact it's the caffeine in coffee and/or soda.
Of course this is just theory, never being a big consumer of salt or sugar myself. I did give up coffee once though and certainly had withdrawals then.
It could also be electrolyte depletion depending on how many carbs are cut. Its a very common thing with going low carb.5 -
VintageFeline wrote: »I think a lot of people who talk about sugar withdrawals are actually experiencing caffeine withdrawal. I see it often on this site that new people stop taking sugar/sweet creamers/Starbucks syrupy drinks in their coffee and/or stop drinking soda of any kind (because evil sugar and evil aspartame so all soda is off limits). They then complain of sugar withdrawals when in fact it's the caffeine in coffee and/or soda.
Of course this is just theory, never being a big consumer of salt or sugar myself. I did give up coffee once though and certainly had withdrawals then.
It could also be electrolyte depletion depending on how many carbs are cut. Its a very common thing with going low carb.
Ah yes, very true.
Also about what lemurcat says that it could be more of an emotional withdrawal. I went on holiday last year and indulged in rather large amounts of sugar laden treats and drinks. I had absolutely no issue whatsoever coming back and pretty much going cold turkey just due to usual natural way of eating. No withdrawal whatsoever.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Those who maintain that only calorie deficit matters often are actually saying the same thing you are in different words. I think these threads are often full of misunderstandings and miscommunications. The only difference is the way people look at certain foods.
Weight loss as a mechanism is a function of calories, and is purely that. This argument is often presented when someone claims that somehow the body can create energy out of thin air if you don't/do eat certain foods. This argument is a very specific reply to a very specific claim. It's meant to describe a mechanism, not a diet.
When it comes to dieting, of course we aren't just energy engines. We have other biological and psychological needs that go beyond storing and burning calories. Even the most avid CICO advocates will agree with you that eating all of your calories in low nutrition foods is 1) a recipe for nutrient deficiency and 2) a recipe for diet adherence fails due to hunger. You will never see anyone advocating that strawman living exclusively on soda. The CICO crowd may actually be the first people to point out the importance of nutrient rich foods. So we're all basically on the same page, but it's lost in misunderstandings.
Where paths do diverge is the way certain groups look at certain foods. One group may eliminate foods or nutrients because they are harmful and a poison and absolutely should not be eaten regardless of the rest of your diet, another group may limit them allowing "treats" because these damaging foods are not as damaging if not eaten as often or if the majority of your intake is healthy, and a third group may limit the amount or frequency of certain foods simply because they don't fit as neatly into their calorie budget or don't work well with their individual hunger patterns without explicit judgement calls and generalizations, so foods are not judged outside of the context of the diet as a whole. It's that third group that often miscommunicates its ideas as "nothing but calories matter" and is often the one misunderstood as saying "eat nothing but candy all day", and sometimes when people advocate eating healthfully they are misunderstood as saying "CICO does not apply".
Everyone is basically saying the same thing: for a healthy and sustainable diet eat reasonable amounts of the foods you like, focusing on nutritious foods and foods that fill you up.
@amusedmonkey, thank you the voice of reason, and a well-formed analysis of the debate that seems to rage on and on here on MFP, to the point that I am sick of it. I will be using these five paragraphs in the future, that is, if I have permission to quote you!2 -
vikinglander wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Those who maintain that only calorie deficit matters often are actually saying the same thing you are in different words. I think these threads are often full of misunderstandings and miscommunications. The only difference is the way people look at certain foods.
Weight loss as a mechanism is a function of calories, and is purely that. This argument is often presented when someone claims that somehow the body can create energy out of thin air if you don't/do eat certain foods. This argument is a very specific reply to a very specific claim. It's meant to describe a mechanism, not a diet.
When it comes to dieting, of course we aren't just energy engines. We have other biological and psychological needs that go beyond storing and burning calories. Even the most avid CICO advocates will agree with you that eating all of your calories in low nutrition foods is 1) a recipe for nutrient deficiency and 2) a recipe for diet adherence fails due to hunger. You will never see anyone advocating that strawman living exclusively on soda. The CICO crowd may actually be the first people to point out the importance of nutrient rich foods. So we're all basically on the same page, but it's lost in misunderstandings.
Where paths do diverge is the way certain groups look at certain foods. One group may eliminate foods or nutrients because they are harmful and a poison and absolutely should not be eaten regardless of the rest of your diet, another group may limit them allowing "treats" because these damaging foods are not as damaging if not eaten as often or if the majority of your intake is healthy, and a third group may limit the amount or frequency of certain foods simply because they don't fit as neatly into their calorie budget or don't work well with their individual hunger patterns without explicit judgement calls and generalizations, so foods are not judged outside of the context of the diet as a whole. It's that third group that often miscommunicates its ideas as "nothing but calories matter" and is often the one misunderstood as saying "eat nothing but candy all day", and sometimes when people advocate eating healthfully they are misunderstood as saying "CICO does not apply".
Everyone is basically saying the same thing: for a healthy and sustainable diet eat reasonable amounts of the foods you like, focusing on nutritious foods and foods that fill you up.
@amusedmonkey, thank you the voice of reason, and a well-formed analysis of the debate that seems to rage on and on here on MFP, to the point that I am sick of it. I will be using these five paragraphs in the future, that is, if I have permission to quote you!
Feel free to use anything I write as you please, but I doubt it would put an end to the debate. Some topics will always remain hot buttons.3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »I think a lot of people who talk about sugar withdrawals are actually experiencing caffeine withdrawal. I see it often on this site that new people stop taking sugar/sweet creamers/Starbucks syrupy drinks in their coffee and/or stop drinking soda of any kind (because evil sugar and evil aspartame so all soda is off limits). They then complain of sugar withdrawals when in fact it's the caffeine in coffee and/or soda.
Of course this is just theory, never being a big consumer of salt or sugar myself. I did give up coffee once though and certainly had withdrawals then.
It could also be electrolyte depletion depending on how many carbs are cut. Its a very common thing with going low carb.
Ah yes, very true.
Also about what lemurcat says that it could be more of an emotional withdrawal. I went on holiday last year and indulged in rather large amounts of sugar laden treats and drinks. I had absolutely no issue whatsoever coming back and pretty much going cold turkey just due to usual natural way of eating. No withdrawal whatsoever.
I think there can be some physical withdrawal to some foods, although I do agree that a large portion of sugar-withdrawal might be electrolyte imbalance.
Years ago I needed to go gluten free due to celica disease. I started eating a lot of treats and baked goods to make of for the feeling of loss I had. But wow. To this day I still remember the withdrawal migraine it triggered. It lasted about a week. Worst migraine, in terms of pain level, I've ever experienced.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
Wow... That's about 4 lbs of sugar per week (in just coffee). I was curious and googled. There is 1755kcal in a pound of sugar. That's 7020 kcal per week or about 1000 kcal per day... in sugar. There's 4 calories of sugar per gram. 4 g of sugar per teaspoon. That's 250 g of sugar per day, or over 60 teaspoons of sugar. Is that right?CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
Does he have a glucometre? Is his postprandial blood glucose normal? If so, he is truly designed as a sugar burner.
I dont know if thats right or not lol he has NO sugar issues at all. as for checking his postprandial blood glucose, we dont have a meter because everytime he has been checked or had blood work done its always normal so the dr doesnt think he needs to check it as he has never had any issues,he has no symptoms of anything either. but hes always on the go. hes had all kinds of tests over the year and even a stress test and so on and they come back with flying colors. dr says hes as healthy as someone half his age. I dont get it either.I know maybe we should get one just for craps and giggles. but they arent cheap here and you have to have a script to get the test strips and stuff through insurance. cant really afford to pay out of pocket for those things.hes done this for years too. he drinks more coffee than sodas and stuff but still. a 4lb bag would last me forever as long as my daughter didnt need it to bake lol.
That's darn impressive insulin sensitivity if he is keeping his BG normal.
If you do get a BG meter, sometimes you can get them free if you buy the test strips. Up here, Alberta Canada, the test strips are the expensive part. We can get them without a prescription but it is over the counter.
I think I last bought a 1kg bag of sugar back in 2015. LOL
yeah hes always active, was hyperactive as a kid but sugar doesnt seem to affect him. If I ate that much I would have a sugar rush(high)1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
Wow... That's about 4 lbs of sugar per week (in just coffee). I was curious and googled. There is 1755kcal in a pound of sugar. That's 7020 kcal per week or about 1000 kcal per day... in sugar. There's 4 calories of sugar per gram. 4 g of sugar per teaspoon. That's 250 g of sugar per day, or over 60 teaspoons of sugar. Is that right?CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
Does he have a glucometre? Is his postprandial blood glucose normal? If so, he is truly designed as a sugar burner.
I dont know if thats right or not lol he has NO sugar issues at all. as for checking his postprandial blood glucose, we dont have a meter because everytime he has been checked or had blood work done its always normal so the dr doesnt think he needs to check it as he has never had any issues,he has no symptoms of anything either. but hes always on the go. hes had all kinds of tests over the year and even a stress test and so on and they come back with flying colors. dr says hes as healthy as someone half his age. I dont get it either.I know maybe we should get one just for craps and giggles. but they arent cheap here and you have to have a script to get the test strips and stuff through insurance. cant really afford to pay out of pocket for those things.hes done this for years too. he drinks more coffee than sodas and stuff but still. a 4lb bag would last me forever as long as my daughter didnt need it to bake lol.
That's darn impressive insulin sensitivity if he is keeping his BG normal.
If you do get a BG meter, sometimes you can get them free if you buy the test strips. Up here, Alberta Canada, the test strips are the expensive part. We can get them without a prescription but it is over the counter.
I think I last bought a 1kg bag of sugar back in 2015. LOL
yeah hes always active, was hyperactive as a kid but sugar doesnt seem to affect him. If I ate that much I would have a sugar rush(high)
I'd just have the sugar crash.
1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
My girlfriend is the same way with her coffee. She's 5'1" and weighs like 96 lbs. I don't think her weight has ever shifted more than five pounds in either direction since I met her in 2003.2 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
Wow... That's about 4 lbs of sugar per week (in just coffee). I was curious and googled. There is 1755kcal in a pound of sugar. That's 7020 kcal per week or about 1000 kcal per day... in sugar. There's 4 calories of sugar per gram. 4 g of sugar per teaspoon. That's 250 g of sugar per day, or over 60 teaspoons of sugar. Is that right?CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »I found this interesting about sugar-http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/sugar.html and gallowmere I love spree candy. I guess those of use who eat high amounts of carbs and sugar should be dead. including my hubby who went through 2-4lb bags of sugar in less than 2 weeks just for coffee, that is not counting his candy,cookies,soda. no one baked with that sugar,he consumed over 7lbs of it himself(some he spilled lol) . hes not obese, his heart is good,hes in good health as well. if anyone should be dead its him if sugar is that bad for you. Im not even joking I wish I were I told him he had a problem lol
Does he have a glucometre? Is his postprandial blood glucose normal? If so, he is truly designed as a sugar burner.
I dont know if thats right or not lol he has NO sugar issues at all. as for checking his postprandial blood glucose, we dont have a meter because everytime he has been checked or had blood work done its always normal so the dr doesnt think he needs to check it as he has never had any issues,he has no symptoms of anything either. but hes always on the go. hes had all kinds of tests over the year and even a stress test and so on and they come back with flying colors. dr says hes as healthy as someone half his age. I dont get it either.I know maybe we should get one just for craps and giggles. but they arent cheap here and you have to have a script to get the test strips and stuff through insurance. cant really afford to pay out of pocket for those things.hes done this for years too. he drinks more coffee than sodas and stuff but still. a 4lb bag would last me forever as long as my daughter didnt need it to bake lol.
That's darn impressive insulin sensitivity if he is keeping his BG normal.
If you do get a BG meter, sometimes you can get them free if you buy the test strips. Up here, Alberta Canada, the test strips are the expensive part. We can get them without a prescription but it is over the counter.
I think I last bought a 1kg bag of sugar back in 2015. LOL
yeah hes always active, was hyperactive as a kid but sugar doesnt seem to affect him. If I ate that much I would have a sugar rush(high)
I'd just have the sugar crash.
yeah I would get that after the sugar rush and then feel like utter crap the next day. I eat sugar dont get me wrong but nowhere near what he does.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions