Not all calories are equal
Replies
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »You wrote: "What I found annoying, as I said, was that you claimed those of us saying calories are equal don't care about our insides"
Did I say this? Or did you interpret it that way? Since this is annoying you, I'd suggest you rewind the tape and verify what it is exactly that I wrote.
Okay, let's back up.
My initial comment, which you distorted into finding disagreement annoying, was this:
"I find slightly annoying -- but perhaps it's not intended? -- the suggestion that if we acknowledge the truth, that calories are equal (although food is different and you can have better and worse diets, which vary somewhat based on the individual and particular health issues I am sure), that we must not be concerned about our insides...."
In other words, I raised a concern that you were equating an understanding that calories are equal, that one can gain weight on a 100% whole foods diet filled with lots of vegetables, healthy fats, protein, fruit, whole grains, legumes, so on and that one can lose weight eating only fast food, with a lack of concern about health (our insides), given that I had specifically said that I am concerned with nutrition, etc. But I noted that you might not be intending to suggest such a connection. Instead of clarifying that -- if that is not what you intended to say -- you leveled the ridiculous and baseless claim that I was annoyed by disagreement rather than the assertion that people other than you were uninterested in health.
So why did I think you were making that connection (especially after you failed to clarify after I indicated that I thought you might be)?
Your statement above, quoted here:
"I too know guys who are absolutely shredded that pretty much live on junk food. Not my kind of thing mind you... I'd rather have my insides be in as good as or better condition than my outsides.
Regardless, I am interested in what people define as success in this area of life, so thanks for taking the time to answer. It seems that my background is a bit different than the majority here, but I think no matter what path you choose, if the way you do things and the way you think about things makes you happy and satisfied, and at the end of the day, you feel good, then what you are doing is working and worth your time and effort."
This seemed to me to be claiming that your "background" was different in that you cared about your insides and defined success differently (health, not just weight loss) than others. I found this particularly bizarre and (yes) annoying when I and others had written in detail about being concerned with eating nutritious diets, even when we were gaining weight.
I realized that you might not be intending for it to come across that way, to mean something different by the reference to your "background" than it seemed to imply to me, which is why I noted that in my initial response.
The misrepresentation of my comment into dislike of disagreement was not nearly so ambiguous. It was a straight-forward misrepresentation of what I said and, again, I am not sure what the purpose of that was supposed to be.
Ok, I'll try to reclarify:
My "background" of perceived difference refers to my viewing junk food as "actively negative" in addition to the excess calories and dearth of nutrition. That's it.
Okay, this is a more interesting topic for discussion, but as I indicated in my other post, I think we are defining "junk food" differently, so I will ask you to give a definition.
Also, I noticed above that you are paleo, and as I experimented with paleo I know a decent amount about it and will say that I completely disagree with the notion that whole grains, dairy, and legumes are actively negative. (Also, to my knowledge paleo allows for lots of stuff I'd personally call "junk food," but obviously 2 paleo followers, 3 opinions, right?)I absolutely did not mean to imply that any, and I mean any, of the posters I was interacting with were not concerned about health. I specifically used the term "live on junk food" in a negative connotation (and sure, that is based on my opinions and beliefs as discussed). But of utmost relevance, nobody that I have interacted with on this thread has admitted to "living on junk food". So I'm pretty sure that that applies to none of you who have responded to my posts, and you have certainly clarified that you yourself do not "live" on junk food.
Thank you. As noted, my confusion came from the fact that you then went on to make a point of saying your background was different from everyone else's when talking about being concerned about health, and I thought that was suggesting that you were so concerned and others were not. However, I indicated that I might be misunderstanding, which was a request that you clarify if I was wrong. Glad that you have done so and that that was not what you meant, and I agree that if you are claiming that eating any junk food (which I define as high cal and low nutrient) is bad for us, even within a calorie-appropriate and good overall diet with lots of vegetables, etc., that that is a genuine disagreement (which I am not annoyed about, I am pleased that you have clarified where you are coming from).
I would further add that to the extent I consider things "junk food" (which I do, I think it's a reasonably neutral descriptor that can be useful and isn't really emotionally charged like "bad food" or whatever), I consider both of OP's coffee additions -- the one she thinks caused weight gain and the one she thinks caused weight loss -- to be in the category of junk food, so I find this a kind of strange thread to morph into this discussion. But hey, that's cool.
Anyway, I am fond of including some kind of post-dinner extra, often a high cal/low nutrient item like ice cream or gelato or other frozen dessert (sometimes homemade, sometimes not) or cheese, and I certainly don't agree that those are actively bad for my health within the context of a good overall diet, so again we do disagree. I also don't agree that choosing a meal that includes some extra calories just because I enjoy the taste -- whether it be a thin crust pizza at a local Italian restaurant or homemade pulled pork or a meal out for Ethiopian or Indian -- is bad for my health vs. a more nutrient only focused meal of salmon, vegetables, and sweet potato, with limited added oil or butter. I don't see how this is much different than adding in the post dinner extra, either.I never did write that people who care about calories don't care about health, and if I may venture, I think you may have thought that I did. And I think you addressed that that isn't the case. It was a misinterpretation on your part.
And I showed how I got that interpretation in good faith and that I indicated initially that I might be misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying.When I misinterpret something, I apologize, because, well I think that sets a good example. So, I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that you were annoyed by disagreement rather than you being annoyed because you thought that I thought that people other than me were uninterested in health.
I still don't see how you got this from my post, but I will accept it as a good faith misinterpretation and appreciate the apology (although it's not necessary, acknowledgement that that was not what was said was all I wanted).
Now perhaps we can discuss the actual topic of disagreement?
It just occurred to me that maybe you may have been referring to the creamer topic of OPs post. re: actual topic of disagreement. (ie, you want me to stop taking this thread for a ride).
No, I'm fine with it morphing, as OP seems to be long gone.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Calories are *not* equal in the sense that 100 calories of pure lard is going to make you feel like absolute *kitten* and leave you hungry.
Oh, I don't think 100 calories of lard would leave me hungry. I expect I'd feel sick and not like eating at all. But with a more realistic example, let's say you can choose between 20 calories of spinach and cucumbers with a high cal ranch dressing for a total of 200 calories or a salad loaded with a variety of vegetables (some higher cal like roasted carrots, brussels sprouts, and maybe some roasted potatoes) and a very low cal dressing with mostly vinegar and a bit of olive oil for, again, a total of 200 calories. One is high fat, low everything else, and the other is high fiber, high carb, low fat. Some people will find the first more filling, whereas others (like me) will find the second more filling. Point is that what is satiating varies.
More significant point, and one necessary for the clarity of these discussions, is that this is NOT a difference between "calories" but between foods. People tend to use "calories" as if it were a synonym for "foods," as if there were such a thing as a spinach calorie and a cheese calorie, and that's not the case. It's worth being pedantic due to the confusion this causes in these discussions. Calories are just a unit of measurement. No one says that spinach and cheese are identical, or that protein and fat are identical. Calories are, though.
That last paragraph I think is a very fair point.
Regarding the 100 calories of lard... I may have been guilty of eating that straight at one point... it was borderline oversatiating.
Last week, I had kale fried in a good amount of bacon fat and then added the bacon in pieces. It was ludicrously delicious, but I felt so full afterwards that it was kind of uncomfortable.
Right--that's my point, it varies. I don't find fat used for cooking or high fat meat (like bacon) to be filling at all. Even with the protein, I find a breakfast of bacon and eggs alone not especially filling. A vegetable omelet, especially with some smoked salmon? Very filling. Also, a low fat smoothie with lots of vegetables, some protein powder, 0% Fage greek yogurt, and some frozen strawberries -- for me as filling as the omelet. For others, who find fat filling, probably not a filling breakfast at all.
The idea of eating a spoonful of lard grosses me out, though, so I think my reaction would be something other than hunger. That's just preference, I suppose.0 -
Lemurcat: Sure, what do you want to discuss about it?
P.S. Can someone please show me how I quote a previous post but not include all the posts (ie just include the sentence that I want to)? I can't seem to get that right.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »Lemurcat: Sure, what do you want to discuss about it?
How about:
Resolved: junk food, consumed even in the context of an overall balanced and nutrient-dense diet that hits all nutrient requirements, is actively bad for you.
Example, since we probably agree that some things (say, transfats) can be bad for you if included regularly, even in small amounts, including 200 calories of ice cream regularly in one's 2100 calorie TDEE-based day.
We may have to define "junk food" first, as I think we may be using different definitions. I think it means "food that is high cal and low nutrient, at least for the number of calories involved."
If you want we can start a new thread in Debate, as OP's thread is about weight loss and I don't think this discussion would be.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »Lemurcat: Sure, what do you want to discuss about it?
How about:
Resolved: junk food, consumed even in the context of an overall balanced and nutrient-dense diet that hits all nutrient requirements, is actively bad for you.
Example, since we probably agree that some things (say, transfats) can be bad for you if included regularly, even in small amounts, including 200 calories of ice cream regularly in one's 2100 calorie TDEE-based day.
We may have to define "junk food" first, as I think we may be using different definitions. I think it means "food that is high cal and low nutrient, at least for the number of calories involved."
If you want we can start a new thread in Debate, as OP's thread is about weight loss and I don't think this discussion would be.
Sure. Where is Debate?
0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »Lemurcat: Sure, what do you want to discuss about it?
How about:
Resolved: junk food, consumed even in the context of an overall balanced and nutrient-dense diet that hits all nutrient requirements, is actively bad for you.
Example, since we probably agree that some things (say, transfats) can be bad for you if included regularly, even in small amounts, including 200 calories of ice cream regularly in one's 2100 calorie TDEE-based day.
We may have to define "junk food" first, as I think we may be using different definitions. I think it means "food that is high cal and low nutrient, at least for the number of calories involved."
If you want we can start a new thread in Debate, as OP's thread is about weight loss and I don't think this discussion would be.
Sure. Where is Debate?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/nutrition-debate0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »Lemurcat: Sure, what do you want to discuss about it?
How about:
Resolved: junk food, consumed even in the context of an overall balanced and nutrient-dense diet that hits all nutrient requirements, is actively bad for you.
Example, since we probably agree that some things (say, transfats) can be bad for you if included regularly, even in small amounts, including 200 calories of ice cream regularly in one's 2100 calorie TDEE-based day.
We may have to define "junk food" first, as I think we may be using different definitions. I think it means "food that is high cal and low nutrient, at least for the number of calories involved."
If you want we can start a new thread in Debate, as OP's thread is about weight loss and I don't think this discussion would be.
Sure. Where is Debate?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/nutrition-debate
Where all the fun happens
0 -
Edited. Late to the party.0
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »Lemurcat: Sure, what do you want to discuss about it?
How about:
Resolved: junk food, consumed even in the context of an overall balanced and nutrient-dense diet that hits all nutrient requirements, is actively bad for you.
Example, since we probably agree that some things (say, transfats) can be bad for you if included regularly, even in small amounts, including 200 calories of ice cream regularly in one's 2100 calorie TDEE-based day.
We may have to define "junk food" first, as I think we may be using different definitions. I think it means "food that is high cal and low nutrient, at least for the number of calories involved."
If you want we can start a new thread in Debate, as OP's thread is about weight loss and I don't think this discussion would be.
Sure. Where is Debate?
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/nutrition-debate
Where all the fun happens
Well then what the hell are we still doing here? Let's go!2 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know for sure what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect. And I think health (in many roundabout and complex ways) often reflects what our bodies biologically expect with what our bodies actually get. So yeah, I think nature is a bit smarter than us, in that reducing health to calories and nutritional content of a food may be too simplistic, and that many other x factors could come into play when it comes to overall health. Can I prove that junk food will deteriorate health (independent of calories and nutritional status)? Probably not. It's just my opinion, so I behave and express accordingly. But can another person prove that junk food does not deteriorate health and is just "health neutral" at worst? Probably not. But they have an opinion too. And I respect that. If there was conclusive evidence either way, everybody would be doing the same thing and forums like this wouldn't exist. So, to summarize this long answer, I don't know what happens if junk food is included in the diet, maybe bad health things, maybe ridiculously awesome health things, but personally I find that I can live without junk food and still enjoy food tremendously, so I stick with whole foods because I think they are a safer bet. Now, I know the next question naturally is "what is the definition of junk food", and of course that will vary with everybody, which I hope is recognized.
I'm hoping that this difference in opinion remains just that, because that's the best way to treat things when people say things differently. J72FIT, I appreciate the fact that you started a conversation with a question. I think that is very respectful. I think the conversations start deteriorating rapidly when the following things happen:
- People approach the issue from an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
- Emotional connotations creep into the subject matter.
I'm struggling with your position of the body "expecting" things since as a species, we're evolutionarily adaptable.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »
What do you think happens?
I'm not sure I understand your question, can you please elaborate?
In regards to food. If one gets adequate nutrients and can fit "junk" food into their diet, what do you think happens?
Oh ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Short answer - I honestly can't know for sure what happens or doesn't happen in regards to this.
Longer answer - I tend to think that man isn't very good at outsmarting nature. So I tend to prefer foods that have been "less interfered with" by man. As a general (but not absolute) rule, I think that the more a food has been interfered with by man, the more its composition is out of line with what our bodies expect. And I think health (in many roundabout and complex ways) often reflects what our bodies biologically expect with what our bodies actually get. So yeah, I think nature is a bit smarter than us, in that reducing health to calories and nutritional content of a food may be too simplistic, and that many other x factors could come into play when it comes to overall health. Can I prove that junk food will deteriorate health (independent of calories and nutritional status)? Probably not. It's just my opinion, so I behave and express accordingly. But can another person prove that junk food does not deteriorate health and is just "health neutral" at worst? Probably not. But they have an opinion too. And I respect that. If there was conclusive evidence either way, everybody would be doing the same thing and forums like this wouldn't exist. So, to summarize this long answer, I don't know what happens if junk food is included in the diet, maybe bad health things, maybe ridiculously awesome health things, but personally I find that I can live without junk food and still enjoy food tremendously, so I stick with whole foods because I think they are a safer bet. Now, I know the next question naturally is "what is the definition of junk food", and of course that will vary with everybody, which I hope is recognized.
I'm hoping that this difference in opinion remains just that, because that's the best way to treat things when people say things differently. J72FIT, I appreciate the fact that you started a conversation with a question. I think that is very respectful. I think the conversations start deteriorating rapidly when the following things happen:
- People approach the issue from an "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.
- Emotional connotations creep into the subject matter.
I'm struggling with your position of the body "expecting" things since as a species, we're evolutionarily adaptable.
Except my argument is that for evolution to take place, you don't just need people, environment and the passage of time.
You need strong selection pressure. The biggest selection pressures over 2.5 million years were starvation and predator danger. You had to be damn proficient at being badass to survive to reproductive age. Surviving to reproductive age was all that was required, but that was a ridiculously hard task. You had to be among the best.
10 thousand years ago, when we developed agriculture, we had a food supply that we could now sustain in one place, and we had shelter and permanenent community. Thereby, eliminating the two strongest selection pressures that drove evolution.
Sure, if junk food was around and there was selection pressure to evolve, I'm sure we would have.
Today, there is no evolutionary penalty for any lifestyle behaviours b/c all of us can evolve to reproductive age - we won't starve and no lion will bite off our heads.
So yeah, aside from a few instances of random genetic drift (eg. Tay Sachs disease etc) that have occurred since the advent of civilization, we're genetically identical to 10 thousand years ago. But we would NOT be if selection pressures were maintained over the last 10 thousand years.
So yes, if we were all still in the wild and had to fend for ourselves and the ground started growing white castle burgers and crispy creme donuts, it is possible that we could have evolved to thrive on those, circumstances dictating.1 -
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how an environment emulating very strong selection pressure equates to optimal health.
It's an interesting theory you have there, but you're ignoring changing environment.
2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm sorry, but I fail to see how an environment emulating very strong selection pressure equates to optimal health.
It's an interesting theory you have there, but you're ignoring changing environment.
That's because there is no environment emulating very strong selection pressure. the point of there not being any strong selection pressure is to state that we haven't evolved since 10 thousand years ago. selection pressure is needed for evolution.
I never suggest creating an environment with strong selection pressure, that would be brutal. I'm not looking for more evolution, but health, which existed while we were still evolving. It's HEALTH that allows one to survive tough times. I don't want tough times. I want the health. The rationale is to give myself what my genes expected during tough times. Minus the lions and the 600 foot fall from a cliff and the band of cannibals on my trail.0 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Seriously? I mean, have you been in a Walmart lately? Or even just a plain ol grocery store? There is 100 times more pure CRAP on the shelves than when I was a teenager. It's really insane. And fast foods are EVERYWHERE. You see people shoveling food into their mouths as they are driving...all the time. That's a relatively recent thing.
Portion sizes in restaurants are ridiculous. Buffets are everywhere. Sugary drinks and snacks are all over the media, and people spend more time on front of the tv than ever before. Kids are spending way more time interacting with screens on televisions, computers, cellphones than they are playing outside, riding bikes and being active.
Pretty much a no-brainer.1 -
fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Seriously? I mean, have you been in a Walmart lately? Or even just a plain ol grocery store? There is 100 times more pure CRAP on the shelves than when I was a teenager. It's really insane. And fast foods are EVERYWHERE. You see people shoveling food into their mouths as they are driving...all the time. That's a relatively recent thing.
Portion sizes in restaurants are ridiculous. Buffets are everywhere. Sugary drinks and snacks are all over the media, and people spend more time on front of the tv than ever before. Kids are spending way more time interacting with screens on televisions, computers, cellphones than they are playing outside, riding bikes and being active.
Pretty much a no-brainer.
Yeah, I don't deny portion sizes. But I think of it in other ways. If somebody asked me for extra helpings of that big fatty steak I just ate, or that big bowl of blueberries, or that plate of sweet potatoes, or that kale fried in bacon fat, or that bacon or that juicy duck leg.... I'd say, no way. I'm freaking full!!!!!!!
Try stuffing your face with whole foods. It just gets too damn uncomfortable, at least for me. Now, I'm not saying that people can't gain weight on whole foods, they can!!! But eating whole foods FOR ME... I find that I can't overeat without wanting to barf. But back when I ate cake, pizza etc, I'd eat the whole damn thing abd be hungry for more!
Again, maybe that's just me.1 -
I haven't read all the replies on here but back to OP's claim: I have lost 50 pounds since I started measuring my International Delight. I'm sure that's why I was fat. If I had substituted cream and chocolate syrup I wouldn't have had to be here.
3 -
geneticexpectations wrote: »fitmom4lifemfp wrote: »geneticexpectations wrote: »Not looking for an exact answer to this because none of us can truly address this with certainty (at least I can't pretend to)- but I do wonder why obesity was much rarer in the times when we had no idea what a calorie was.
Seriously? I mean, have you been in a Walmart lately? Or even just a plain ol grocery store? There is 100 times more pure CRAP on the shelves than when I was a teenager. It's really insane. And fast foods are EVERYWHERE. You see people shoveling food into their mouths as they are driving...all the time. That's a relatively recent thing.
Portion sizes in restaurants are ridiculous. Buffets are everywhere. Sugary drinks and snacks are all over the media, and people spend more time on front of the tv than ever before. Kids are spending way more time interacting with screens on televisions, computers, cellphones than they are playing outside, riding bikes and being active.
Pretty much a no-brainer.
Yeah, I don't deny portion sizes. But I think of it in other ways. If somebody asked me for extra helpings of that big fatty steak I just ate, or that big bowl of blueberries, or that plate of sweet potatoes, or that kale fried in bacon fat, or that bacon or that juicy duck leg.... I'd say, no way. I'm freaking full!!!!!!!
I went to a steakhouse recently, and everyone I was with ate the crazy portions that were provided, so this idea that one can't overeat steak is odd to me.
I've also seen people eat quite large portions of sweet potatoes and potatoes -- and adding more fat tends to make that more likely, IME. Our Thanksgiving fare is reasonably healthy, and the ways in which one could claim it is unhealthy is excess fat, and yet I saw people overeat like crazy with no problem then too (and not that there's anything wrong with that).
I'm extremely skeptical about the idea that eating whole foods + fat (and I'm not sure how processed bacon is really a whole food anyway) = can't overeat. IMO, obesity results from environment and habits.
But then, as I keep saying, I and many others here (hi, GottaBurn!) gained weight eating mostly whole foods. Maybe you didn't -- maybe starting to eat whole foods is a new thing for you, but it was not for me, so I know that's not sufficient. It's helpful, sure, since if I eat mostly whole foods it's less likely I will have foods around to overeat, especially at work where I tend to be most tempted.
Oh, and I never ate cake much. It seems a weird thing to be a major factor in overeating, since baking a cake is a pain and I guess I wasn't offered it that regularly. Even when fat it was a rare and event-related thing. I don't go to bakeries and buy things often either, and while I guess some buy cake at the grocery store that has never crossed my mind and I don't really think it would be great cake. YMMV and all that.
Pizza made at home to me is no different from other foods I'd make at home and not even particularly high cal (I always add lots of vegetables). Pizza in an Italian place (I enjoy lots of local places that serve pizza) is going to be higher cal, like any restaurant food, but again I'm not sure how it's different in kind from some other restaurant entree I might order -- even something like steak or trout are likely going to be prepared in a way much more calorie than I would at home and be a larger serving size. Last restaurant I went to I had steelhead, baby kale, and quinoa (it was in Seattle) and I still bet the calorie count wasn't pretty. The steakhouse (which involved mashed sweet potatoes, creamed spinach, and fried green tomatoes -- this was in Mississippi), also I am sure was every bit as caloric as an order of pizza at the places I usually get it.
Solution: realize that restaurant food is high cal and either eat only a portion of it or budget it into the week. I normally don't get all the stuff I did in MS, for example, but did this time because I wanted to be able to eat with the others and so prepared in advance.2 -
To a degree, I am starting to come to the way of thinking that not all calories are the same, particularly when it comes to maintaining/body shape. Now hear me out, yes stay under deficit and it's all good which is what I care about BUT I have noticed that my face/stomach can get puffy depending on what I eat while other times I look what I consider 'nice and trim'. I still make sure my sodium and sugar 95% fit under my target (post work out) but still I notice that when I wake up my face can look a bit 'fatter' which can be quite upsetting0
-
What you eat may well affect water retention, which is what I think you are talking about, but that has nothing to do with calories, let alone some calories being different from other calories.6
-
geneticexpectations wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm sorry, but I fail to see how an environment emulating very strong selection pressure equates to optimal health.
It's an interesting theory you have there, but you're ignoring changing environment.
That's because there is no environment emulating very strong selection pressure. the point of there not being any strong selection pressure is to state that we haven't evolved since 10 thousand years ago. selection pressure is needed for evolution.
I never suggest creating an environment with strong selection pressure, that would be brutal. I'm not looking for more evolution, but health, which existed while we were still evolving. It's HEALTH that allows one to survive tough times. I don't want tough times. I want the health. The rationale is to give myself what my genes expected during tough times. Minus the lions and the 600 foot fall from a cliff and the band of cannibals on my trail.
But we're still evolving, though.
See: Disease resistance, milk tolerance, blue eyes, loss of wisdom teeth1 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions