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.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
russelljam08 wrote: »It is 2017 and people still pine on about GI. LOL
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/abs/ejcn2016230a.html?foxtrotcallback=true#abs
"Diet-induced hyperinsulinemia may lead to a higher fat storage only at a positive energy balance"
QFT! How else? A magic insulin fairy puts fat seeds in your butt if you eat a carb??6 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Skinny-fat is not a state most aspire to, nor is it healthy.
Is there evidence to back up saying skinny-fat is not healthy?
I think that "skinny-fat" is the state that most non-obese elderly people wind up in. The little old ladies who do a good job of walking consistently but do nothing whatsoever to develop/maintain muscle and bone density, so when they take a spill they suffer broken bones, pulled muscles, ligament tears, etc., which take a long time to heal and usually end up necessitating a walker or wheelchair.
That situation describes my late mother, who was at a "healthy weight", but only because she never ate to excess; the reality was, she rarely exercised and her diet was terrible ("dude, define a terrible diet, no such thing!" - some other time, bruh) and so was her body composition. I would imagine her macros mix was pretty unbalanced, high carb, high fat, and minimal protein. Once she suffered one serious injury it was a downward spiral of one medical condition after another that resulted in her being bedridden, and I blame a lot of her downfall on her poor nutrition and lack of physical resiliance. So in that context, skinny-fat is not a healthy state to exist in.8 -
I'm watching my grandfather do that to himself right now. He's just not getting enough protein or iron and that one bad fall on the horizon will be his curtain call. Super hard to get someone in their 90's to change life long patterns tho.1
-
Don't tell me you exercise every day when you got a front-butt bigger than mine...and I have an exquisite front-butt. It puts my real butt to shame. My real butt is flat like Mick Foley's. In fact, I bet if I wore a mankind costume for Halloween, people would actually think I'm him and challenge me to a hell in a cell match. "HAvE a nICe DaY!"0
-
JillianRumrill wrote: »Don't tell me you exercise every day when you got a front-butt bigger than mine...and I have an exquisite front-butt. It puts my real butt to shame. My real butt is flat like Mick Foley's. In fact, I bet if I wore a mankind costume for Halloween, people would actually think I'm him and challenge me to a hell in a cell match. "HAvE a nICe DaY!"
Someone could exercise every day and still have excess weight. They aren't mutually exclusive states.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Someone could exercise every day and still have excess weight. They aren't mutually exclusive states.
Have you ever seen my paunch tho? it's considerable. I look pregnant. hell, I've been mistaken for being pregnant. No paunch should be that considerable....unless you're pregnant. Or looking to make ppl think you have your butt on backwards. hmmm...maybe THAT should be my halloween costume. I'm wearing my butt on backwards. But I don't want ppl goosing my paunch tho. blegh.2 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Someone could exercise every day and still have excess weight. They aren't mutually exclusive states.
Have you ever seen my paunch tho? it's considerable. I look pregnant. hell, I've been mistaken for being pregnant. No paunch should be that considerable....unless you're pregnant. Or looking to make ppl think you have your butt on backwards. hmmm...maybe THAT should be my halloween costume. I'm wearing my butt on backwards. But I don't want ppl goosing my paunch tho. blegh.
You can have considerate excess weight and still exercise. Again, they aren't mutually exclusive states.3 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Someone could exercise every day and still have excess weight. They aren't mutually exclusive states.
Have you ever seen my paunch tho? it's considerable. I look pregnant. hell, I've been mistaken for being pregnant. No paunch should be that considerable....unless you're pregnant. Or looking to make ppl think you have your butt on backwards. hmmm...maybe THAT should be my halloween costume. I'm wearing my butt on backwards. But I don't want ppl goosing my paunch tho. blegh.
makes no matter.
I have a bit of excess weight around my middle...and I exercise everyday...going for a 3 mile run and lifting today...0 -
Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.5
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
You can have considerate excess weight and still exercise. Again, they aren't mutually exclusive states.
eh, you're right. I'm not thinking about beginners. I'm thinking more along the lines of ppl who've straight up lied to me like they're jack lalane but they look like jabba the hut.
1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.2 -
Yes! There is a reason professionals do it that way. Someone want to or doesn't want to at home, that's up to them.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
Mise in place is definitely not how I cook.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
My husband is a long time user of mise en place and I'd never really encountered it before we began dating. I was skeptical at first, but once I tried it . . . wow, it made a huge difference! I never looked back.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
My husband is a long time user of mise en place and I'd never really encountered it before we began dating. I was skeptical at first, but once I tried it . . . wow, it made a huge difference! I never looked back.
If my brain is in letting me cook properly mode then I have to prep because there ain't no way I'm keeping on top of stirring and chopping and cupboard opening etc etc. Makes it super easy.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »You messed up the quotations (or someone did at some point), so I'd editing to highlight SezxyStef's comment to which you were responding, and then your response @jamesakrobinsonjamesakrobinson wrote: »I have yet to see anyone say "iifym it's good for you"...I often hear...IIFYM and you are still in a deficit then by all means have some ice cream or cake or chips it won't kill you.
LOL this is great... It never ceases to amaze me how so many people are brainwashed "true believers" here. Somehow the incredibly complex human digestive system, hormonal response, energy production, thermogenesis, and wildly varying metabolic rates (across time, and person to person) can be boiled down with 100% confidence to a 2nd grade arithmetic equation. (one heavily endorsed and promoted by Coca-Cola and the sugar and corn industry!)
Could you please clarify how what Stef said = being brainwashed or saying nothing else matters (for nutrition or health, anyway) but calories? Because I am not seeing it, and I think this is really the problem, a lot of people, as you just did, make up strawmen to argue against or misconstrue posts.
You go on:IMHO what you eat (macros and the GI of your carbs) influences body composition just as much as how much (calories) you eat and burn (exercise) does to your weight on the scale.
I've never seen any evidence that GI matters for body composition. I have seen correspondences between a low GI diet and health (keeping carbs at the same level), but I believe that has nothing to do with GI (which is going to vary based on what you eat the foods with) and more because the average lower GI carb tends to be more nutrient dense (since we are including lots of vegetables). Doesn't mean there's anything bad about higher GI carbs, and indeed rice and potatoes and sweet potatoes and, yes, even pasta, can be a great way to fuel a progressive weight training program, as well as tasty. Same with some higher GI fruits, like bananas.
Anyway, I DO think that getting adequate protein is helpful for body composition, but other things make much more of a difference, like doing strength exercises and not having too aggressive a deficit, especially as one is no longer overweight.
I have not seen anything credible suggesting that macros matter beyond getting enough protein (and more protein may be required to be enough for these purposes if one is very low carb). I certainly have not seen anything that suggests that what Stef was talking about -- having some occasional ice cream OR cake OR chips if one can do so in a deficit (and sure, without sacrificing protein, which isn't tough) -- is a problem, as you seem to suggest.
Care to clarify?I myself am far more interested in body composition than weight! Skinny-fat is not a state most aspire to, nor is it healthy.
I'm also more interested in that, once at a normal weight, anyway, which is why I always advise people not to have too aggressive a deficit and to consume enough protein. I also think health matters. And I think that beyond getting enough protein and having an overall healthy diet (i.e., enough vegetables) and a good exercise program, not much else matters. The claim that you need to give up ice cream or chips or whatever is unsupported and misleading.
I was most certainly NOT debating any of the portions of the text to which I responded. I see the screwy quote portions. My post began at "LOL..." but rest assured I was agreeing with the post, which in turn was agreeing with another post.
A triple positive, unlike a triple negative, doesn't change the sign. We all seem to hold related (albeit not necessarily identical) ideas.
3 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.
But can you really? Can someone really be 30% BF and wear a size 0? I doubt it. You don't have to have much muscle to have a healthy BF% if you are a size 0 because you don't have much fat either.
To be in the healthy BMI range and unhealthy BF% range it's much more likely they'd be at the very upper end of healthy BMI.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
My husband is a long time user of mise en place and I'd never really encountered it before we began dating. I was skeptical at first, but once I tried it . . . wow, it made a huge difference! I never looked back.
Yes, so much more organized and efficient. In a production environment when speed, accuracy and timing are key, there is no other way.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think it's weird how people default to the weighing as unhealthy and not the logging itself. I don't think either is unhealthy, but I do think GottaBurnEmAll has a point that it must be unfamiliarity with the scale as a common tool or, in some cases, with cooking. I find weighing is more convenient than cups and do it for many things when not logging (or counting calories), and used a scale for baking pre weight loss. (I actually had put it in the back of a closet after I stopped baking regularly and then when I decided to lose weight didn't use it and then much later decided to drag it out and found it made logging easier.)
For me, since I chop and so on when cooking, adding a step of placing a bowl on the scale and putting things in before tossing them in a pan is easy, almost not noticeable as extra work. Logging IS much more burdensome to me, but in part it's because it (or something similar and in my mind equally burdensome, like writing down everything I eat in a spreadsheet) makes me stay mindful when I want to not think about eating choices.
And whether I weigh, log, or use some other tool, the fact is that for me if I don't stay mindful, I start gaining weight and can easily slip back into emotional eating too.
I use this same approach. It was also part of how I worked as a chef. You want to be portioning correctly for consistency and cost control. Easy enough to transition to doing it at home.
This is interesting. I watch cooking shows on TV and you rarely see those chefs using any type of measurement and I don't think I've ever seen them use a scale.
I've seen it quite frequently. Good Eats immediately comes to mind; so does just about any European cook.
Never watched Good Eats but I have seen several European chef hosted shows (US shows hosted by Europeans) and while they usually give ingredients in grams I've never seen one weigh anything. They also eyeball it on the shows.
That's because it is all pre-weighed off camera. If the recipe ingredients are given in weights, be assured that the chef/host cooks by weight.
So even when they chop it on camera and throw it in a pot you think they are using camera tricks to weigh it off camera?
Nope. You are talking cooking where ingredients frequently do not get weighed. Baking is a completely different story and everything gets weighed on the shows, just off camera. When the host dumps flour from a bag, it is just for show. No camera tricks needed, they have several of the same dish in varying steps of completion and just take out the one that pertains to the steps they are currently talking about.
Oh I never watch baking shows.
The thing with cooking savoury meals is you often don't need to measure and weigh ingredients. If I'm not counting calories, I cook almost completely by feel. It generally means I never make the same meal the same way twice, but they always taste good. It's just years of experience, both personal and professional, where I know what works and what doesn't. But weighing and measuring, when I am calorie counting, adds very little time and trouble and the thing is, I still cook by feel - I weigh the amount that I would put in anyway, rather than putting in a specific amount by weight, if that makes sense.
I'm sure it all makes sense to/for you. But my experience with weighing ingredients was different. I realize "very little time" is a subjective phrase but it felt time consuming to me to weigh ingredients. But more than the time it was annoying. It sucked the fun out of cooking for me, and cooking is a great source of pleasure for me. Honestly, I would rather have stayed overweight than weighed ingredients when cooking.
I don't see why any of us "weigh everything" scale fans want to convert you. If you're happier not weighing things, and you're able to be successful (at your goals, be they weight management, nutrition, or whatever), then I think that's great.
I do, however, want to argue with these ideas, if presented ( you didn't present them), because I think they're inaccurate- Weighing food is inherently somehow psychologically dysfunctional.
- If people do weigh food, it 'should' only be temporary.
- Weighing food is more time-consuming than cups and spoons.
- Weighing food is inherently and objectively quite time consuming - by implication, enough so that it's a bad use of anyone's time.
- That people who aren't weighing food but "can't lose even though they're only eating 1200" (or some such) are being misled if scale-lovers like me advise them to start weighing food as a way to establish a more accurate calorie estimate.
- Weighing food produces exact or near exact calorie figures.
- To be successful, one must weigh every bite, including at friends'/relatives' homes and restaurants (or not go/eat there)
- Everyone interested in weight management must weigh food, temporarily if not permanently.
Counterfactual evangelizing and overgeneralizing from personal experience are examples of flawed reasoning.
And some people who "can't lose weight" but won't even try weighing food because it's obsessive or too time-consuming . . . they're sometimes just constructing themselves a handy excuse to quit trying.
All of this.
And because I AM neurotic in some ways, I feel compelled to say, since Need2 said "I feel now that I want to know why everyone is so annoyed by my annoyance as much as they want to know why I'm annoyed," that I quite specifically and directly said that I was not annoyed by Need2's thinking that for her weighing is burdensome. I am only annoyed by those who insist that everyone must find weighing burdensome (more so than measuring in other ways).
I am interested in a non-annoyed way in WHY it seems burdensome to put things on the scale and am wondering if there is an assumption that we must trying to hit certain targets or cooking to a recipe, but I also realize it might just be one of those people are different and you can't explain it kind of things.
I find it a chore because there's no point in JUST putting it on the scale. It's that PLUS measuring it PLUS writing it down PLUS finding an accurate entry in the database PLUS entering it in the diary. For every ingredient. I'm a lazy cook. I don't bake, so I don't have to measure. When I cook, most of the ingredients can go from the container directly into the cooking dish, which also saves on washing up.
To be clear, I totally get why logging seems burdensome sometimes. I find it burdensome sometimes too, and generally don't do it at maintenance for that reason. It's the people who seem to think estimating or measuring with cups is less burdensome than weighing (and weighing therefore is neurotic) that confuse me. I find estimating or using cups more burdensome (and I hate estimating so rarely even log restaurant stuff, I just say 1000 cal or some such).
When I cook -- and I'm honestly trying to understand what other process there would be -- I get out the ingredients I decide to use (and usually this is a spur of the moment what seems like it would taste good together and happens to be in my refrigerator sort of thing) and then cook, but the weighing isn't an issue.
Example -- stir fry with shrimp. I put rice in the rice cooker (putting the rice cooker bowl on the scale and pouring in rice). Then I put a little oil in the pan (I'd use a tsp or tbsp for this, probably), and start chopping veg (or if I'm organized I might chop some before). For each ingredient I add, I chop up what I want, tare, and put the ingredient on the bowl or plate that is sitting on the scale, toss in pan. I note the weight on an envelope.
I'm NOT advocating this, I don't care, I don't currently log myself. I just don't see how the weighing bit adds burden.
Even that example seems bothersome to me. 2 unnecessary steps per ingredient and one extra dirty bowl. For what? I guess it's the "for what" part that I can't get past. Doing things that I feel don't need done is not for me.
And that's the easy stuff. There are times you'd need to weigh twice to be even close to accurate. A fruit with a pit or core that won't be eaten, bone-in meat, etc.
Got it. You find it bothersome and you don't want to do it. I don't think there is any lack of clarity around that at this point. It's your life, do what you prefer. Just as I found it odd when people kept countering your desire not to measure, I find it odd that you keep restating it. If you don't want to do what Lemurcat does, don't. Simple
Why is it odd than I keep responding with my preferences but not that others keep responding to me with theirs?
As I said, if you reread my post more closely, I find both odd. Also, every other response is not necessarily directed to you. It is people just giving their point of view.
Need2 seems to think that people are trying to convince her to weigh or not to find it burdensome, and that certainly is not my intent or what I perceive others to be doing. I imagine HOW we cook determines what seems burdensome or not, as well as personality, so there will be differences. (But sometimes there is a temptation to clarify why what you are talking about is not as portrayed if it seems someone else is misunderstanding. I cop to this.)
Yeah, I think that how we cook thing might make a difference.
Like you, I'm a mis en place person since I find that makes cooking easier. Weighing food and jotting it down when you prep like that isn't really bothersome.
My husband is a long time user of mise en place and I'd never really encountered it before we began dating. I was skeptical at first, but once I tried it . . . wow, it made a huge difference! I never looked back.
If my brain is in letting me cook properly mode then I have to prep because there ain't no way I'm keeping on top of stirring and chopping and cupboard opening etc etc. Makes it super easy.
Exactly, I don't have to worry about stuff burning while I'm getting other stuff ready or not being able to find something that I need.2 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »jamesakrobinson wrote: »Skinny-fat is not a state most aspire to, nor is it healthy.
Is there evidence to back up saying skinny-fat is not healthy?
I think that "skinny-fat" is the state that most non-obese elderly people wind up in. The little old ladies who do a good job of walking consistently but do nothing whatsoever to develop/maintain muscle and bone density, so when they take a spill they suffer broken bones, pulled muscles, ligament tears, etc., which take a long time to heal and usually end up necessitating a walker or wheelchair.
That situation describes my late mother, who was at a "healthy weight", but only because she never ate to excess; the reality was, she rarely exercised and her diet was terrible ("dude, define a terrible diet, no such thing!" - some other time, bruh) and so was her body composition. I would imagine her macros mix was pretty unbalanced, high carb, high fat, and minimal protein. Once she suffered one serious injury it was a downward spiral of one medical condition after another that resulted in her being bedridden, and I blame a lot of her downfall on her poor nutrition and lack of physical resiliance. So in that context, skinny-fat is not a healthy state to exist in.
I meant in a general sense but that is a good anecdotal example.2 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.
But can you really? Can someone really be 30% BF and wear a size 0? I doubt it. You don't have to have much muscle to have a healthy BF% if you are a size 0 because you don't have much fat either.
To be in the healthy BMI range and unhealthy BF% range it's much more likely they'd be at the very upper end of healthy BMI.
It was just an extreme example but there are many people within a healthy BMI who are over fat. I know someone personally who is a healthy BMI, same height as me but no muscle to speak of and a propensity to carry their weight in their middle. They are most definitely visually and clinically over fat. And yes, she's at the upper end of the BMI scale (might actually have tipped over now but at one point was a good 5-6lbs under).1 -
JillianRumrill wrote: »Don't tell me you exercise every day when you got a front-butt bigger than mine...and I have an exquisite front-butt. It puts my real butt to shame. My real butt is flat like Mick Foley's. In fact, I bet if I wore a mankind costume for Halloween, people would actually think I'm him and challenge me to a hell in a cell match. "HAvE a nICe DaY!"
I never thought about Mick Foley's butt. Is it flat? I tried googling it but all I got was pictures of who I assume is his daughter, not that I mind.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »JillianRumrill wrote: »Don't tell me you exercise every day when you got a front-butt bigger than mine...and I have an exquisite front-butt. It puts my real butt to shame. My real butt is flat like Mick Foley's. In fact, I bet if I wore a mankind costume for Halloween, people would actually think I'm him and challenge me to a hell in a cell match. "HAvE a nICe DaY!"
I never thought about Mick Foley's butt. Is it flat? I tried googling it but all I got was pictures of who I assume is his daughter, not that I mind.
Yeah he's got a flat backside that's why he's always been able to take bumps so well. No booty meat to get in the way, so when he's laying flat on the mat getting a leg drop to the face it doesn't jack up his vertebrae...it's all nice and flat against the surface so the ring absorbs the shock.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.
But can you really? Can someone really be 30% BF and wear a size 0? I doubt it. You don't have to have much muscle to have a healthy BF% if you are a size 0 because you don't have much fat either.
To be in the healthy BMI range and unhealthy BF% range it's much more likely they'd be at the very upper end of healthy BMI.
It was just an extreme example but there are many people within a healthy BMI who are over fat. I know someone personally who is a healthy BMI, same height as me but no muscle to speak of and a propensity to carry their weight in their middle. They are most definitely visually and clinically over fat. And yes, she's at the upper end of the BMI scale (might actually have tipped over now but at one point was a good 5-6lbs under).
I'm not arguing that people can be skinny fat (healthy BMI, BF% over the healthy range). Just wondering if there is evidence that it is inherently unhealthy. As if that factor and that factor alone increases risk of disease.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.
But can you really? Can someone really be 30% BF and wear a size 0? I doubt it. You don't have to have much muscle to have a healthy BF% if you are a size 0 because you don't have much fat either.
To be in the healthy BMI range and unhealthy BF% range it's much more likely they'd be at the very upper end of healthy BMI.
It was just an extreme example but there are many people within a healthy BMI who are over fat. I know someone personally who is a healthy BMI, same height as me but no muscle to speak of and a propensity to carry their weight in their middle. They are most definitely visually and clinically over fat. And yes, she's at the upper end of the BMI scale (might actually have tipped over now but at one point was a good 5-6lbs under).
I'm not arguing that people can be skinny fat (healthy BMI, BF% over the healthy range). Just wondering if there is evidence that it is inherently unhealthy. As if that factor and that factor alone increases risk of disease.
Waist to hip ratios have been shown to be a more reliable indicator of future health/morbidity than BMI.
4 -
russelljam08 wrote: »It is 2017 and people still pine on about GI. LOL
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/abs/ejcn2016230a.html?foxtrotcallback=true#abs
"Diet-induced hyperinsulinemia may lead to a higher fat storage only at a positive energy balance"
QFT! How else? A magic insulin fairy puts fat seeds in your butt if you eat a carb??
25 -
goldthistime wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.
But can you really? Can someone really be 30% BF and wear a size 0? I doubt it. You don't have to have much muscle to have a healthy BF% if you are a size 0 because you don't have much fat either.
To be in the healthy BMI range and unhealthy BF% range it's much more likely they'd be at the very upper end of healthy BMI.
It was just an extreme example but there are many people within a healthy BMI who are over fat. I know someone personally who is a healthy BMI, same height as me but no muscle to speak of and a propensity to carry their weight in their middle. They are most definitely visually and clinically over fat. And yes, she's at the upper end of the BMI scale (might actually have tipped over now but at one point was a good 5-6lbs under).
I'm not arguing that people can be skinny fat (healthy BMI, BF% over the healthy range). Just wondering if there is evidence that it is inherently unhealthy. As if that factor and that factor alone increases risk of disease.
Waist to hip ratios have been shown to be a more reliable indicator of future health/morbidity than BMI.
Doesn't answer my question, but okay.2 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Skinny fat describes someone who has a relatively high body fat comparative to size/BMI. So you could be a size 0 but 30% body fat and all the increased health risks that come with it. The under-muscled thing that comes with it is also an issue as explained above for ageing well and injury prevention into old age.
But can you really? Can someone really be 30% BF and wear a size 0? I doubt it. You don't have to have much muscle to have a healthy BF% if you are a size 0 because you don't have much fat either.
To be in the healthy BMI range and unhealthy BF% range it's much more likely they'd be at the very upper end of healthy BMI.
It was just an extreme example but there are many people within a healthy BMI who are over fat. I know someone personally who is a healthy BMI, same height as me but no muscle to speak of and a propensity to carry their weight in their middle. They are most definitely visually and clinically over fat. And yes, she's at the upper end of the BMI scale (might actually have tipped over now but at one point was a good 5-6lbs under).
@VintageFeline, you are describing the old me exactly. I have never been overweight, as per BMI, but boy have I been fat. And yes I carried all my weight in my belly- Normal Weight Obese.
Of course losing some fat and doing some exercise changed all that. I really don't want to be the little old lady that fell and couldn't get up.
Just for an example, the left is me at 128-130lbs top of BMI for 5'1, but fat.
Right is me now.
Cheers, h.
ETA: a good quantity of my fat was visceral, so yes there were added health risks even though I was at a normal weight.
Just to address @Need2Exerc1se a little. The visceral fat affects hormones so can lead to a number of problems inc t2dm.3 -
russelljam08 wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »It is 2017 and people still pine on about GI. LOL
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/abs/ejcn2016230a.html?foxtrotcallback=true#abs
"Diet-induced hyperinsulinemia may lead to a higher fat storage only at a positive energy balance"
QFT! How else? A magic insulin fairy puts fat seeds in your butt if you eat a carb??
Brilliant!
I need to alter this for hypothyroid - "Hypothyroidism does not open a rift in the space-time continuum to magically move fat from a parallel universe to your belly."9 -
russelljam08 wrote: »russelljam08 wrote: »It is 2017 and people still pine on about GI. LOL
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v71/n3/abs/ejcn2016230a.html?foxtrotcallback=true#abs
"Diet-induced hyperinsulinemia may lead to a higher fat storage only at a positive energy balance"
QFT! How else? A magic insulin fairy puts fat seeds in your butt if you eat a carb??
Brilliant!
I need to alter this for hypothyroid - "Hypothyroidism does not open a rift in the space-time continuum to magically move fat from a parallel universe to your belly."
No it does not. But it really does make a difference.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
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K 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