Sugar Woo
Replies
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »I recently replied to a member’s post who was looking for ideas about how to fight sugar cravings, and my reply got woo’d. My apologies for that reply, it was my first and I obviously didn’t know the culture in this particular community. I didn’t think my comment was woo, at least no more so than anyone else’s replies. I’m willing to accept that the woo-laid that others drink may be a different flavor than my own, and I do wish everyone the best in whatever their fitness and health goals may be.
dictionary.com/browse/woo
Just run with this official meaning instead of some unknown made up meaning.
I don't know, I'd probably prefer to use the terminology and generally accepted definitions of the community I'm participating in, rather than operating on alternative definitions that will likely continue to minimize my ability communicate effectively or understand what others are conveying when they communicate with me....21 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I recently replied to a member’s post who was looking for ideas about how to fight sugar cravings, and my reply got woo’d. My apologies for that reply, it was my first and I obviously didn’t know the culture in this particular community. I didn’t think my comment was woo, at least no more so than anyone else’s replies. I’m willing to accept that the woo-laid that others drink may be a different flavor than my own, and I do wish everyone the best in whatever their fitness and health goals may be.
dictionary.com/browse/woo
Just run with this official meaning instead of some unknown made up meaning.
I don't know, I'd probably prefer to use the terminology and generally accepted definitions of the community I'm participating in, rather than operating on alternative definitions that will likely continue to minimize my ability communicate effectively or understand what others are conveying when they communicate with me....
When you're talking about how language continually evolves so it can serve our needs for communication and connection, this is a pretty good description of how it actually happens. We learn to understand generally accepted definitions (as well as participate and contribute to the shifts as we use the language ourselves).
If we just all decided to ignore how those around us (whether in real life or online) use words, we'd eventually find ourselves unable to communicate effectively, trapped on our own little island of presumed linguistic purity.
We'd also struggle to learn new things (especially in academic disciplines that have a lot of specific terminology) or assume new responsibilities in the workplace. I use words today that I hadn't heard of ten or twenty years ago (or I use them in ways that are different than I originally did). This isn't something to fear or resist.
(Edit: This doesn't mean we can't push back or discuss new words or changes in word use -- in some cases, it may be worthwhile doing so).
5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »I recently replied to a member’s post who was looking for ideas about how to fight sugar cravings, and my reply got woo’d. My apologies for that reply, it was my first and I obviously didn’t know the culture in this particular community. I didn’t think my comment was woo, at least no more so than anyone else’s replies. I’m willing to accept that the woo-laid that others drink may be a different flavor than my own, and I do wish everyone the best in whatever their fitness and health goals may be.
dictionary.com/browse/woo
Just run with this official meaning instead of some unknown made up meaning.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
^Or you could use the "official" definition set forth here by the staff of this particular site.9 -
diannethegeek wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I recently replied to a member’s post who was looking for ideas about how to fight sugar cravings, and my reply got woo’d. My apologies for that reply, it was my first and I obviously didn’t know the culture in this particular community. I didn’t think my comment was woo, at least no more so than anyone else’s replies. I’m willing to accept that the woo-laid that others drink may be a different flavor than my own, and I do wish everyone the best in whatever their fitness and health goals may be.
dictionary.com/browse/woo
Just run with this official meaning instead of some unknown made up meaning.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
^Or you could use the "official" definition set forth here by the staff of this particular site.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/woo-woo
^Or you could recognize that "woo" has been shortened from "woo-woo" given size constraints of the five reaction options and general language shift over time.8 -
diannethegeek wrote: »diannethegeek wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »I recently replied to a member’s post who was looking for ideas about how to fight sugar cravings, and my reply got woo’d. My apologies for that reply, it was my first and I obviously didn’t know the culture in this particular community. I didn’t think my comment was woo, at least no more so than anyone else’s replies. I’m willing to accept that the woo-laid that others drink may be a different flavor than my own, and I do wish everyone the best in whatever their fitness and health goals may be.
dictionary.com/browse/woo
Just run with this official meaning instead of some unknown made up meaning.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
^Or you could use the "official" definition set forth here by the staff of this particular site.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/woo-woo
^Or you could recognize that "woo" has been shortened from "woo-woo" given size constraints of the five reaction options and general language shift over time.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Woo
^or you could recognize that dictionary definitions rarely give the whole picture and context of a word and sometimes a broader view is necessary10 -
Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.2
-
I love the woo button and my rose colored glasses.6
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Sugar lights up the same part of our brain that heroin does, and some of us just are not able to moderate. <snip> If you're eating real food, you wont be hungry.
You got woo'd for this.
Yes, this is neurologically true and other things that light up that area are fat, sex, exercise, comedy etc. but that doesn't make it an additive substance like heroin. Two obvious differences is that nobody eats pure sugar and if you make lab rats sick while eating sugar they will avoid it but will continue to injest heroin under the same circumstances.
Hmm, thats really not accurate as to the studies commonly referred to, or addiction, and only part of the story: the old studies showing rats would continue to ingest drugs even until death, were shown to not be the result of the drugs wholly, but isolation and boredom with exposure to drugs. Not only this, but the "rat park" studies actually shows that sugar was preferred over drugs, the reverse of what you say above.
The experimental result of rats self ingesting till death was re-tested in the "rat park" studies, and it was shown that the rats with the same choice of drugged or regular water, but also with social interaction and exercise/entertainment options, do not choose the drugs and prefer to drink regular water. In fact even rats in cages that were fed nothing but morphine water for 57 days initially were moved to the "rat park" with activities and social interaction, and chose plain water vs morphine water, voluntarily going through withdrawal.
Another interesting part of the study showed that the rats in "rat park" did not prefer the morphine laden water vs regular water, but when the water was sweetened, they started drinking the morphine water in favor of regular water. In fact, seeing that use of drugged water increased with addition of sugar, the experimenters used naloxone (to negate the effect of the drug), and found that sugar water with the drug increased...showing that rats seemed to be somewhat avoidant of the drug, and that sugar was the stronger stimulant to ingestion yet again!
Now it doesn't PROVE sugar is more addictive than drugs, but the rat drug studies are so commonly mis-used and misunderstood, this should be cleared up. If anything "rat park" studies show the opposite of what people seem to try to conclude from studies rats and drugs: that sugar was a stronger stimulant to drink than the drugs were, and use of the drugged water seems to need another factor (such as sweetening, or depression or lack of stimulation) for the rats to use it to their detriment. I am not saying (nor to I know) all of what the poster above said, but sugar was shown to be the stronger stimulant to ingestion than drugs in the more well done recent "rat park" studies, calling into question the conventional wisdom constantly quoted from the addiction studies with rats in the past.6 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Sugar lights up the same part of our brain that heroin does, and some of us just are not able to moderate. <snip> If you're eating real food, you wont be hungry.
You got woo'd for this.
Yes, this is neurologically true and other things that light up that area are fat, sex, exercise, comedy etc. but that doesn't make it an additive substance like heroin. Two obvious differences is that nobody eats pure sugar and if you make lab rats sick while eating sugar they will avoid it but will continue to injest heroin under the same circumstances.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'll believe in sugar addiction when I see somebody on their knees in a dark alley for a hit of sugar. Until then, I'll stick with science - which shows that sugar is not physically addictive.15 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
No, it demonstrates why it's silly to get upset by a woo or two.
I am positive there were things in the thread for OP to understand why she was being disagreed with.
Are there posts with tons of woos and NO responses, so the poster (or those reading along) can't tell why the post was woo'd? I doubt it.
Are there posts that get woo'd in a mysterious way? Sure (my olive one, IMO), but not lots and lots of woos.2 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »Now it doesn't PROVE sugar is more addictive than drugs, but the rat drug studies are so commonly mis-used and misunderstood, this should be cleared up. If anything "rat park" studies show the opposite of what people seem to try to conclude from studies rats and drugs: that sugar was a stronger stimulant to drink than the drugs were, and use of the drugged water seems to need another factor (such as sweetening, or depression or lack of stimulation) for the rats to use it to their detriment.
I'm not sure what you think the rat studies are commonly used to show, but I don't think this proves anything about addiction, let alone in humans.
It makes sense physically that rats (and humans) would be attracted to sweet and keep eating. There's little reason for rats (or humans) to have evolved a natural off switch, sweet tastes good (signals calories/nutrients, which is evolutionarily good), physical response is to want to eat.
That humans will get hooked on drugs to the extent of preferring drugs to nutrients (and other things needed to survive) does suggest addiction -- a misappropriation of our pathways that cause us to choose behaviors that are the opposite of life sustaining. That's not the case with the tendency to overeat food, even though of course the absence of an off switch in many means it can be overdone.
With humans, this raises the question as to why someone can't mentally realize it's too much and stop (but that's always complicated). With rats, we don't expect them to think through whether another bite will make them sad when they hit the scale or whatever, or even simply whether their choices are healthful. They respond to the natural stimuli that basically are adapted to crave and obtain calories.
Now I do also think that the studies show that hyperpalatable foods make it harder to control intake (using all natural means, since rats aren't trying to control/can't use their brains in the way humans do), and may override an existing equilibrium. But this has nothing necessarily to do with "addiction" and the comparison with drugs isn't the interesting part (again, it should be natural to prefer nutrients to drugs or for it to be harder to get hooked on drugs that in fact aren't super addictive physically, like cocaine*) -- comparing different foods would be, but then you have to deal with the fact that rats and humans are different as to how some foods affect us.
*Cocaine is physically addictive, but the "sugar is worse than cocaine" thing suggests that it's a super physically addictive drug and it's not -- there are better choices if you wanted to test that. For a long time it was assumed to be a harmless recreational drug (ended with Len Bias's OD, roughly), because it was perceived to be not that addictive or dangerous, and now it's known to be more addictive but still not like various others. Anyway, are humans and rats comparable when it comes to the full spectrum of drug addiction? Seems unlikely.6 -
comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.13 -
SoLongAndThanksForAllTheFish wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Sugar lights up the same part of our brain that heroin does, and some of us just are not able to moderate. <snip> If you're eating real food, you wont be hungry.
You got woo'd for this.
Yes, this is neurologically true and other things that light up that area are fat, sex, exercise, comedy etc. but that doesn't make it an additive substance like heroin. Two obvious differences is that nobody eats pure sugar and if you make lab rats sick while eating sugar they will avoid it but will continue to injest heroin under the same circumstances.
Hmm, thats really not accurate as to the studies commonly referred to, or addiction, and only part of the story: the old studies showing rats would continue to ingest drugs even until death, were shown to not be the result of the drugs wholly, but isolation and boredom with exposure to drugs. Not only this, but the "rat park" studies actually shows that sugar was preferred over drugs, the reverse of what you say above.
The experimental result of rats self ingesting till death was re-tested in the "rat park" studies, and it was shown that the rats with the same choice of drugged or regular water, but also with social interaction and exercise/entertainment options, do not choose the drugs and prefer to drink regular water. In fact even rats in cages that were fed nothing but morphine water for 57 days initially were moved to the "rat park" with activities and social interaction, and chose plain water vs morphine water, voluntarily going through withdrawal.
Another interesting part of the study showed that the rats in "rat park" did not prefer the morphine laden water vs regular water, but when the water was sweetened, they started drinking the morphine water in favor of regular water. In fact, seeing that use of drugged water increased with addition of sugar, the experimenters used naloxone (to negate the effect of the drug), and found that sugar water with the drug increased...showing that rats seemed to be somewhat avoidant of the drug, and that sugar was the stronger stimulant to ingestion yet again!
Now it doesn't PROVE sugar is more addictive than drugs, but the rat drug studies are so commonly mis-used and misunderstood, this should be cleared up. If anything "rat park" studies show the opposite of what people seem to try to conclude from studies rats and drugs: that sugar was a stronger stimulant to drink than the drugs were, and use of the drugged water seems to need another factor (such as sweetening, or depression or lack of stimulation) for the rats to use it to their detriment. I am not saying (nor to I know) all of what the poster above said, but sugar was shown to be the stronger stimulant to ingestion than drugs in the more well done recent "rat park" studies, calling into question the conventional wisdom constantly quoted from the addiction studies with rats in the past.
All this shows is that rats went to actual food sources as opposed to drugs. That's it.6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
Keep telling yourself that.....13 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
Not even close. Sit at a computer and hover your mouse over the Woo button. Now look at the link address. Notice the letters 'wtf' in that address? Pretty sure there's no confusion about that meaning. Or maybe I'm wrong and all these years it's actually meant 'What the Fantastic'.10 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
No, it doesn't.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
"In our community Woo means that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true."2 -
Despite the penchant on the Net (and on MFP) to cultivate "likes," "friends," and "followers," the people who buck the trend and think their own thoughts are "right" more often than not.
Do you have any actual examples from, say, the last 30 years, of people who bucked the trend of scientific consensus and were right? Are Flat Earthers right ‘more often than not’?
@ceiswyn The 2005 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine is such an actual example.
There's also the other side of just being wrong. https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/cold_fusion_020 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
No, it doesn't.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
"In our community Woo means that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true."
Bingo.4 -
I believe in the above comment Gale is trying to contact that old dog that farmer had.11
-
Just consider? The sodium paper has an interesting idea that ..."Salt appetite and hedonic liking of salt taste have evolved over >100 million y (e.g., being present in Metatheria). Drugs causing pleasure and addiction are comparatively recent and likely reflect usurping of evolutionary ancient systems with high survival value by the gratification of contemporary hedonic indulgences." If sugar falls into the same evolutionary ancient system then it is possible and probable that our brains are programed to crave these two natural substances do to a biological need when food was harder to come by. The sugar paper suggests up regulation of these pathways thus increasing cravings especially when under a food restricted diet. "...these same neuroadaptations underlie up regulation of sucrose- and psychostimulant-induced trafficking of AMPA receptors to the nucleus accumbens postsynaptic density, which may be a mechanistic basis of enduring maladaptive behavior." Is sugar addiction real? Is caffeine addiction? Maybe the severity of withdrawal is on a broad spectrum when compared to opiates and cocaine, but it looks to me our brains may react to various reward inducing substances in a similar way regardless of how socially acceptable the substance is.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Jul 26;108(30):12509-14. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1109199108. Epub 2011 Jul 11.
Relation of addiction genes to hypothalamic gene changes subserving genesis and gratification of a classic instinct, sodium appetite.
Liedtke WB1, McKinley MJ, Walker LL, Zhang H, Pfenning AR, Drago J, Hochendoner SJ, Hilton DL, Lawrence AJ, Denton DA.
Curr Opin Behav Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as:
Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2016 Jun; 9: 32–39.
doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.11.019
PMCID: PMC4699792
NIHMSID: NIHMS745096
Nucleus Accumbens AMPA Receptor Trafficking Upregulated by Food Restriction: An Unintended Target for Drugs of Abuse and Forbidden Foods
Kenneth D. Carr3 -
What was his name-o?8
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
No, it doesn't.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
"In our community Woo means that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true."
Bingo.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is English not your first language or are you just not familiar with the actual meaning of the idiom "too good to be true"? It is not a positive thing and is not reinforcing what you believe the definition of woo to be. It's the opposite. It means that you must be skeptical, because it is unbelievable and most likely NOT the case. So good in a way that is difficult to believe. You just agreed with a phrase that means the complete opposite of what you are trying to tell us woo means. Kind of ironic actually.11 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe in the above comment Gale is trying to contact that old dog that farmer had.
I think that dog is dead now, isn't he?
Earliest print sightings were from 1780.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_(folk_song)
If he's not dead, then that's some scary Pet Cemetery stuff going on there.7 -
I got woo’d too! And the person that replied that she agreed 100% did too! Viva la difference! I actually thought a “woo” was like Woo-hooo!!! Until I saw their responses to her.2
-
nutmegoreo wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe in the above comment Gale is trying to contact that old dog that farmer had.
I think that dog is dead now, isn't he?
Earliest print sightings were from 1780.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_(folk_song)
If he's not dead, then that's some scary Pet Cemetery stuff going on there.
I've heard of beating a dead horse, but a dead dog...?2 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
No, it doesn't.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
"In our community Woo means that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true."
Bingo.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is English not your first language or are you just not familiar with the actual meaning of the idiom "too good to be true"? It is not a positive thing and is not reinforcing what you believe the definition of woo to be. It's the opposite. It means that you must be skeptical, because it is unbelievable and most likely NOT the case. So good in a way that is difficult to believe. You just agreed with a phrase that means the complete opposite of what you are trying to tell us woo means. Kind of ironic actually.
Woo means someone "thinks" an idea or approach is too good to be true is the way I read it.
Where I take a woo to be positive or negative is left up to me and no one else since a woo or any other button is just a personal opinion. Anyone can offer a personal option where it is valid or not. Its validity is left up to me and only me to determine if a woo is to be taken as a positive or negative. That is to say a woo of a true statement based on science instead of a personal opinion is viewed as a positive statement personally.16 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
No, it doesn't.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
"In our community Woo means that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true."
Bingo.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is English not your first language or are you just not familiar with the actual meaning of the idiom "too good to be true"? It is not a positive thing and is not reinforcing what you believe the definition of woo to be. It's the opposite. It means that you must be skeptical, because it is unbelievable and most likely NOT the case. So good in a way that is difficult to believe. You just agreed with a phrase that means the complete opposite of what you are trying to tell us woo means. Kind of ironic actually.
Woo means someone "thinks" an idea or approach is too good to be true is the way I read it.
Where I take a woo to be positive or negative is left up to me and no one else since a woo or any other button is just a personal opinion. Anyone can offer a personal option where it is valid or not. Its validity is left up to me and only me to determine if a woo is to be taken as a positive or negative. That is to say a woo of a true statement based on science instead of a personal opinion is viewed as a positive statement personally.
Sorry, but it's not up to you to decide what the person wooing you meant. They are the only ones who can decide what they meant by it. You honestly think you get to decide what someone else means by something they say?? That's not how this works. That's mind-bogglingly ridiculous.9 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »comptonelizabeth wrote: »Doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of the woo button? The OP didn't know why they were being woo'd, leading to a long debate about why it was woo/whether it was woo, etc.
Great point.
The Woo button can mean the same thing as Insightful or Inspiring depending on its source.
No, it doesn't.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10570889/new-community-reaction-woo#latest
"In our community Woo means that you think an idea or approach is too good to be true."
Bingo.
Don't take this the wrong way, but is English not your first language or are you just not familiar with the actual meaning of the idiom "too good to be true"? It is not a positive thing and is not reinforcing what you believe the definition of woo to be. It's the opposite. It means that you must be skeptical, because it is unbelievable and most likely NOT the case. So good in a way that is difficult to believe. You just agreed with a phrase that means the complete opposite of what you are trying to tell us woo means. Kind of ironic actually.
Woo means someone "thinks" an idea or approach is too good to be true is the way I read it.
Where I take a woo to be positive or negative is left up to me and no one else since a woo or any other button is just a personal opinion. Anyone can offer a personal option where it is valid or not. Its validity is left up to me and only me to determine if a woo is to be taken as a positive or negative. That is to say a woo of a true statement based on science instead of a personal opinion is viewed as a positive statement personally.
Sorry, but it's not up to you to decide what the person wooing you meant. They are the only ones who can decide what they meant by it. You honestly think you get to decide what someone else means by something they say?? That's not how this works. That's mind-bogglingly ridiculous.
No one tells another what to think about my personal opinions nor does another tell me what to think about personal opinions of others. That is the way it works.
You make it sound like the personal opinions of other control your value system or something. I just never not into the peer pressure game in life and it is too late to start now. 11 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I believe in the above comment Gale is trying to contact that old dog that farmer had.
I think that dog is dead now, isn't he?
Earliest print sightings were from 1780.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bingo_(folk_song)
If he's not dead, then that's some scary Pet Cemetery stuff going on there.
I've heard of beating a dead horse, but a dead dog...?
The horse could certainly use a break. :laugh:6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions