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 commonly given MFP Forum advice do you personally disagree with?
Options
Replies
-
erikayblue wrote: »Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.
Also, you may want to have a read through this thread: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p115 -
erikayblue wrote: »Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.
Interesting in theory, but I have found that my weight loss follows a predictable pattern in relation to my deficit. When I'm strength training I get more stalls and whooshes, but the overall pattern and loss is at the predicted rate based on my deficit. The numbers may differ from the online calculators a bit, which is why people are typically encouraged to go off their real life numbers once they have enough data, rather than the calculators, which are all estimates.5 -
modusoperandi1412 wrote: »erikayblue wrote: »Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.
Except there's literally a whole bunch of people with diaries on this very site that prove that properly measured calorie counting does produce very predictable weight loss...
Exactly! It's easy to say weight loss isn't predictable because of day to day fluctuations in weight due to water retention, undigested food and other things, but fat loss is predictable over time when input and output are measured consistently. Perfection is not necessary, consistency is.16 -
erikayblue wrote: »Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.
Who is eating all their calories from "junk"? Are you even reading what is being written here?16 -
modusoperandi1412 wrote: »erikayblue wrote: »Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.
Except there's literally a whole bunch of people with diaries on this very site that prove that properly measured calorie counting does produce very predictable weight loss...
I'd add that my weight loss was very predictable, once I'd gotten my logging habits in order, and experientially determined my personal calorie needs. I could quite accurately predict my loss under various circumstances, predict how long an over-goal (below maintenance) day would affect water weight; how long a "real" loss would take after a significantly over-maintenance day (both water weight and gain and loss); etc. It was a really fun grown-up science fair project!
That's a different thing than MFP giving me a correct calorie goal if I enter my data accurately (it doesn't), but some people don't understand the distinction.
I even experienced a true "touchdown!" moment a long time ago on one thread where a guy ate way over goal one day, and wondered about the consequences: I told him how to do the math, described how the water weight tends to work, and even made a rough prediction based. A week or so later he posted to say he'd worked it out, and I was spot on. I'm sure there was an element of luck in there, but it's not entirely luck.
Figuring out your own patterns - which very likely will not be linear, even at a consistent intake/activity level - is a useful and powerful thing. It may not be achievable for everyone, but "bad at math" is probably a bigger barrier than the dizzying complexity of the human organism, for a lot of people. (JMO, obviously.) It will be materially harder, I'd guess to do it granularly, for a premenopausal woman. (I'm old. 'Nuff said.)
The only thing that I haven't figured out how to math yet (and I think it's mainly that I haven't done enough careful experimental trials
), is the arithmetic effect of eating way, way, WAY over maintenance on an extremely rare basis. In that scenario, I know I don't gain as much fat weight as I "should". I know there's an RMR bump and probably NEAT bump from major overconsumption in that scenario for a lot of people, but don't know how to estimate the effect; and I kind of suspect that it's possible (for me, anyway ) to eat so freakishly much compared to normal that my body can't biochemically extract all the useful stuff (calories, nutrients) . . . but that part's wild speculation.
I'd point out that Dvdgzz was pretty predictable, too, in a long-haul sense:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p1
6 -
cmriverside wrote: »erikayblue wrote: »Calories in, calories out are all that matter. Literally speaking, yes. But in application, our methods of being able to measure our intake and output are not perfect enough for this to be all that matters. I believe foods affect our metabolic health. Many of us have poor metabolic health. I'm sorry, but eating 1800 calories of sugar versus 1800 calories of veg is just not the same thing. If calories in calories out were all that mattered, in a way that our calculations could actually count, then eating at a deficit should produce extremely predictable weight loss. And it just doesn't. I can measure with the utmost precision, yet weight loss is still not as predictable as it would be if CICO was a perfect system. Now, I'm not saying many people haven't lost weight counting calories only. But that's not proof that it's the perfect way. Overall health impacts weight loss and eating all calories from junk does not promote overall health.
Have you read ANY of the rest of this thread?
Or any thread on this site? Ever?
I can't even.
Yup, this.7 -
That 1200 is 'starving yourself' and that everyone can lose weight on much more than that, if they aren't then they are cheating and not measuring everything correctly. This gets to me every time and makes me feel like I'm doing it wrong. I've only ever lost weight on 1200 or less.
I have always struggled with exercise, I may do it short-term, but I hate doing it and so tend to give up quickly. I barely walk even. Maybe 300-400 steps per day usually, that is literally it. I'm short (5'2) and there's no chance I could lose weight eating 1500 or something like other people. Just wouldn't happen, I'd gain weight.
Are you implying that you can lose weight on 1200 but gain on 1500? I'm pretty sure that's mathematically impossible
I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage people to evaluate whether 1200 is a reasonable goal for them. This is because so many come on this site and choose the 2 lb/week goal without having the current body mass to support it, or have just heard you need to eat 1200 calories to lose weight, whereas relatively few people are so short & sedentary so as to require 1200 calories to lose a reasonable amount of weight. And many, many people do not log accurately. That's not a moral judgment and doesn't mean people are "cheating". It just means they may not have mastered good logging skills yet and thus may think they require 1200 to lose, when in reality they may be eating several hundred calories more. People who mention this are trying to be helpful, because most of us have been there. Will it apply to every single person? Of course not.
A common theme I'm seeing among some of the comments on this thread is, "I don't like it when people give X advice because it doesn't apply to those of us in Y situation." Well sure... advice here is geared to the majority and what would be the most helpful to the average user, unless you are in a thread or group devoted to Y situation.
Most sites put my TDEE to around 1350-1450. So, it is perfectly possible that I could gain weight on 1500 calories. I think even that is generous as I am the couch potatoes of all couch potatoes, especially in autumn/winter. Barely move a muscle.
My point was that often the very act of eating 1200 calories is firstly looked down upon as if everyone eating that less is trying to lose their weight too fast and are being impatient, or looking for a quick fix. That's not the case at all for many. Secondly, if someone mentions that they are struggling to lose weight on 1200 calories, automatically it's assumed that they have made a mistake in their logging and there's absolutely no question of it being anything else that could be stalling their weight loss. Often, I agree, it could be the case, but sometimes it is not and that can be so disheartening for people like me that struggle to lose even a measly pound a month sometimes on such low calories. It has made me question what I am doing, eat more for a month and end up with weight gain at the end.7 -
That 1200 is 'starving yourself' and that everyone can lose weight on much more than that, if they aren't then they are cheating and not measuring everything correctly. This gets to me every time and makes me feel like I'm doing it wrong. I've only ever lost weight on 1200 or less.
I have always struggled with exercise, I may do it short-term, but I hate doing it and so tend to give up quickly. I barely walk even. Maybe 300-400 steps per day usually, that is literally it. I'm short (5'2) and there's no chance I could lose weight eating 1500 or something like other people. Just wouldn't happen, I'd gain weight.
Are you implying that you can lose weight on 1200 but gain on 1500? I'm pretty sure that's mathematically impossible
I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage people to evaluate whether 1200 is a reasonable goal for them. This is because so many come on this site and choose the 2 lb/week goal without having the current body mass to support it, or have just heard you need to eat 1200 calories to lose weight, whereas relatively few people are so short & sedentary so as to require 1200 calories to lose a reasonable amount of weight. And many, many people do not log accurately. That's not a moral judgment and doesn't mean people are "cheating". It just means they may not have mastered good logging skills yet and thus may think they require 1200 to lose, when in reality they may be eating several hundred calories more. People who mention this are trying to be helpful, because most of us have been there. Will it apply to every single person? Of course not.
A common theme I'm seeing among some of the comments on this thread is, "I don't like it when people give X advice because it doesn't apply to those of us in Y situation." Well sure... advice here is geared to the majority and what would be the most helpful to the average user, unless you are in a thread or group devoted to Y situation.
Most sites put my TDEE to around 1350-1450. So, it is perfectly possible that I could gain weight on 1500 calories. I think even that is generous as I am the couch potatoes of all couch potatoes, especially in autumn/winter. Barely move a muscle.
My point was that often the very act of eating 1200 calories is firstly looked down upon as if everyone eating that less is trying to lose their weight too fast and are being impatient, or looking for a quick fix. That's not the case at all for many. Secondly, if someone mentions that they are struggling to lose weight on 1200 calories, automatically it's assumed that they have made a mistake in their logging and there's absolutely no question of it being anything else that could be stalling their weight loss. Often, I agree, it could be the case, but sometimes it is not and that can be so disheartening for people like me that struggle to lose even a measly pound a month sometimes on such low calories. It has made me question what I am doing, eat more for a month and end up with weight gain at the end.
I did misspeak about the losing/gaining thing. I had in mind the typical 500/day deficit, and obviously people have smaller deficits than that and lose, and it only takes a small surplus over time to gain. My mistake I do wonder if you might be confusing TDEE and BMR, but it doesn't matter.
Have you ever heard the phrase "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras"? On these forums, unnecessarily large calorie deficits and inaccurate logging are the horses- they are by far the most common issues. So it only makes sense for people to start there. It's not personal, and I don't know of any of the experienced posters that don't acknowledge there will be occasional outliers.5 -
That 1200 is 'starving yourself' and that everyone can lose weight on much more than that, if they aren't then they are cheating and not measuring everything correctly. This gets to me every time and makes me feel like I'm doing it wrong. I've only ever lost weight on 1200 or less.
I have always struggled with exercise, I may do it short-term, but I hate doing it and so tend to give up quickly. I barely walk even. Maybe 300-400 steps per day usually, that is literally it. I'm short (5'2) and there's no chance I could lose weight eating 1500 or something like other people. Just wouldn't happen, I'd gain weight.
Are you implying that you can lose weight on 1200 but gain on 1500? I'm pretty sure that's mathematically impossible
I don't think it's a bad thing to encourage people to evaluate whether 1200 is a reasonable goal for them. This is because so many come on this site and choose the 2 lb/week goal without having the current body mass to support it, or have just heard you need to eat 1200 calories to lose weight, whereas relatively few people are so short & sedentary so as to require 1200 calories to lose a reasonable amount of weight. And many, many people do not log accurately. That's not a moral judgment and doesn't mean people are "cheating". It just means they may not have mastered good logging skills yet and thus may think they require 1200 to lose, when in reality they may be eating several hundred calories more. People who mention this are trying to be helpful, because most of us have been there. Will it apply to every single person? Of course not.
A common theme I'm seeing among some of the comments on this thread is, "I don't like it when people give X advice because it doesn't apply to those of us in Y situation." Well sure... advice here is geared to the majority and what would be the most helpful to the average user, unless you are in a thread or group devoted to Y situation.
Most sites put my TDEE to around 1350-1450. So, it is perfectly possible that I could gain weight on 1500 calories. I think even that is generous as I am the couch potatoes of all couch potatoes, especially in autumn/winter. Barely move a muscle.
My point was that often the very act of eating 1200 calories is firstly looked down upon as if everyone eating that less is trying to lose their weight too fast and are being impatient, or looking for a quick fix. That's not the case at all for many. Secondly, if someone mentions that they are struggling to lose weight on 1200 calories, automatically it's assumed that they have made a mistake in their logging and there's absolutely no question of it being anything else that could be stalling their weight loss. Often, I agree, it could be the case, but sometimes it is not and that can be so disheartening for people like me that struggle to lose even a measly pound a month sometimes on such low calories. It has made me question what I am doing, eat more for a month and end up with weight gain at the end.
Actually this problem comes up quite often. People that are short and don't exercise have it rough. Many embrace exercise so they can eat more.5 -
...and to add fuel to this fire...I used 1200 in the beginning. I was 5'8" 210. I set it to lose two pounds per week, because show me an obese person who doesn't want to lose two pounds per week.
It worked! For a while. At first I struggled. Then the first time I added exercise to the Exercise tab and got extra calories a lightbulb went on and I was able to stick with 1200+Exercise cals for the first 40ish pounds of weight loss.
Then I crashed.
Hard.
It was four or five months in to the weight loss and exercise. I was at about 180, so still 20 pounds till I hit my [then] goal. I couldn't work out for more than 20-30 minutes. I was couch-potato-ing the rest of the day. My skin was dry and my fingers and nails were cracking. I was irritable. I was sleeping 10-12 hours a day.
After some time my hair started thinning. I was struggling to stay on the lower calories.
I went up to 1500-1600 plus exercise calories for the rest of my weight loss. That worked for my physical problems and for my satiety (for the most part.) One thing I've done ever since is have one day that's way over; like 500-1500 over. I don't know why that works for me, but it's what I do.12 -
Common advice- if you are hungry while dieting you should just get used to it, use willpower, drink gallons of water. It is normal to feel hungry all the time when losing weight.
I think this advice is what leads to people yo yo dieting or encourages unhealthy dieting. It doesn't have to be like that. I would rather encourage people to not think it is normal to be starving to lose weight but rather think about why they might be so hungry on their plan and consider that it is a sign that they might need to change their plan a bit rather than telling them to just suck it up and ignore it.
18 -
A calorie is a calorie (carbs, sugars, protein and fat are all processed the same and have the same effect on weight).24
-
Common advice- if you are hungry while dieting you should just get used to it, use willpower, drink gallons of water. It is normal to feel hungry all the time when losing weight.
I think this advice is what leads to people yo yo dieting or encourages unhealthy dieting. It doesn't have to be like that. I would rather encourage people to not think it is normal to be starving to lose weight but rather think about why they might be so hungry on their plan and consider that it is a sign that they might need to change their plan a bit rather than telling them to just suck it up and ignore it.
Hmm. I guess I buy into this.
There was a time when I thought that a diet meant 'continuously resist temptation for months until you reach your goal'. I've learned that if you're overwhelmed by temptation that means it's time to make a few adjustments.
I think dieting for weight loss is one of the most relatable applications of Haidt's elephant/rider analogy.
“The image that I came up with for myself, as I marveled at my weakness, was that I was a rider on the back of an elephant. I’m holding the reins in my hands, and by pulling one way or the other I can tell the elephant to turn, to stop, or to go. I can direct things, but only when the elephant doesn’t have desires of his own. When the elephant really wants to do something, I’m no match for him.”5 -
-
I think in general, body recomposition is pushed too often on the boards as kind of a one size fits all answer to "I want to lose weight and gain muscle" posts. It's not that I don't believe that body recomp exists, it's that I don't think it's the best solution for everyone, especially if they have significant amount of fat to lose first.
I think when most people post here that they are looking to "gain muscle", when you dig deeper, they are actually more focused on getting stronger/fitter and looking more muscular/in shape. To accomplish that, they don't necessarily need to add weight in muscle mass. Strength training will help make them stronger and maintain the muscle they currently have, and losing weight will reveal the muscle, making them look more muscular.
Most people with this goal would be better off focusing on weight loss at a reasonable deficit, rather than the slow and difficult process of body recomp. If they get closer to their goals, and find that they still aren't getting the desired results, then body recomp could be a solution, but it shouldn't be the first option for everyone.7 -
I have to admit first off that I have not read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up before. Chances are, since I am a bit of a contrarian on the subject to begin with, that it has not.
The advice that never makes sense to me is that "you should weigh yourself at the same time every day and under the same conditions".
I don't necessarily believe that's a bad thing - but I do disagree that it actually substantially matters in any way.
Throughout so many threads, the advice to people to settle down because fluctuations happen and that time lines matter to be able to see trends that overcome those fluctuations is spot on. The explanations about fluctuations help to show the complexity of the issue. Your fat loss over time has to be 6-8 weeks or more, even with an aggressive weight loss goal of 2 pounds per week - even longer with a more modest goal. Since fluctuations can be double that 2 pounds or more every day - and depend on many factors - what difference does it make when during a given fluctuation you weigh yourself? You may not even know which direction your fluctuation for that day is going.
It is virtually impossible to actually create the same conditions from one day to the next. Your weight is composed of several components that are all changing at different rates and in different directions. The only component that is even close to changing in the same direction at the same rate is fat - which even then is going to be influenced by several factors. Your metabolism is different day to day, your food intake and energy burning changes day to day and so does your stress and hormone levels. Your digestion rate, if not constant also affects things. We use long-term data to make the calculus of many variables look like algebra or arithmetic. That long time frame (the longer the better) isolates all that noise, making the trend line appear linear.
Since your goal is fat loss over time, the variation between weight in a given day is meaningless when compared with the trend.
tl/dr: I disagree that a consistent weigh-in time every day means anything.
....Putting on my shield now.
6 -
Silentpadna wrote: »I have to admit first off that I have not read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up before. Chances are, since I am a bit of a contrarian on the subject to begin with, that it has not.
The advice that never makes sense to me is that "you should weigh yourself at the same time every day and under the same conditions".
I don't necessarily believe that's a bad thing - but I do disagree that it actually substantially matters in any way.
Throughout so many threads, the advice to people to settle down because fluctuations happen and that time lines matter to be able to see trends that overcome those fluctuations is spot on. The explanations about fluctuations help to show the complexity of the issue. Your fat loss over time has to be 6-8 weeks or more, even with an aggressive weight loss goal of 2 pounds per week - even longer with a more modest goal. Since fluctuations can be double that 2 pounds or more every day - and depend on many factors - what difference does it make when during a given fluctuation you weigh yourself? You may not even know which direction your fluctuation for that day is going.
It is virtually impossible to actually create the same conditions from one day to the next. Your weight is composed of several components that are all changing at different rates and in different directions. The only component that is even close to changing in the same direction at the same rate is fat - which even then is going to be influenced by several factors. Your metabolism is different day to day, your food intake and energy burning changes day to day and so does your stress and hormone levels. Your digestion rate, if not constant also affects things. We use long-term data to make the calculus of many variables look like algebra or arithmetic. That long time frame (the longer the better) isolates all that noise, making the trend line appear linear.
Since your goal is fat loss over time, the variation between weight in a given day is meaningless when compared with the trend.
tl/dr: I disagree that a consistent weigh-in time every day means anything.
....Putting on my shield now.
2 things, and really, neither of them are necessarily disagreements.
1. You SHOULD control significant factors that are within your power to control. Best example I can think of is the difference between weighing naked vs. weighing with two pounds of clothing on. Be consistent. (In terms of time of day, I'd suggest to not weigh in immediately after a meal--give it an hour or two.)
2. Have a plan for dealing with fluctuations. Most importantly, recognize that fluctuations will happen no matter what. If these fluctuations get you worked up emotionally, then you shouldn't weigh daily; try once a week or longer.0 -
I think in general, body recomposition is pushed too often on the boards as kind of a one size fits all answer to "I want to lose weight and gain muscle" posts. It's not that I don't believe that body recomp exists, it's that I don't think it's the best solution for everyone, especially if they have significant amount of fat to lose first.
I think when most people post here that they are looking to "gain muscle", when you dig deeper, they are actually more focused on getting stronger/fitter and looking more muscular/in shape. To accomplish that, they don't necessarily need to add weight in muscle mass. Strength training will help make them stronger and maintain the muscle they currently have, and losing weight will reveal the muscle, making them look more muscular.
Most people with this goal would be better off focusing on weight loss at a reasonable deficit, rather than the slow and difficult process of body recomp. If they get closer to their goals, and find that they still aren't getting the desired results, then body recomp could be a solution, but it shouldn't be the first option for everyone.
I agree. I also see it commonly pushed for even skinny dudes who want to gain significant mass. Sometimes I think people forget that not everybody who comes to MFP is on the heavy side of the spectrum and have a reason for being here other than losing weight or even maintaining.1 -
Silentpadna wrote: »I have to admit first off that I have not read the whole thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up before. Chances are, since I am a bit of a contrarian on the subject to begin with, that it has not.
The advice that never makes sense to me is that "you should weigh yourself at the same time every day and under the same conditions".
I don't necessarily believe that's a bad thing - but I do disagree that it actually substantially matters in any way.
Throughout so many threads, the advice to people to settle down because fluctuations happen and that time lines matter to be able to see trends that overcome those fluctuations is spot on. The explanations about fluctuations help to show the complexity of the issue. Your fat loss over time has to be 6-8 weeks or more, even with an aggressive weight loss goal of 2 pounds per week - even longer with a more modest goal. Since fluctuations can be double that 2 pounds or more every day - and depend on many factors - what difference does it make when during a given fluctuation you weigh yourself? You may not even know which direction your fluctuation for that day is going.
It is virtually impossible to actually create the same conditions from one day to the next. Your weight is composed of several components that are all changing at different rates and in different directions. The only component that is even close to changing in the same direction at the same rate is fat - which even then is going to be influenced by several factors. Your metabolism is different day to day, your food intake and energy burning changes day to day and so does your stress and hormone levels. Your digestion rate, if not constant also affects things. We use long-term data to make the calculus of many variables look like algebra or arithmetic. That long time frame (the longer the better) isolates all that noise, making the trend line appear linear.
Since your goal is fat loss over time, the variation between weight in a given day is meaningless when compared with the trend.
tl/dr: I disagree that a consistent weigh-in time every day means anything.
....Putting on my shield now.
Agree that overall trend over time is the only thing that ultimately matters, but if a person is interested in tracking their data, why wouldn't they minimize the variables? Our weight loss graphs can be crazy enough as it is without the added "noise" of weighing at different times, in different types of circumstances.7 -
Everyone has the ultimate choice to do what they believe, but unless there is a medical reason, I disagree with any diet that cuts out food groups. I also personally think that Keto-type diets (while they may show some results) are ultimately bad for your health. I believe in good quality food in reasonable quantities, exercise, and taking care of mental health. I'm not looking to get into a debate with anyone, it's just my opinion.11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions