IIFYM Not a diet?
Replies
-
Interesting interview arguing that IIFYM was spun out of control and doesnt actually mean IIFYM eat whatever you want. Thoughts?
For sedentary folks, it pretty much is "eat anything that fits".
The more active you are, the more attention needs to be paid to the actual content of the food.
lolwut?
you have it exactly backwards. the more calories you can eat, the more flexibility you have in your dietary choices.0 -
IIFYM is "eat whatever you want..... as long as it fits your nutrient goals."
That's the point. It's not a diet. It's a nutrient partitioning strategy around which you create your own diet. The power of IIFYM is that it lets you hit those nutrient goals with any food you see fit. Almost any particular diet can be adapted to IIFYM or followed with IIFYM strategies.
You are restricting your calorie in-take therefore it's a diet.
A very good one that works for a lot of people - but don't delude yourself it's a diet.
I think marketing has changed the definition of the word but diet does not mean restricting calories: "In nutrition, diet is the sum of food consumed by a person or other organism."
Basically, diet is the way you eat. To one person that might mean calorie restriction. To another a surplus. To another only meat. To another only veggies. Etc. Etc.0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
I want chocolate everyday and add it to my diary when I prelog before I log my lunch and dinner....
I have yet to stall...ever...5lbs from maintenance...potentially 11lbs from BF% goals...
Not sure I follow your logic...
right. I'm talking about BEYOND those goals. are you an athlete? would you consider your athletic performance "elite"?
Sara's performance is absolutely elite.
I know a few elite athletes, and you would consider their diets extremely unclean. Fast food, cake and cookies, etc., pretty much every day.
I would assume that some NFL lineman and linebackers are not eating all too clean and I would qualify them as "elite" athletes....0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
I want chocolate everyday and add it to my diary when I prelog before I log my lunch and dinner....
I have yet to stall...ever...5lbs from maintenance...potentially 11lbs from BF% goals...
Not sure I follow your logic...
right. I'm talking about BEYOND those goals. are you an athlete? would you consider your athletic performance "elite"?
Sara's performance is absolutely elite.
I know a few elite athletes, and you would consider their diets extremely unclean. Fast food, cake and cookies, etc., pretty much every day.
I would assume that some NFL lineman and linebackers are not eating all too clean and I would qualify them as "elite" athletes....
fried chicken, burgers, and other fast foods have a lot of the protein and empty calories those guys actually need to stay large though.0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
I want chocolate everyday and add it to my diary when I prelog before I log my lunch and dinner....
I have yet to stall...ever...5lbs from maintenance...potentially 11lbs from BF% goals...
Not sure I follow your logic...
right. I'm talking about BEYOND those goals. are you an athlete? would you consider your athletic performance "elite"?
Sara's performance is absolutely elite.
I know a few elite athletes, and you would consider their diets extremely unclean. Fast food, cake and cookies, etc., pretty much every day.
I would assume that some NFL lineman and linebackers are not eating all too clean and I would qualify them as "elite" athletes....
fried chicken, burgers, and other fast foods have a lot of the protein and empty calories those guys actually need to stay large though.
empty calories????0 -
also don't look now, but Husky, Sara and Coach all just found common ground. :flowerforyou:
:laugh: :drinker:
0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
I want chocolate everyday and add it to my diary when I prelog before I log my lunch and dinner....
I have yet to stall...ever...5lbs from maintenance...potentially 11lbs from BF% goals...
Not sure I follow your logic...
right. I'm talking about BEYOND those goals. are you an athlete? would you consider your athletic performance "elite"?
Sara's performance is absolutely elite.
I know a few elite athletes, and you would consider their diets extremely unclean. Fast food, cake and cookies, etc., pretty much every day.
I would assume that some NFL lineman and linebackers are not eating all too clean and I would qualify them as "elite" athletes....
who die at 45. yeah... not a great argument.0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
I want chocolate everyday and add it to my diary when I prelog before I log my lunch and dinner....
I have yet to stall...ever...5lbs from maintenance...potentially 11lbs from BF% goals...
Not sure I follow your logic...
right. I'm talking about BEYOND those goals. are you an athlete? would you consider your athletic performance "elite"?
Sara's performance is absolutely elite.
I know a few elite athletes, and you would consider their diets extremely unclean. Fast food, cake and cookies, etc., pretty much every day.
I would assume that some NFL lineman and linebackers are not eating all too clean and I would qualify them as "elite" athletes....
fried chicken, burgers, and other fast foods have a lot of the protein and empty calories those guys actually need to stay large though.
empty calories????
you bet your *kitten*. Hard to get 4000+ calories a day needed by some of those guys to maintain on whole foods...0 -
who die at 45. yeah... not a great argument.
data?0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.
some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.
that may be true and i almost added a sentence about absorption of nutrients, but then realized it was implied by "so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met". there could be a semantic argument to be made that the logging of macros/micros =/= the actual amount of macros/micros that the body is able to use, but i think that generally all comes out in the wash because we tend to treat our macros/micros as MINIMUMS to be met on a daily basis. thus, less than 100% bioavailability does not imply that our needs aren't being met anyway.
Yep. Good stuff. And I think - to bring this back full circle - this is where my hang up comes in with IIFYM.
I don't actually have ANY problem with IIFYM as the gurus like McDonald and Norton lay it out. They're dead on. As are Sara and many others on this board.
I just wish that the EMPHASIS of IIFYM was more on the whole food, eat-your-veggies aspect of it than on the pop tarts, ice cream and chocolate cake part. I mean you get food porn threads here every day, and to the average lurker who doesn't follow links and doesn't read the nitty gritty laid out by Norton, they'll associate IIFYM with all the "junk" foods they so desperately love, and I think therein lies a problem.
But that's just me.
Don't feint, but I do agree that there is some merit to this concern. Which is probably the reason why people think that IIFYM'ers eat pop tarts all day. However, the reasoning that many do it is to try to show that you can have that kind of food and still be successful. Maybe that message goes too far, but things tend to go to the extremes...there are so many 'you have to eat clean to get abs' type posts, it is expected that you also have things on the other extreme to counter-act it. Context is also important and often gets missed. MacDonalds does not only serve burgers. Burgers have nutrients. A larger and/or more active person can eat more and therefore has more wiggle room, and so on.
It does not help that people assume processed = bad or has no nutritional benefit - as it does, just to varying degrees. Also, it does not help that people think clean = automatically getting your micros. You can miss them doing both.
At the end of the day, eat a wide variety of foods that comprise a good portion of nutrient dense foods, and you should be golden.
This.
People have a tendency to grasp on to the part of the concept that they love. The part that says its okay to eat the foods that they like. As a result, perhaps too much emphasis gets placed on that. But, hopefully, intelligent people will dig a little deeper, and not just take what they see at face value. Hopefully, they say "how exactly does this work" and not "YAY! I can eat whatever I want!"
On the flip side, clean eating is often misrepresented as being the key the weight loss, rather than a calorie deficit. Which is why we see so many posts about "can I eat _____ and still lose" and "help, I don't understand why I'm not losing, I eat clean." People want to cling to the part where the big, bad food is responsible for their weight gain rather than fact that they were double fisting food into their gaping maw.0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
I want chocolate everyday and add it to my diary when I prelog before I log my lunch and dinner....
I have yet to stall...ever...5lbs from maintenance...potentially 11lbs from BF% goals...
Not sure I follow your logic...
right. I'm talking about BEYOND those goals. are you an athlete? would you consider your athletic performance "elite"?
Sara's performance is absolutely elite.
I know a few elite athletes, and you would consider their diets extremely unclean. Fast food, cake and cookies, etc., pretty much every day.
I would assume that some NFL lineman and linebackers are not eating all too clean and I would qualify them as "elite" athletes....
who die at 45. yeah... not a great argument.
George Blanda, who played offensive linebacker for the Chicago Bears and the Oakland Raiders, lived to 83. :huh:
*yes, I wiki'd it.0 -
Usually something along the lines of poking them somewhere squishy...and saying when you start squatting your bodyweight and DL 40lbs over your BW come talk to me about what I can and cannot eat...
but yah most of the time I just smile and continue eating...agreed willful ignorance is hard to beat....
my go to has been to flex something and say- this says I can eat that.
"quadzilla says oreo's are okay- so oreos' they are okay"
back to IIFYM
[/quote]On the flip side, clean eating is often misrepresented as being the key the weight loss, rather than a calorie deficit. Which is why we see so many posts about "can I eat _____ and still lose" and "help, I don't understand why I'm not losing, I eat clean." People want to cling to the part where the big, bad food is responsible for their weight gain rather than fact that they were double fisting food into their gaping maw.[/quote]
same issue with IIFYM- it's the same coin- different sides.
ONE thing gets all the attention rather than the bigger picture.
If you look at top performers or competitors- and I am including stage- not just platform peeps- yes there is IIFYM- but the closer they get to their goals- the more tailored it gets and the less room for other stuff- every calorie counts- when you are cutting- hitting your macros is really important. bulking- if you get ball park it's fine- but cutting- EVERY calorie counts- so yes- if you are willing to get it in there and sacrifice something else- go for it- but you are going probably be hungry giving up your chicken and veggies for a brownie. Hungry but happy LMAO.0 -
who die at 45. yeah... not a great argument.
data?
Source?
His
0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
Yes, I do find that to be absolutely true. I'm not there yet myself either.
My point is that the two different approaches to nutrition and diet are exactly the same, but are called different things for different reasons.
What's your timeframe on becoming elite?0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
Yes, I do find that to be absolutely true. I'm not there yet myself either.
My point is that the two different approaches to nutrition and diet are exactly the same, but are called different things for different reasons.
What's your timeframe on becoming elite?
Yes, I am quite impatient. I am starting from morbidly obese, and I should point out that my goals aren't to be "elite" as that term has been used in this thread.
But I'm also having hormone issues that are outside the norm of the general public. So, obtaining my goals are going to require more rigidity on my part, a practice I'm not very good at.0 -
in to catch up on later.
also... tried to watch the video but the interviewer made it impossible.
Any interview that contains "YOLO" not just once but several times causes brain cell death.0 -
I may have missed it, but is IIFYM a diet?
Just kidding.0 -
I may have missed it, but is IIFYM a diet?
Just kidding.
It's not a diet. It's a lifestyle.............. focused solely on .... diet.0 -
As it was specified earlier, you can not make indulgent foods fit your macros if you do not eat at 80% of your diet in whole foods. That is going to be at least 4 servings a fruit and veggie a day.
Do you really need it all spelled out for you what you can and cannot eat? Can't you use your own best judgment about your own nutrition?
I certainly can. Most on this board CAN'T... which is why they're here.
But they learn to over time... and they don't learn that by being afraid of food. They learn how to use good judgment about their diet by educating themselves about nutrition, and practicing moderation.
Your "clean-eating" mantra generates fear and causes people to distance themselves from food rather than learning about it.
I think it has been established time and time again, on the forums, and particularly with you, that "clean-eaters" and IIFYM'ers are essentially eating by a similar method (80% whole foods/20% processed or "dirty"). IIFYM'ers just simply take a different approach with consideration to the psychological component, or the relationship with food.
We don't fear eating food... we just make certain it doesn't get out of line!
Time and time again you guys paint me with your own brush - not mine. I repeatedly state that you shouldn't cut out foods you enjoy. I don't advocate strict clean eating. You're manipulating just as much as you think I am.
no kidding.
You surely DO NOT eat clean, huh? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:0 -
Reddy. I have actually seen your comments on some people's walls and in some threads - it is generally good advice and encouraging people to do their best, focus on goals and not 'sweat the small stuff'.
Unfortunately, you tend yo get side-tracked in these threads by trying to make a point or another,
Making comments about vitamin deficiencies that are not relevant and you cannot point to sources, throwing out 'elite' comments etc...it's a shame as I generally agree with the comments I have seen you make in threads that do not relate to 'clean eating' and IIFYM arguments, which, at the end of the day, are pretty much the same thing when applied in practice by the majority of people.
Talking about people 'not looking to be elite' is condescending to be honest and part of the reason why you are given such a hard time on here.
OK...what was this thread about again?
what Reddy doesn't understand is that "clean eating" is a subset of IIFYM. to the extent that "clean eating" works, it's because under the hood, that person is really doing IIFYM without realizing it.
the problem is that "clean eating" is being given the credit for that success, and therefore Reddy assumes that it was the dietary restriction that was the important component.
IIFYM'ers see these assertions and try to correct them, not because they are anti-"clean eating" per se, but because "clean eating" can lead to all sorts of obsessive and destructive feelings about diet and food in some people, and also, that the same results can be achieved while ignoring "clean eating" altogether.
the human body truly does not care where it gets its nutrients. it's just a bunch of chemical processes involved in the digestion of food. so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met, our bodies don't care if we get our nutrients from a "clean" diet, a "dirty" diet, or some combination thereof.
some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.
that may be true and i almost added a sentence about absorption of nutrients, but then realized it was implied by "so long as all of the macro- and micro-nutrient needs are being met". there could be a semantic argument to be made that the logging of macros/micros =/= the actual amount of macros/micros that the body is able to use, but i think that generally all comes out in the wash because we tend to treat our macros/micros as MINIMUMS to be met on a daily basis. thus, less than 100% bioavailability does not imply that our needs aren't being met anyway.
Yep. Good stuff. And I think - to bring this back full circle - this is where my hang up comes in with IIFYM.
I don't actually have ANY problem with IIFYM as the gurus like McDonald and Norton lay it out. They're dead on. As are Sara and many others on this board.
I just wish that the EMPHASIS of IIFYM was more on the whole food, eat-your-veggies aspect of it than on the pop tarts, ice cream and chocolate cake part. I mean you get food porn threads here every day, and to the average lurker who doesn't follow links and doesn't read the nitty gritty laid out by Norton, they'll associate IIFYM with all the "junk" foods they so desperately love, and I think therein lies a problem.
But that's just me.
Reddy... you're kidding, right? I mean... seriously???!!!0 -
I may have missed it, but is IIFYM a diet?
Just kidding.
It's not a diet. It's a lifestyle.............. focused solely on .... diet.
No... if I understand this correctly, the focus is calculating how many macro-nutrients make up your diet you consume on a daily basis. It's focus is on the method one uses to choose the foods utilized for the habitual nourishment of his/her body.
It obviously has nothing to do with one's "diet" and I can't understand why everyone is so confused on this matter.
/sarcasm0 -
It's not a diet, it's a mnemonic that indicates a particular way to construct a diet. It's like saying "place the wheels in the corner and the engine somewhere between" is a type of car. No, a rear-engine RWD Ferrari is a type of car. An AWD Subaru Outback is a type of car.
"Wheels at the corners and engine somewhere in between them" is a general guideline for limitations on how to construct a car. Using that strategy you can construct an SUV or a McLaren F1.0 -
It's not a diet, it's a mnemonic that indicates a particular way to construct a diet. It's like saying "place the wheels in the corner and the engine somewhere between" is a type of car. No, a rear-engine RWD Ferrari is a type of car. An AWD Subaru Outback is a type of car.
"Wheels at the corners and engine somewhere in between them" is a general guideline for limitations on how to construct a car. Using that strategy you can construct an SUV or a McLaren F1.
So, it's not a diet, it's just general guidelines on how to eat? Makes perfect sense.0 -
IIFYM has nothing to do with the specific intake of nutrition, but rather, its focus is on dietary habits. And we all know that dietary habits have nothing to do with diet.
Edited for the it's its thing.0 -
IIFYM has nothing to do with the specific intake of nutrition, but rather, it's focus is on dietary habits. And we all know that dietary habits have nothing to do with diet.
Wait what? No, it's the exact opposite. IIFYM allows you to engage in any dietary habits you want.
Trolling?0 -
IIFYM has nothing to do with the specific intake of nutrition, but rather, it's focus is on dietary habits. And we all know that dietary habits have nothing to do with diet.
Wait what? No, it's the exact opposite. IIFYM allows you to engage in any dietary habits you want.
Trolling?
Maybe you want to read what I wrote again? How is what I wrote the opposite of your response?
Edit: I meant its (possessive) not it's.0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
Yes, I do find that to be absolutely true. I'm not there yet myself either.
My point is that the two different approaches to nutrition and diet are exactly the same, but are called different things for different reasons.
What's your timeframe on becoming elite?
Yes, I am quite impatient. I am starting from morbidly obese, and I should point out that my goals aren't to be "elite" as that term has been used in this thread.
But I'm also having hormone issues that are outside the norm of the general public. So, obtaining my goals are going to require more rigidity on my part, a practice I'm not very good at.
So you're not there, ever
You're making a point about something you're not actually aiming for using personal experience, which makes it invalid.
For an *IIFYM* or a *Clean Eating* style diet to be successful, certain basic criteria must be met in either case. That does not make them the same.0 -
I don't know anybody who actually maintains a healthy body by actually eating nothing but pop tarts, whether it's "theoretically" possible or not.
Some of y'all are tilting at windmills here...0 -
daaaamn you beat me to it. yes. if chocolate cake is your vice, and you desperately need to have it every day, and if having it every day will help you eat whole foods and stay on track, then by all means chow down.
for the average person looking to lose weight it's about sustainability to reach a healthier place than they're currently at.
my philosophy has always been that. I just ALSO feel that once you reach a certain point, your health/weight/body fat % will stall unless you get more meticulous. Most people aren't interested in moving beyond that plateau, and they don't need to be. I'm talking about athletic, extremely active people looking to perform at an (dare I say it) elite level.
I'm not there yet, and I want to be.
Yes, I do find that to be absolutely true. I'm not there yet myself either.
My point is that the two different approaches to nutrition and diet are exactly the same, but are called different things for different reasons.
What's your timeframe on becoming elite?
Yes, I am quite impatient. I am starting from morbidly obese, and I should point out that my goals aren't to be "elite" as that term has been used in this thread.
But I'm also having hormone issues that are outside the norm of the general public. So, obtaining my goals are going to require more rigidity on my part, a practice I'm not very good at.
So you're not there, ever
You're making a point about something you're not actually aiming for using personal experience, which makes it invalid.
For an *IIFYM* or a *Clean Eating* style diet to be successful, certain basic criteria must be met in either case. That does not make them the same.
No I misunderstood "elite" as it was initially described.
And no, I never said the two were the same. I said that they were similar, but the approach to it was different. And Coach agreed with me.
I'm not sure why you chose to jump in this conversation... but I agreed with Reddy and completely misinterpretted what I was agreeing with (which happens often with him).
So, since you needed to call out my particular post. Please allow me to retract the previous statement in this quote.0 -
I don't know anybody who actually maintains a healthy body by actually eating nothing but pop tarts, whether it's "theoretically" possible or not.
Some of y'all are tilting at windmills here...
Reading Comprehension
It's an acquired trait.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions