Carbs & Sugars :(
Kaelinnn_102
Posts: 50 Member
I have about 400 calories left in my day BEFORE my workout tonight, and I am already over my Carbs by 59 and my Sugars by 111. The sugars are seriously almost all from my grapes, so they're natural. BUT, I'm worried this will affect my goal of dropping my last few pounds, and toning up. Anyone know anything about this? Feel free to add me! (: Thanks in advance for the help!
0
Replies
-
you should open your diary so people can make suggestions.0
-
i'm always over on carbs and sugars, always from fruit.
0 -
You can't gain weight when you're at a caloric deficit REGARDLESS of carb/sugar intake. Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss. So long as you are at a deficit and get ample protein, then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant.0
-
You can't gain weight when you're at a caloric deficit REGARDLESS of carb/sugar intake. Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss. So long as you are at a deficit and get ample protein, then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant.
I have to disagree. If most of the carbs are simple carbs, it's important to exclude that from our daily diet. I also find it hard to believe that she is getting enough protein if she's this far over on carbs, because it's quite apparent the majority of her calories are coming from carbs.
To original poster: Eat more protein! Eat nuts for snacks, or boiled egg whites, or even switch some of the fruit to veggies, and eat lots of lean meats. Make a tuna salad. Those are some ideas to get you more protein and less carbs.0 -
You can't gain weight when you're at a caloric deficit REGARDLESS of carb/sugar intake. Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss. So long as you are at a deficit and get ample protein, then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant.
I like this... and agree with it.. I would however say, that if you are trying to lose those last few pounds, upping your protein can only help... I have increased my protein quite a bit and it has helped me stay on track with my weight loss..0 -
Thank you! That honestly helps a lot!0
-
You can't gain weight when you're at a caloric deficit REGARDLESS of carb/sugar intake. Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss. So long as you are at a deficit and get ample protein, then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant.
I have to disagree. If most of the carbs are simple carbs, it's important to exclude that from our daily diet. I also find it hard to believe that she is getting enough protein if she's this far over on carbs, because it's quite apparent the majority of her calories are coming from carbs.
To original poster: Eat more protein! Eat nuts for snacks, or boiled egg whites, or even switch some of the fruit to veggies, and eat lots of lean meats. Make a tuna salad. Those are some ideas to get you more protein and less carbs.
I have done my research and agree 100% with this post. I'm just too busy today to go into detail. Invest in the books Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. You will be shocked and fascinated and enlightened.0 -
You can't gain weight when you're at a caloric deficit REGARDLESS of carb/sugar intake. Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss. So long as you are at a deficit and get ample protein, then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant.
This.
Energy balance (calories in vs. calories out) determines body weight. Macronutrient (carbs/fat/protein) consumption determines body composition.0 -
You can't gain weight when you're at a caloric deficit REGARDLESS of carb/sugar intake. Stop fearing carbs and start fearing a caloric surplus as that is what matters in terms of weight loss. So long as you are at a deficit and get ample protein, then you have no reason to worry about carb consumption unless you are diabetic or insulin resistant.
I have to disagree. If most of the carbs are simple carbs, it's important to exclude that from our daily diet. I also find it hard to believe that she is getting enough protein if she's this far over on carbs, because it's quite apparent the majority of her calories are coming from carbs.
To original poster: Eat more protein! Eat nuts for snacks, or boiled egg whites, or even switch some of the fruit to veggies, and eat lots of lean meats. Make a tuna salad. Those are some ideas to get you more protein and less carbs.
I have done my research and agree 100% with this post. I'm just too busy today to go into detail. Invest in the books Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. You will be shocked and fascinated and enlightened.
THANK YOU! I usually go over in protein every day, but I have about 15g left in the day. Thank you for the tips, and I will definitely be taking a look at those books! THANKS SO MUCH!
Also, I am too terrified of being judged for my diary, so it will probably stay closed! Hahaha.0 -
Protein is key. Good fats, too. The percentage of carbohydrates and fats in the diet generally leads to one big hot debate, though.0
-
Simple carbs don't defy the law of thermodynamics, sorry. If you are at a caloric deficit, it is impossible to gain weight. Period. If you are at a caloric deficit, it is impossible to not LOSE weight. Law of thermodynamics applied to weight loss is relevant. Sugar does not change that physical law of nature.I have to disagree. If most of the carbs are simple carbs, it's important to exclude that from our daily diet. I also find it hard to believe that she is getting enough protein if she's this far over on carbs, because it's quite apparent the majority of her calories are coming from carbs.
To original poster: Eat more protein! Eat nuts for snacks, or boiled egg whites, or even switch some of the fruit to veggies, and eat lots of lean meats. Make a tuna salad. Those are some ideas to get you more protein and less carbs.
I have done my research and agree 100% with this post. I'm just too busy today to go into detail. Invest in the books Why We Get Fat and Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. You will be shocked and fascinated and enlightened.
If she's eating 1,600 calories and 100g protein, then that leaves 1,200 calories for fat/carbs, meaning she could eat 300g carbs per day. Just to illustrate that you have no idea if she's THAT far over her carbs for the day.
Reading a data cherry-picker like Taubes is not doing research. He bases pretty much all of his claims off correlations and biochemical studies; neither of which look at the practicality of nutrition. Making decisions on what is permitted in a diet or how our bodies function when eating "X" or "Y" is best done by looking at clinical trials - comparing one group to another - controlling all variables except for that which is in question (in this case, sugar consumption), and measuring differences.
Zero clinical trials exist that show hindered weight loss by eating sugar so long as macronutrients are maintained AND the people in question are not insulin resistant/diabetic.0 -
"Assuming no change from baseline for participants who discontinued the study, mean (SD) weight loss at 1 year was 2.1 (4.8) kg for Atkins (21 [53%] of 40 participants completed, P = .009), 3.2 (6.0) kg for Zone (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P = .002), 3.0 (4.9) kg for Weight Watchers (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P < .001), and 3.3 (7.3) kg for Ornish (20 [50%] of 40 completed, P = .007). Greater effects were observed in study completers. Each diet significantly reduced the low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio by approximately 10% (all P<.05), with no significant effects on blood pressure or glucose at 1 year. Amount of weight loss was associated with self-reported dietary adherence level (r = 0.60; P<.001) but not with diet type (r = 0.07; P = .40). For each diet, decreasing levels of total/HDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and insulin were significantly associated with weight loss (mean r = 0.36, 0.37, and 0.39, respectively) with no significant difference between diets (P = .48, P = .57, P = .31, respectively)."
-Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of
the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart
disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43-53.
Of note:
-Zone diet resulted in greater weight loss than Atkins after 1 year.
-The type of diet did not result in significant weight loss so much as diet adherence.
-No significant difference between diets high in carbs and diets extremely low in carbs.
Taubes can spout out anything he wants about the danger of carbs and insulin and all that other nonsense. But in PRACTICE, it clearly has no effect in terms of weight loss when high carb groups lose MORE weight than low carb groups. Explain?0 -
"Assuming no change from baseline for participants who discontinued the study, mean (SD) weight loss at 1 year was 2.1 (4.8) kg for Atkins (21 [53%] of 40 participants completed, P = .009), 3.2 (6.0) kg for Zone (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P = .002), 3.0 (4.9) kg for Weight Watchers (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P < .001), and 3.3 (7.3) kg for Ornish (20 [50%] of 40 completed, P = .007). Greater effects were observed in study completers. Each diet significantly reduced the low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio by approximately 10% (all P<.05), with no significant effects on blood pressure or glucose at 1 year. Amount of weight loss was associated with self-reported dietary adherence level (r = 0.60; P<.001) but not with diet type (r = 0.07; P = .40). For each diet, decreasing levels of total/HDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and insulin were significantly associated with weight loss (mean r = 0.36, 0.37, and 0.39, respectively) with no significant difference between diets (P = .48, P = .57, P = .31, respectively)."
-Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of
the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart
disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43-53.
Of note:
-Zone diet resulted in greater weight loss than Atkins after 1 year.
-The type of diet did not result in significant weight loss so much as diet adherence.
-No significant difference between diets high in carbs and diets extremely low in carbs.
Taubes can spout out anything he wants about the danger of carbs and insulin and all that other nonsense. But in PRACTICE, it clearly has no effect in terms of weight loss when high carb groups lose MORE weight than low carb groups. Explain?
I've done my research and not only through Taubes. I have been through all the clinical trials and studies and have seen the evidence. I'm washing my hands of this.0 -
Then it should be easy to post a shred of evidence that shows heightened fat loss through long-term low carb dieting."Assuming no change from baseline for participants who discontinued the study, mean (SD) weight loss at 1 year was 2.1 (4.8) kg for Atkins (21 [53%] of 40 participants completed, P = .009), 3.2 (6.0) kg for Zone (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P = .002), 3.0 (4.9) kg for Weight Watchers (26 [65%] of 40 completed, P < .001), and 3.3 (7.3) kg for Ornish (20 [50%] of 40 completed, P = .007). Greater effects were observed in study completers. Each diet significantly reduced the low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol ratio by approximately 10% (all P<.05), with no significant effects on blood pressure or glucose at 1 year. Amount of weight loss was associated with self-reported dietary adherence level (r = 0.60; P<.001) but not with diet type (r = 0.07; P = .40). For each diet, decreasing levels of total/HDL cholesterol, C-reactive protein, and insulin were significantly associated with weight loss (mean r = 0.36, 0.37, and 0.39, respectively) with no significant difference between diets (P = .48, P = .57, P = .31, respectively)."
-Dansinger ML, Gleason JA, Griffith JL, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. Comparison of
the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone diets for weight loss and heart
disease risk reduction: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2005 Jan 5;293(1):43-53.
Of note:
-Zone diet resulted in greater weight loss than Atkins after 1 year.
-The type of diet did not result in significant weight loss so much as diet adherence.
-No significant difference between diets high in carbs and diets extremely low in carbs.
Taubes can spout out anything he wants about the danger of carbs and insulin and all that other nonsense. But in PRACTICE, it clearly has no effect in terms of weight loss when high carb groups lose MORE weight than low carb groups. Explain?
I've done my research and not only through Taubes. I have been through all the clinical trials and studies and have seen the evidence. I'm washing my hands of this.
I see you have marksdailyapple in your sig. The same guy who said 150 - 300g carbs is "insidious, steady fat gain." Nevermind. Clearly we're on different wavelengths.0 -
I've done my research and not only through Taubes. I have been through all the clinical trials and studies and have seen the evidence. I'm washing my hands of this.
Clearly not the case, and an expected answer for not having any studies backing your claims.0 -
How about this study?
Ann Nutr Metab. 2007;51(5):428-32. Epub 2007 Nov 20.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to compare the effects of 2 different but isocaloric fat reduction programs with the same amount of energy deficit - diet alone or diet combined with aerobic training - on body composition, lipid profile and cardiorespiratory fitness in non- or moderately obese women.
METHODS: Twenty non- or moderately obese (BMI 24.32 +/- 3.11) females (27.3 +/- 6.6 years) were tested at the beginning and after an 8-week period of a mild hypocaloric diet for the following parameters: (1) body mass and body fat; (2) total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C and triglycerides; (3) lactate (millimol/liter) during submaximal exertion (100 W); (4) heart rate during submaximal exertion (100 W), and (5) maximum exercise performance (watt). Subjects were randomly divided into either a diet alone (D, -2,095 +/- 659 kJ/day) or a diet (-1,420 +/- 1,084 kJ/day) plus exercise (DE, three 60-min sessions per week at 60% of VO(2)max or -5,866 kJ/week) group.
RESULTS: Body mass and body fat decreased significantly in D (-1.95 +/- 1.13 kg or -1.47 +/- 0.87%; p < 0.05) and DE (-2.23 +/- 1.28 kg or -1.59 +/- 0.87%; p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference observed between the groups. Statistical analysis revealed no significant changes of total cholesterol, HDL-C, LDL-C, triglycerides and heart rate during submaximal exertion (100 W). Lactic acid accumulation during submaximal exertion (100 W) decreased significantly (-0.8 +/- 1.4 mmol/l, p < 0.05) in DE and increased significantly (+0.4 +/- 0.5 mmol/l, p < 0.05) in D. Maximum exercise performance improved significantly (+12.2 +/- 8.8 W, p < 0.05) in DE and did not change significantly in D.
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that independently of the method for weight loss, the negative energy balance alone is responsible for weight reduction.
(c) 2007 S. Karger AG, Basel.0 -
CLIFFS FROM ABOVE STUDY:
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that independently of the method for weight loss, the negative energy balance alone is responsible for weight reduction.0 -
BUT TEH INSULIN SPIKEZ FROM THE CRABZ.CLIFFS FROM ABOVE STUDY:
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that independently of the method for weight loss, the negative energy balance alone is responsible for weight reduction.0 -
BUT TEH INSULIN SPIKEZ FROM THE CRABZ.CLIFFS FROM ABOVE STUDY:
CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that independently of the method for weight loss, the negative energy balance alone is responsible for weight reduction.
Transient hormonal fluctuations are largely irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily nutrition. :-)0 -
I've done my research and not only through Taubes. I have been through all the clinical trials and studies and have seen the evidence. I'm washing my hands of this.
Clearly not the case, and an expected answer for not having any studies backing your claims.
Just gonna say this as I don't wanna get in knowledge battles with everyone... Hpsnickers knows her stuff... she her self is living proof that Low carb high protein or "primal" as she is doing currently works. It works well..
With that said, each body is different, some people don't handle protein as well as others there fore can survive on a higher carb diets. I, Myself, choose to stay higher in protein, but I still eat carbs too. My body prefers higher amounts of protein. It is also what I have needed to help shed my last few pounds of fat.
You gotta find what works for you. There is not "one size fits all" diet plan or percentage of carbs to protein to fat.
**edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...0 -
Preaching to the choir :PTransient hormonal fluctuations are largely irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily nutrition. :-)
No one said low carb doesn't work. She made the claim that sugar intake matters rather than overall caloric intake. That's false. You WILL lose weight regardless of sugar intake so long as you're in a caloric deficit, and she challenged that fact of nature (again, LAW of thermodynamics).Just gonna say this as I don't wanna get in knowledge battles with everyone... Hpsnickers knows her stuff... she her self is living proof that Low carb high protein or "primal" as she is doing currently works. It works well..
With that said, each body is different, some people don't handle protein as well as others there fore can survive on a higher carb diets. I, Myself, choose to stay higher in protein, but I still eat carbs too. My body prefers higher amounts of protein. It is also what I have needed to help shed my last few pounds of fat.
You gotta find what works for you. There is not "one size fits all" diet plan or percentage of carbs to protein to fat.
High protein does not imply low carb. You can be high protein and still be high carb.
The only people that need to watch carbs are those with some sort of insensitivity to it, which again, is a low portion of the general population.
"Primal" diet works because it puts you in a caloric deficit and has you balancing macronutrients. The idea that it's superior as so many believe is complete and utter nonsense. There's not a shred of proper support that validates that claim. But again, no one disputes that it works, and no one disputes that low carb work. HOWEVER, to imply that either primal eating or low carb is SUPERIOR would imply that she is NOT up to date on proper research.0 -
Instead of getting into a pis*ing match about the amount of carbohydrate in your diet, here's a really simple test:
What foods make you feel full and satisfied and stay within your suggested caloric intake for the day?
A food that provides volume, satiety, beneficial vitamins/minerals/nutrients and fits within your caloric goals can be part of your diet. Food is energy. Choose what works for you. Because one person is successful on 55%, 40%, or hell, 10% of their calories coming from carbohydrate is beside the point.0 -
Preaching to the choir :PTransient hormonal fluctuations are largely irrelevant to weight loss in the context of proper daily nutrition. :-)
No one said low carb doesn't work. She made the claim that sugar intake matters rather than overall caloric intake. That's false. You WILL lose weight regardless of sugar intake so long as you're in a caloric deficit, and she challenged that fact of nature (again, LAW of thermodynamics).Just gonna say this as I don't wanna get in knowledge battles with everyone... Hpsnickers knows her stuff... she her self is living proof that Low carb high protein or "primal" as she is doing currently works. It works well..
With that said, each body is different, some people don't handle protein as well as others there fore can survive on a higher carb diets. I, Myself, choose to stay higher in protein, but I still eat carbs too. My body prefers higher amounts of protein. It is also what I have needed to help shed my last few pounds of fat.
You gotta find what works for you. There is not "one size fits all" diet plan or percentage of carbs to protein to fat.
High protein does not imply low carb. You can be high protein and still be high carb.
The only people that need to watch carbs are those with some sort of insensitivity to it, which again, is a low portion of the general population.
"Primal" diet works because it puts you in a caloric deficit and has you balancing macronutrients. The idea that it's superior as so many believe is complete and utter nonsense. There's not a shred of proper support that validates that claim. But again, no one disputes that it works, and no one disputes that low carb work. HOWEVER, to imply that either primal eating or low carb is SUPERIOR would imply that she is NOT up to date on proper research.
I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...
edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...0 -
I've done my research and not only through Taubes. I have been through all the clinical trials and studies and have seen the evidence. I'm washing my hands of this.
Clearly not the case, and an expected answer for not having any studies backing your claims.
Just gonna say this as I don't wanna get in knowledge battles with everyone... Hpsnickers knows her stuff... she her self is living proof that Low carb high protein or "primal" as she is doing currently works. It works well..
With that said, each body is different, some people don't handle protein as well as others there fore can survive on a higher carb diets. I, Myself, choose to stay higher in protein, but I still eat carbs too. My body prefers higher amounts of protein. It is also what I have needed to help shed my last few pounds of fat.
You gotta find what works for you. There is not "one size fits all" diet plan or percentage of carbs to protein to fat.
**edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...
Thank you, kimmeroze. I know you do things differently and it has worked great for you and I appreciate your kind words. We are all different and our bodies all handle carbs differently. I know by my family history that carbs aren't for me. My father is on dialysis and has maybe 3 years left because his body is giving out on him. He's only 69 years old (his mother is 90 and his grandmother died at 92). And now off the the restroom to take care of my watery eyes. My co-workers don't need to see me like this.0 -
Yep. But really all that means is ~1g protein per pound lean body mass while maintaining a healthy caloric deficit. If the OP is eating 100g protein in a 1,600 calorie diet, then that leaves 1,200 calories for carbs/fat. For illustrative purposes, the OP could eat 100g protein and 400g of pure sugar and STILL see healthy body recomposition (assuming she weight trains for muscle maintenance, too).I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...
edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...0 -
Mathmatically that is correct... however I wouldn't recommend anyone eating 100grams of protein and then the rest in pure sugar.. considering there is not nutrient value in it. or very little atleast.
Yep. But really all that means is ~1g protein per pound lean body mass while maintaining a healthy caloric deficit. If the OP is eating 100g protein in a 1,600 calorie diet, then that leaves 1,200 calories for carbs/fat. For illustrative purposes, the OP could eat 100g protein and 400g of pure sugar and STILL see healthy body recomposition (assuming she weight trains for muscle maintenance, too).I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...
edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...0 -
EGGS. EAT THEM. DO IT. They make you full. I put salsa on them.
0 -
Yep. But really all that means is ~1g protein per pound lean body mass while maintaining a healthy caloric deficit. If the OP is eating 100g protein in a 1,600 calorie diet, then that leaves 1,200 calories for carbs/fat. For illustrative purposes, the OP could eat 100g protein and 400g of pure sugar and STILL see healthy body recomposition (assuming she weight trains for muscle maintenance, too).I did edit my original post to say this, which I think means that we are sort of agreeing? as well as HPsnickers...
edit... and I do think we are all talking about slightly different things, If the OP wants to simply LOSE WEIGHT as in shrink the number she sees on the scale, then yes by all means eat what ever you want as long as you keep a calorie deficit. BUT if you want to decrease the FAT percentage on your body (inevitably shrinking the number on the scale) then yes it does matter what you are putting in your body, and simply carbs full of sugary processed yuck, wont help you become a lean muscly body just a thinner body...
That would be an absolutely bizarre combination of food, but I see where you're going.0 -
That would be an absolutely bizarre combination of food, but I see where you're going.
Right, I'm not suggesting anyone do this. I'm merely illustrating a point.Mathmatically that is correct... however I wouldn't recommend anyone eating 100grams of protein and then the rest in pure sugar.. considering there is not nutrient value in it. or very little atleast.0 -
That would be an absolutely bizarre combination of food, but I see where you're going.
Right, I'm not suggesting anyone do this. I'm merely illustrating a point.Mathmatically that is correct... however I wouldn't recommend anyone eating 100grams of protein and then the rest in pure sugar.. considering there is not nutrient value in it. or very little atleast.
You make me laugh. How about this? Carbs are evil and if you eat them you're going to DIE!!!!!!! Hear that? DIEEEEEEEE~~~~~~~~~~~~ hahaha0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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