How and why carbs and a high carb intake will keep you fat!!
Replies
-
Mind you, I'm not terribly old, but I never heard anything bad about carbs until Atkins came around. And then all of the sudden, every joe on the street talks about how carbs are the devil, after they eat a LARGE extremely calorie dense meal and follow it with a mountain of chocolate and wash it down it can after can of diet coke.
Chocolate sadly has lots of carbs or I would've eaten nothing but chocolate when I tried Atkins :P
Try Dark Chocolate, the carbs in milk chocolate comes from the milk and added sugar.0 -
Mind you, I'm not terribly old, but I never heard anything bad about carbs until Atkins came around. And then all of the sudden, every joe on the street talks about how carbs are the devil, after they eat a LARGE extremely calorie dense meal and follow it with a mountain of chocolate and wash it down it can after can of diet coke.
Chocolate sadly has lots of carbs or I would've eaten nothing but chocolate when I tried Atkins :P
Try Dark Chocolate, the carbs in milk chocolate comes from the milk and added sugar.
Never quite developed a liking for dark chocolate...maybe it's because I unfortunately love milk and added sugar.
Which is why my try at Atkins was about three weeks long! 0 -
Furthermore I never said a calorie is a calorie. A calorie is a calorie in the same way a car is a car. Obviously there are vast differences between a Ferrari and a Honda, but at the end of the day they both have an engine, 4 wheels, and get you from point A to point B. In that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But obviously there are subgroups of calories that will have different metabolic effects.Actually, you're wrong. The glucose from veggies vs the glucose from pasta are the same once they are broken down and metabolized.
Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Food source is irrelevant.0 -
I have read plenty of evidence that low carbing helps you lose weight fast because you just eat a lot less in general. That has definitely been true looking at the diaries of low carbers on here.
+1
And there have been studies which show that people on low fat diets (ie., eat plenty of carbs) substantially underreport the amount of calories they consume... Something that Gary Taubes conveniently ignores in his selective research for his book.
However, I do semi-agree with the title of this thread.... A HIGH CARB intake does make it more difficult to lose fat for SOME people...0 -
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
Furthermore I never said a calorie is a calorie. A calorie is a calorie in the same way a car is a car. Obviously there are vast differences between a Ferrari and a Honda, but at the end of the day they both have an engine, 4 wheels, and get you from point A to point B. In that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But obviously there are subgroups of calories that will have different metabolic effects.Actually, you're wrong. The glucose from veggies vs the glucose from pasta are the same once they are broken down and metabolized.
Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Food source is irrelevant.
Glucose IS glucose. It is defined by its molecular structure - and THAT is what the body sees. Every glucose on this planet has the same molecular structure. Period. Thus the glucose from broccoli is interpreted exactly the same as the glucose from pasta.
The difference between pasta and broccoli lies in its micronutrients and the respect amounts of glucose (once metabolized and absorbed). There is no "type" of glucose, where the "type" of glucose in broccoli would be different than the "type" of glucose in pasta. Glucose is glucose.
In regards to the molecular structure of glucose, fructose, leucine, polyunsaturated fat, etc. the food source is irrelevant; our bodies ONLY see the molecular structure. The difference between food sources, for the most part, is the micronutrient content. Hence why broccoli is typically better than ice cream even if calories/macronutrients are the same: broccoli has micronutrients whereas ice cream is largely void of micronutrients.0 -
Here is one, for you. The statement was made;
notice the word diet on the end thereLean Meat, Veggies, Berries, Nuts, Seeds, Fruit,,,,,,, yeah that there is an extreme diet.
Then you posted this in response;People are denying that paleo is extreme? The main proponents of paleo declare things like dairy, whole grains, and legumes as being a major source, if not THE major source/sole source, of cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and terrorism.
Are you really going to put up the argument that this kind of thought is NOT extreme?
...really though?
See the change? Here let me help, “People are denying that paleo (notice the word diet is left out) is extreme” See class he can’t argue that a diet rich in lean meats, veggies, nuts, seeds, fruits and berries, is extreme, but he can argue that some of the philosophy behind it can be seen as extreme. And if truth be known it is extreme, which is different than saying it’s wrong.
I could post more, but this is enough.0 -
Taubes loves to cherry-pick data. It's just disgusting, quite frankly. Like I said: I can go find a study that attains the results of, "weight training increases muscle mass while at a caloric surplus" and cherry-pick a few lines from it or a few results from it to convince you that weight training creates muscle atrophy. Whenever someone says, "research-backed," ALWAYS find that research and read it for yourself. People who write books based on research far more often than not will cite the research in a way that supports their view even if the research study in question does no such thing.+1
And there have been studies which show that people on low fat diets (ie., eat plenty of carbs) substantially underreport the amount of calories they consume... Something that Gary Taubes conveniently ignores in his selective research for his book.
However, I do semi-agree with the title of this thread.... A HIGH CARB intake does make it more difficult to lose fat for SOME people...
Also this thread has conveniently left out the definition of "high carb," "low carb," and everything in between.0 -
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
munameisuntz,
That is the type of voo-doo science you have to deal with when dealing with dogmatic hard-liners who refuse to believe anything outside of what they know to be the truth. Eat a half cup of brown rice after a workout? Might as well be eating twinkies!!! (This is the mindset of the person you are debating right now)0 -
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
Furthermore I never said a calorie is a calorie. A calorie is a calorie in the same way a car is a car. Obviously there are vast differences between a Ferrari and a Honda, but at the end of the day they both have an engine, 4 wheels, and get you from point A to point B. In that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But obviously there are subgroups of calories that will have different metabolic effects.Actually, you're wrong. The glucose from veggies vs the glucose from pasta are the same once they are broken down and metabolized.
Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Food source is irrelevant.
Glucose IS glucose. It is defined by its molecular structure - and THAT is what the body sees. Every glucose on this planet has the same molecular structure. Period. Thus the glucose from broccoli is interpreted exactly the same as the glucose from pasta.
The difference between pasta and broccoli lies in its micronutrients and the respect amounts of glucose (once metabolized and absorbed). There is no "type" of glucose, where the "type" of glucose in broccoli would be different than the "type" of glucose in pasta. Glucose is glucose.
In regards to the molecular structure of glucose, fructose, leucine, polyunsaturated fat, etc. the food source is irrelevant; our bodies ONLY see the molecular structure. The difference between food sources, for the most part, is the micronutrient content. Hence why broccoli is typically better than ice cream even if calories/macronutrients are the same: broccoli has micronutrients whereas ice cream is largely void of micronutrients.
And this part is true. There are 3 simple sugars, glucose, fructose and galactose, I believe. Those are the sugar(carb) monomers. All complex carbs(polymers) are made of the same 3 monomers.0 -
[Also this thread has conveniently left out the definition of "high carb," "low carb," and everything in between.
That's another characteristic of some low carb talibans. There is no inbetween. You either believe that Starchy Carbs are Evil or you're an infidel. :laugh:0 -
You're grasping for straws here.Here is one, for you. The statement was made;
notice the word diet on the end thereLean Meat, Veggies, Berries, Nuts, Seeds, Fruit,,,,,,, yeah that there is an extreme diet.
Then you posted this in response;People are denying that paleo is extreme? The main proponents of paleo declare things like dairy, whole grains, and legumes as being a major source, if not THE major source/sole source, of cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and terrorism.
Are you really going to put up the argument that this kind of thought is NOT extreme?
...really though?
See the change? Here let me help, “People are denying that paleo (notice the word diet is left out) is extreme” See class he can’t argue that a diet rich in lean meats, veggies, nuts, seeds, fruits and berries, is extreme, but he can argue that some of the philosophy behind it can be seen as extreme. And if truth be known it is extreme, which is different than saying it’s wrong.
I could post more, but this is enough.
Correct - a diet rich in lean meats, veggies, nuts, seeds, fruits, and berries is not extreme. Though, in the western world today, you could argue it is considering the average diet isn't too great. That's not what I'm arguing. And if someone ate that way because they preferred it, I would agree it's not extreme.
But that's not the foundation of paleo...so of COURSE I would bring up the foundation of their beliefs, which is whole grain/dairy/legumes are the main sources of all our health problems. THAT idea in a diet is extreme. The food choice is not extreme; the rationalization and the claims are.
Clear enough for you? I've never had to explain so much for someone who is apparently an adult. I feel like this should be easy to grasp. (Patronizing isn't fun when you're on the receiving end, is it?)0 -
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
Furthermore I never said a calorie is a calorie. A calorie is a calorie in the same way a car is a car. Obviously there are vast differences between a Ferrari and a Honda, but at the end of the day they both have an engine, 4 wheels, and get you from point A to point B. In that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But obviously there are subgroups of calories that will have different metabolic effects.Actually, you're wrong. The glucose from veggies vs the glucose from pasta are the same once they are broken down and metabolized.
Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Food source is irrelevant.
Glucose IS glucose. It is defined by its molecular structure - and THAT is what the body sees. Every glucose on this planet has the same molecular structure. Period. Thus the glucose from broccoli is interpreted exactly the same as the glucose from pasta.
The difference between pasta and broccoli lies in its micronutrients and the respect amounts of glucose (once metabolized and absorbed). There is no "type" of glucose, where the "type" of glucose in broccoli would be different than the "type" of glucose in pasta. Glucose is glucose.
In regards to the molecular structure of glucose, fructose, leucine, polyunsaturated fat, etc. the food source is irrelevant; our bodies ONLY see the molecular structure. The difference between food sources, for the most part, is the micronutrient content. Hence why broccoli is typically better than ice cream even if calories/macronutrients are the same: broccoli has micronutrients whereas ice cream is largely void of micronutrients.
So glucose is glucose, except it's better for you if it comes from broccoli instead of ice cream????? I see. LOL0 -
Instead of everyone treating all carbs as equals lets rephrase this debate to talk about a low starch and grain diet, instead of a low carb diet and all agree that refined carbs suck. Maybe this idea can bring some of us into agreement on the topic.
I am not sure whether the OP will agree with me here, but I am going to re-introduce and re-word his initial post. Here it goes:
Eat a lots of animals and animal products, eat as many fruits and vegetables as you like, limit your intake of starches and grains, and strength train. This will prevent any type of skinny-fat appearance.
Thank you… I’ll be here all week.0 -
Actually, you're wrong. The glucose from veggies vs the glucose from pasta are the same once they are broken down and metabolized.
Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Food source is irrelevant.
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
Glucose IS glucose. It is defined by its molecular structure - and THAT is what the body sees. Every glucose on this planet has the same molecular structure. Period. Thus the glucose from broccoli is interpreted exactly the same as the glucose from pasta.
The difference between pasta and broccoli lies in its micronutrients and the respect amounts of glucose (once metabolized and absorbed). There is no "type" of glucose, where the "type" of glucose in broccoli would be different than the "type" of glucose in pasta. Glucose is glucose.
In regards to the molecular structure of glucose, fructose, leucine, polyunsaturated fat, etc. the food source is irrelevant; our bodies ONLY see the molecular structure. The difference between food sources, for the most part, is the micronutrient content. Hence why broccoli is typically better than ice cream even if calories/macronutrients are the same: broccoli has micronutrients whereas ice cream is largely void of micronutrients.
And this part is true. There are 3 simple sugars, glucose, fructose and galactose, I believe. Those are the sugar(carb) monomers. All complex carbs(polymers) are made of the same 3 monomers in different ratios and what not.
What this summary completely bypasses is that sugar absorption is massively influenced by the amount of fibre in the food you are getting it from. Things like konjac and psyllium that are pretty much 100% fibre massively reduce your blood glucose, and high fructose fruit doesn't give you the spike that refined sugars do because of the high fibre content of the whole fruit.0 -
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
munameisuntz,
That is the type of voo-doo science you have to deal with when dealing with dogmatic hard-liners who refuse to believe anything outside of what they know to be the truth. Eat a half cup of brown rice after a workout? Might as well be eating twinkies!!! (This is the mindset of the person you are debating right now)
Now you're a mind reader, nice my friend. What am I thinking now?0 -
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
Furthermore I never said a calorie is a calorie. A calorie is a calorie in the same way a car is a car. Obviously there are vast differences between a Ferrari and a Honda, but at the end of the day they both have an engine, 4 wheels, and get you from point A to point B. In that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But obviously there are subgroups of calories that will have different metabolic effects.Actually, you're wrong. The glucose from veggies vs the glucose from pasta are the same once they are broken down and metabolized.
Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Food source is irrelevant.
Glucose IS glucose. It is defined by its molecular structure - and THAT is what the body sees. Every glucose on this planet has the same molecular structure. Period. Thus the glucose from broccoli is interpreted exactly the same as the glucose from pasta.
The difference between pasta and broccoli lies in its micronutrients and the respect amounts of glucose (once metabolized and absorbed). There is no "type" of glucose, where the "type" of glucose in broccoli would be different than the "type" of glucose in pasta. Glucose is glucose.
In regards to the molecular structure of glucose, fructose, leucine, polyunsaturated fat, etc. the food source is irrelevant; our bodies ONLY see the molecular structure. The difference between food sources, for the most part, is the micronutrient content. Hence why broccoli is typically better than ice cream even if calories/macronutrients are the same: broccoli has micronutrients whereas ice cream is largely void of micronutrients.
So glucose is glucose, except it's better for you if it comes from broccoli instead of ice cream????? I see. LOL
You completely mis-read his point. That's not what he was saying at all. The resulting glucose is the same... the accompanying micronutrients are what make the difference.0 -
I don't understand it. Do they think our body sees food sources or something? Like the body knows broccoli was just eaten? No. It sees molecules. It sees metabolized molecules. That's what it sees.munameisuntz,
That is the type of voo-doo science you have to deal with when dealing with dogmatic hard-liners who refuse to believe anything outside of what they know to be the truth. Eat a half cup of brown rice after a workout? Might as well be eating twinkies!!! (This is the mindset of the person you are debating right now)
From a molecular classification standpoint, glucose IS glucose. Regardless of the food source. And guess what? Your body sees NO DIFFERENCE between the glucose from broccoli and the glucose from a twinkie. Hate to break it to some people, but in terms of body composition, this is EXACTLY why food source is irrelevant, and all that matters is calories/macronutrients.
Precisely. The differences between simple carbs and complex carbs in the most general sense is the time in which the carbs are broken down, metabolized, and absorbed (or burned off - depending on the body's current state). The ultimate fate of simple carbs and complex carbs is EXACTLY THE SAME. The only difference is the time in which it reaches that fate.And this part is true. There are 3 simple sugars, glucose, fructose and galactose, I believe. Those are the sugar(carb) monomers. All complex carbs(polymers) are made of the same 3 monomers in different ratios and what not.
For this reason, simple vs. complex carbs has no bearing on body composition. Again, calories/macronutrients is all that matters.
To me, low carb is essentially a ketogenic diet. Anything where you aren't in ketosis would be moderate - high carb intake, depending on the individual. For me, at 185 pounds with a caloric deficit of ~2,000 calories, I eat 200g carbs on average. I would consider this moderate-high, personally.That's another characteristic of some low carb talibans. There is no inbetween. You either believe that Starchy Carbs are Evil or your an infidel. :laugh:
Yet I know competitive, amateur, [natural] bodybuilders who eat 400g carbs per day while CUTTING. That, to me, is high carb. To say you can't eat high carbs while cutting is a joke. And this bodybuilder, mind you, eats peanut butter, Pop-Tarts, Ego Waffles, etc. Just makes me laugh at this thread.0 -
You're grasping for straws here.Here is one, for you. The statement was made;
notice the word diet on the end thereLean Meat, Veggies, Berries, Nuts, Seeds, Fruit,,,,,,, yeah that there is an extreme diet.
Then you posted this in response;People are denying that paleo is extreme? The main proponents of paleo declare things like dairy, whole grains, and legumes as being a major source, if not THE major source/sole source, of cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and terrorism.
Are you really going to put up the argument that this kind of thought is NOT extreme?
...really though?
See the change? Here let me help, “People are denying that paleo (notice the word diet is left out) is extreme” See class he can’t argue that a diet rich in lean meats, veggies, nuts, seeds, fruits and berries, is extreme, but he can argue that some of the philosophy behind it can be seen as extreme. And if truth be known it is extreme, which is different than saying it’s wrong.
I could post more, but this is enough.
Correct - a diet rich in lean meats, veggies, nuts, seeds, fruits, and berries is not extreme. Though, in the western world today, you could argue it is considering the average diet isn't too great. That's not what I'm arguing. And if someone ate that way because they preferred it, I would agree it's not extreme.
But that's not the foundation of paleo...so of COURSE I would bring up the foundation of their beliefs, which is whole grain/dairy/legumes are the main sources of all our health problems. THAT idea in a diet is extreme. The food choice is not extreme; the rationalization and the claims are.
Clear enough for you? I've never had to explain so much for someone who is apparently an adult. I feel like this should be easy to grasp. (Patronizing isn't fun when you're on the receiving end, is it?)
It's all fun, it only hurts if it's the truth.
You can spin this anyway you want the fact is you changed the argument just enough to fit your ideal. And that was the point, not if you think Paleo is extreme, or not. You could have posted, something along the lines of; you're right the diet is not extreme, but some of the people behind the movement take things to the extreme. That would have been on subject, and expanded to your thoughts over all on Paleo.0 -
I'm curious what your definition of a (ratio or whatever other form you prefer) of a high carb, low protein diet is.
I find these generalities without context confusing.
40/40/20 protein.carb/fat is what most recommend
WHO recommends that? No nationally accredited health organization I know recommends 40% protein.0 -
The GLUCOSE is not better because it comes from broccoli; the broccoli is simply better because of the MICRONUTRIENTS.So glucose is glucose, except it's better for you if it comes from broccoli instead of ice cream????? I see. LOL
Goodness, man, it's clear you lack even the most basic understanding of nutrition. I'm trying hard to break it down for you but you simply aren't getting it.
Here's glucose:
Whether it comes from broccoli or ice cream: it will be the same structure.
No one is treating all carbs as the same; I am saying all glucose is the same, all fructose is the same, and all galactose is the same REGARDLESS of food source. The molecular structures are the same by the very definition of the word with which it is classified.Instead of everyone treating all carbs as equals lets rephrase this debate to talk about a low starch and grain diet, instead of a low carb diet and all agree that refined carbs suck. Maybe this idea can bring some of us into agreement on the topic.
I am not sure whether the OP will agree with me here, but I am going to re-introduce and re-word his initial post. Here it goes:
Eat a lots of animals and animal products, eat as many fruits and vegetables as you like, limit your intake of starches and grains, and strength train. This will prevent any type of skinny-fat appearance.
Thank you… I’ll be here all week.
And I disagree with eating as many fruits/veggies as you like.0 -
How is me saying "glucose is glucose" equate to me saying "a calorie is a calorie"? What?
Furthermore I never said a calorie is a calorie. A calorie is a calorie in the same way a car is a car. Obviously there are vast differences between a Ferrari and a Honda, but at the end of the day they both have an engine, 4 wheels, and get you from point A to point B. In that sense, a calorie is a calorie. But obviously there are subgroups of calories that will have different metabolic effects.Actually, you're wrong. The glucose from veggies vs the glucose from pasta are the same once they are broken down and metabolized.
Glucose is glucose. Fructose is fructose. Food source is irrelevant.
Glucose IS glucose. It is defined by its molecular structure - and THAT is what the body sees. Every glucose on this planet has the same molecular structure. Period. Thus the glucose from broccoli is interpreted exactly the same as the glucose from pasta.
The difference between pasta and broccoli lies in its micronutrients and the respect amounts of glucose (once metabolized and absorbed). There is no "type" of glucose, where the "type" of glucose in broccoli would be different than the "type" of glucose in pasta. Glucose is glucose.
In regards to the molecular structure of glucose, fructose, leucine, polyunsaturated fat, etc. the food source is irrelevant; our bodies ONLY see the molecular structure. The difference between food sources, for the most part, is the micronutrient content. Hence why broccoli is typically better than ice cream even if calories/macronutrients are the same: broccoli has micronutrients whereas ice cream is largely void of micronutrients.
So glucose is glucose, except it's better for you if it comes from broccoli instead of ice cream????? I see. LOL
You completely mis-read his point. That's not what he was saying at all. The resulting glucose is the same... the accompanying micronutrients are what make the difference.
Not misreading it at all, the thing is you can't seperate the two. Glucose acts different from Broccoli, because of the accompanying micronutrients. I agree if you squeeze the glucose out of broccoli and ice cream and only eat the glucose they will act the same.0 -
I thought it was implied, but apparently not. Why do you think I just elaborated more on it? Because you weren't understanding. And that's fine, but you're drawing me out to be someone who is purposely misconstruing or purposely changing the topic to avoid admitting being wrong or something? The fact is I just talk a certain way, and clearly there is a misunderstanding between us, but the very fact that I'm correcting those misunderstandings should tell you I'm not trying to run away from anything.It's all fun, it only hurts if it's the truth.
You can spin this anyway you want the fact is you changed the argument just enough to fit your ideal. And that was the point, not if you think Paleo is extreme, or not. You could have posted, something along the lines of; you're right the diet is not extreme, but some of the people behind the movement take things to the extreme. That would have been on subject, and expanded to your thoughts over all on Paleo.0 -
SOME of the glucose may act differently due to the fiber content, but not all. SOME of the glucose from broccoli will act exactly the same as that from ice cream. They will be released in the blood stream as free glucose and eventually be converted to ATP for cell fuel, or stored as glycogen. This is the fate of free glucose which WILL occur with much of the glucose from broccoli upon being metabolized.Not misreading it at all, the thing is you can't seperate the two. Glucose acts different from Broccoli, because of the accompanying micronutrients. I agree if you squeeze the glucose out of broccoli and ice cream and only eat the glucose they will act the same.
Exactly the same as ice cream.0 -
From a molecular classification standpoint, glucose IS glucose. Regardless of the food source. And guess what? Your body sees NO DIFFERENCE between the glucose from broccoli and the glucose from a twinkie. Hate to break it to some people, but in terms of body composition, this is EXACTLY why food source is irrelevant, and all that matters is calories/macronutrients.
Now I'm really confused, food source is irrelevant? Didn't you just say, you didn't say a calorie is a calorie? Now it sounds like you ARE saying a calorie is a calorie.0 -
I thought it was implied, but apparently not. Why do you think I just elaborated more on it? Because you weren't understanding. And that's fine, but you're drawing me out to be someone who is purposely misconstruing or purposely changing the topic to avoid admitting being wrong or something? The fact is I just talk a certain way, and clearly there is a misunderstanding between us, but the very fact that I'm correcting those misunderstandings should tell you I'm not trying to run away from anything.It's all fun, it only hurts if it's the truth.
You can spin this anyway you want the fact is you changed the argument just enough to fit your ideal. And that was the point, not if you think Paleo is extreme, or not. You could have posted, something along the lines of; you're right the diet is not extreme, but some of the people behind the movement take things to the extreme. That would have been on subject, and expanded to your thoughts over all on Paleo.
It tells me, you were caught and are now trying to run from previous statements.0 -
Great post!! I agree Im on a low carb and I try to up the protein and less sugar Its set way to high on this site.0
-
Oh my gosh, man. SERIOUSLY.Now I'm really confused, food source is irrelevant? Didn't you just say, you didn't say a calorie is a calorie? Now it sounds like you ARE saying a calorie is a calorie.
The food source regarding GLUCOSE is irrelevant. The food source regarding POLYUNSATURATED FAT is irrelevant. The food source regarding ISOLEUCINE is irrelevant. The food source regarding CALORIES is NOT irrelevant.
*When regarding body composition - which is what this thread is about.*
The fact is eating 400 calories of ice cream is NO DIFFERENT than 400 calories of broccoli with the same macronutrients in regards to body composition. The reason why we suggest the latter is for general health purposes given the micronutrient content. HOWEVER - in regards to weight loss, they will be the same.0 -
Um, no. Who the heck would say that a diet in those foods is radical? The paleo diet, for the reasons which it chooses those foods, is radical and irrational. That's what I was highlighting.It tells me, you were caught and are now trying to run from previous statements.
But I guess me clearing that up for people who couldn't understand that (you) is me running from previous statements. Laugh.0 -
Oy I can't read this anymore...a certain someone makes me want to punch a puppy...
Carry on.0 -
BUMP...thanks for the information! I get so confused with all this.0
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