MFP warning about eating under BMR

AbbsyBabbsy

I feel like there's heavy pressure on this site to increase calories. I was losing 2lbs a week on 1200 calories, doing walking every day. Then I got nervous about wrecking my metabolism and upped what I was eating and have stopped losing. For the past couple of weeks I've lost and regained the same couple of pounds and it's driving me crazy. I've also realized low-carb makes my loss stall. So I'm going back to my 40/30/30 split, eating 1200-1300 calories a day, and some light daily exercise. Oddly enough, I find the occasional cheat day of 1600+ has no negative impact on my loss but eating 1300-1400 every day does. Strange. I'm also no longer logging my exercise because MFP automatically adds back the calories, which I have no interest in re-eating.

Awkward30

I didn't read the whole argument, but I hope someone pointed out that MFP "Recommends" a 1lb/week deficit. This should be sustainable for most if not all (bodybuilders use this deficit and are leaner than most of us, so I don't think you can be too lean for a 500 cal deficit). The problem is that everyone and there mom wants to lose weight as quickly as possible, so they pick the most aggressive weight loss plan and then say things like " MFP recommended I go on a 1200 calorie diet." Or "MFP tells me to eat 1200 calories."

Ultimately, I think the people of MFP are doing their part. In fact, I think the cap at 1200 may actually be too high. Average female is 64 inches high, If she was 64 inches and 150 lb at age 30, she would have a just barely overweight BMI and a TDEE of 1760 if sedentary. Which would mean netting 1260 to lose 1 lb a week. Everyone shorter than average that is just slightly overweight or normal weight but trying to get leaner will need to net less than that.

mcarter99

I feel like there's heavy pressure on this site to increase calories.

Ya think??? lol

Lewre78

This is great information. Thanks for sharing, all! :flowerforyou:

jenluvsushi

Another thing to consider is that everyone's BMR on the calculators is just an estimate. Everyone has a different metabolism and factors that make up their BMR like hormones or muscle composition. If MFP were to tell you what your BMR is, it would only be a guestimate. I went and had my RMR medically tested at a sports lab (BMR testing requires an overnight stay) ...best 50 bucks I ever spent. I will be re-doing that test every few months on this journey just to make sure I am on the right path.

For the sake of science, did you find it to be over or under estimated? There are several equations you can use. Out of 3 of the BMR equations they range within 50 calories of eachother (for me). RMR should be a bit higher then that. I'm thinking about going to get mine tested. How do you go about it?

---

ps might as well add that I ended up getting to goal eating above my BMR (~calculated TDEE). And for those of you thinking you need to eat below your BMR to loose weight you have been grossly misinformed.

All equations are estimates...they don't take into consideration any personal factors other than weight, age, sex and height. The more accurate ones will take fat % into account but that still doesn't include your thyroid and other factors. You can work all the numbers into a calculator and it can still be way off of what is really going on due to these other factors.

I went to a sports lab through UC Davis. I found out that they did this type of testing for the public on-line. Be careful about doing it at the gym because they may have sub-par equipment or people working the machine that don't know what they are doing (IE-personal trainer or nutritionist). I found that my RMR was slightly lower than what most calculators told me so I imagine my BMR is lower too as they should be pretty similar....probably the results of years of starving myself with yo-yo dieting. I am trying to repair the damage i have done by eating more calories, exercising more and lifting heavy weights.

I have lost 54 so far eating close to 2000 calories per day, sometimes more....so nice to be losing and not starving myself.

CoderGal

My lack of results put me on the lowest end of the healthy BMI scale and feeling about 28 pounds lighter. Yes, calorie restriction is fine...I do calorie restriction eating on average 1600-2400 calories a day (at least several hundred above my BMR). Calorie restriction to a ridiculous level? There's no need of it in most cases. Sorry I don't have a large number for you, but I'd rather not be so underweight.

I think that it really needs to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. For people who are having major health problems from obesity, eating well below their BMR is likely to be recommended by their doctors. There are also a lot of health benefits to having a slower metabolism (longer lifespan, lower rates of cancer and diseases of aging, slower cellular aging, etc.), so vilifying having a slower metabolism because it means you need to eat slightly fewer calories to maintain weight seems superficial to me. IMO health is about more than appearances.

Okinawan men eat 1400 calories a day on average, and Okinawan women eat 1100, which is well below what BMR/TDEE calculations show are necessary. They are the longest-lived and one of the generally healthiest group of people on earth. This is not a genetic thing (persons of Okinawan descent who eat a western diet have similar life expectancy and suffer similar rates of age-related illnesses), but due to calorie restriction. This is obviously a different subject entirely from losing weight, but I think it shows that vilifying a particular caloric intake without doing adequate research is short-sighted and, perhaps, a bit superficial (there is more to life than 'not being fat'). To make a blanket statement that this is unhealthy, or not conducive to healthy weight maintenance is patently incorrect.

IMO, people should evaluate their goals, and determine the best path to achieve them. If there are serious health concerns involved, they should consult a medical professional who specializes in the relevant area of medicine.

Just my 2c.

Yeah I'm not a health professional, I'm not going to argue to much about that bold part. Not saying that things can't go wrong, but trading one necessary evil for another sometimes works and ends up being beneficial. But that's what it is: replacing one evil with another. I think people should be warned so they can decide for themselves. I'm more concerned with the unaware that are slightly obese who don't realize they can eat more and loose because this website tells them to significantly under eat. When I was smack in the middle of a healthy BMI MFP recommended I go on a 1200 calorie diet when I'm still loosing at over 1600. Okinawan people are awesome, live long, and the men are on average 4ft9 and weigh 94 pounds (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071721/) and also eat a very different diet and have a different life style then most of us...and at 4'9 1400 isn't a bad number.

You're my new hero. For real!

lol

therealangd

I hate this conversation. And it happens OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It confuses the hell out of new people.

There are two ways to calculate how many calories per day you should be eating. Calculating your TDEE less a small deficit (averages calories per week) And the MFP way (eating back your exercise calories on a daily basis). If you are using a TDEE less 15% it actually works out to .5 lb loss per week. If you set your MFP to .5 lb loss per week, most people would be eating the same calories per week on either plan.

The issue is not the MFP is wrong, it's that people are not using it correctly. A 2 lb loss per week is not sustainable for most people. Unless you are morbidly obese, nobody should be setting MFP up for a 2lb loss per week.

But there is also a huge difference between somebody that has a bodyfat % of 30+ and someone that has 18%. The 30% person definitely has a greater leeway in calorie deficit (and muscle gains, but that's a whole other post), then the 18% person. It's like comparing apple to oranges. They are physiologically different, and have different needs.

It drives me bat *kitten* crazy when people lump the two together and make blanket statements about how things should be done.

moe0303

I hate this conversation. And it happens OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN. It confuses the hell out of new people.

There are two ways to calculate how many calories per day you should be eating. Calculating your TDEE less a small deficit (averages calories per week) And the MFP way (eating back your exercise calories on a daily basis). If you are using a TDEE less 15% it actually works out to .5 lb loss per week. If you set your MFP to .5 lb loss per week, most people would be eating the same calories per week on either plan.

The issue is not the MFP is wrong, it's that people are not using it correctly. A 2 lb loss per week is not sustainable for most people. Unless you are morbidly obese, nobody should be setting MFP up for a 2lb loss per week.

But there is also a huge difference between somebody that has a bodyfat % of 30+ and someone that has 18%. The 30% person definitely has a greater leeway in calorie deficit (and muscle gains, but that's a whole other post), then the 18% person. It's like comparing apple to oranges. They are physiologically different, and have different needs.

It drives me bat *kitten* crazy when people lump the two together and make blanket statements about how things should be done.

You're my new hero. For real!

CoderGal

Resonable goal setting: Here is where I believe that the ideological argument lies. One group seems to be saying that it is perfectly fine to be eating below your BMR to in order to achieve an agressive goal and that if people set realistic goals, they will not have any problems. The other group seems to be saying that eating below your BMR has an undesired effect on your body which makes it enter into a different mode of operation. The effects result in slower weight loss or no weight loss at all. Therefore, they contest that by eating more, an individual will lose faster.

Is this pretty much the conversation that we are having?

No.

Many people are unaware that they can eat more and loose the same amount. It is not common knowledge that 3500 calories is equal to a pound to the general population. When someone isn't a weight loss pro, they have no idea what 'reasonable values' are, hence, this site is used. instead of "this is a reasonable value you should loose weight at" there's "loose X lb a week". The math of the site isn't clarified here, so you're choosing an X value when you have no idea what picking that means, assuming that the site knows what it's doing. I know in many instances, the "x lbs a week" isn't true, and upping calories can get you there, when x a week is far under your TDEE. I went from netting 1200 to netting 1650 and lost the same amount a week for example. Many people are not aware that they are eating low values below what they would need unconscious (if people are wondering why I'm using this term see definition of BMR). Many people on this forum have suffered big and small problems either health related or weight loss related due to being on very low calorie diets. Many of these people only become aware of the fact it's due to the low calorie diet when they're already suffering side affects. Therefore, I think there should be a warning at a value related more to them, not a random 1200 value. 1200 is a lot less reasonable to a large 6 footer then a small 4 footer, for example. If you want to go below that, it's your choice.

the fact that people have gotten sick, cold, depressed, hungry, loose hair and gotten bad skin/nails when eating very restrictively, they should be warned that you better know what you're doing.

If they are aware of these facts, then they are made aware of the facts. But there are many many many people on this forum that end up with severe problems on low calorie diets, and they're unaware of the problem until it's to late. That's my beef.

moe0303

Oh, so it's a safety thing.

I wonder what the percentage of people who have had these severe problems is. You might be on to something, but I still think a blanket "going lower than your BMR is dangerous" warning would be an incorrect statement for many many many people who frequent this board. Maybe if it was somehow based on body fat or something. For example: a 5'4" man weighing 300 pound with a body fat percentage of 39% may have a BMR of around 2400 calories, but he would have sufficient fat to facilitate a very restrictive diet. On the other hand, someone with 19% body fat might need to take a little more caution when choosing goals. I could see a warning in that case.

jg627

My body already has a built-in warning system. If I eat below my BMR, I start having food dreams at night. One time I had a dream that I broke into an elementary school cafeteria and ate all their tacos. The lunch lady started yelling at me and saying, "you're not supposed to be here!", but I ate it anyway.

nannabannana

bump......I totally agree.

CoderGal

Oh, so it's a safety thing.

I wonder what the percentage of people who have had these severe problems is. You might be on to something, but I still think a blanket "going lower than your BMR is dangerous" warning would be an incorrect statement for many many many people who frequent this board. Maybe if it was somehow based on body fat or something. For example: a 5'4" man weighing 300 pound with a body fat percentage of 39% may have a BMR of around 2400 calories, but he would have sufficient fat to facilitate a very restrictive diet. On the other hand, someone with 19% body fat might need to take a little more caution when choosing goals. I could see a warning in that case.

I still think there should be a consult your health something or ither person before doing this. Healthy people ended up sick for reasons as vlcd including my friend who was very fat and obese and he felt like crap and was under medical watch. But he was aware that this was likely going to be the case and of his own will, aware of the factors did it. He then gained 50 lbs when he started eating again. And he was fully aware that it was because of the restrictive diet and lowered metabolism. He had to work the ones he gained after that by eating better. I just see a million reasons why the 1200 rule eventually fails for so many people and think it would be wise if it at least said you should research this before attempting. I also think that many 1200 people including obese would be far more successful with this site if it didnt automatically set such a extreme restrictive diet compared to what they were eating before. Many obese people sign up, start eatong 1200 and realize they are starving themselves and felt much better eating much more without realizong they can eat much more.....

Perhaps the more appropriate thing to do would be to say hey did you know you could eat approximately x and below that youll lose weight? Are you sure you want to eat at x-y? At least it would give them enough info to know how extreme of a diet they are working with. I surely would have thought gee thats over 3 times less then im eating now...at least i know I can eat at x-sonething and loose incase I dont feel like starving to death since im a healthy bmi now.

yarwell

I also think that many 1200 people including obese would be far more successful with this site if it didnt automatically set such a extreme restrictive diet compared to what they were eating before.

Is the site's recommended 1 pound per week deficit (aka 500 calories a day) really an "extreme restrictive diet" ? It'll be a 25% cut or less for many sedentary men.

wackyfunster

He then gained 50 lbs when he started eating again. And he was fully aware that it was because of the restrictive diet and lowered metabolism.

50 pounds = 175,000 calories. Even if his metabolism lowered by 400 calories/day (EXTREME metabolic reduction), and he was eating his previous TDEE, It would have taken him a year and a half to gain that much weight. Also, the lowered metabolism would not be maintained when eating at a surplus of 400 calories/day, so realistically, even if his metabolism was 'permanently damaged' it would take several years of overeating like that to gain that much weight (also, the fact that you are steadily gaining weight should be a hint that you are overeating).

So basically, I am calling BS. He gained 50 pounds because he ate almost 200,000 surplus calories. Metabolism has nothing to do with it (in fact, having a slow metabolism is advantageous from a health standpoint).

CoderGal

He then gained 50 lbs when he started eating again. And he was fully aware that it was because of the restrictive diet and lowered metabolism.

50 pounds = 175,000 calories. Even if his metabolism lowered by 400 calories/day (EXTREME metabolic reduction), and he was eating his previous TDEE, It would have taken him a year and a half to gain that much weight. Also, the lowered metabolism would not be maintained when eating at a surplus of 400 calories/day, so realistically, even if his metabolism was 'permanently damaged' it would take several years of overeating like that to gain that much weight (also, the fact that you are steadily gaining weight should be a hint that you are overeating).

So basically, I am calling BS. He gained 50 pounds because he ate almost 200,000 surplus calories. Metabolism has nothing to do with it (in fact, having a slow metabolism is advantageous from a health standpoint).

Where on earth did I say his metabolism was "permanently damaged"? Nowhere. Where did i say he put it on over night? Nowhere. I didnt grill him for time estimates, he just told me his story. And you will absolutely pack on the pounds quicker after a restrictive diet until your metabolism picks up again

CoderGal

I also think that many 1200 people including obese would be far more successful with this site if it didnt automatically set such a extreme restrictive diet compared to what they were eating before.

Is the site's recommended 1 pound per week deficit (aka 500 calories a day) really an "extreme restrictive diet" ? It'll be a 25% cut or less for many sedentary men.

Im talking about everyone not tall obese men.

mcarter99

He then gained 50 lbs when he started eating again. And he was fully aware that it was because of the restrictive diet and lowered metabolism.

50 pounds = 175,000 calories. Even if his metabolism lowered by 400 calories/day (EXTREME metabolic reduction), and he was eating his previous TDEE, It would have taken him a year and a half to gain that much weight. Also, the lowered metabolism would not be maintained when eating at a surplus of 400 calories/day, so realistically, even if his metabolism was 'permanently damaged' it would take several years of overeating like that to gain that much weight (also, the fact that you are steadily gaining weight should be a hint that you are overeating).

So basically, I am calling BS. He gained 50 pounds because he ate almost 200,000 surplus calories. Metabolism has nothing to do with it (in fact, having a slow metabolism is advantageous from a health standpoint).

I was afraid to go there about the 'slow metabolism is healthy'. Bravo.

I think the "slowed metabolism" effect of dieting is mostly just the fact that you don't have to expend the energy to digest so darn much food. So, yes, if I take in 1500 calories a day and I use up 5% on digestion, my metabolism WILL go down if I drop to 1300. But it goes back up when I go back to 1500. It stays at 5%. And I'll pass on eating 100 more calories in order to burn 5 more in BMR.

Obviously there are body composition issues with any caloric deficit, which can have metabolic consequences. I think it happens at all deficit levels, though, typically.

There are also issues with people giving up from lack of results at low calorie deficits and with remaining obese for years or months longer than they need to be.

moe0303

Where on earth did I say his metabolism was "permanently damaged"? Nowhere. Where did i say he put it on over night? Nowhere. I didnt grill him for time estimates, he just told me his story. And you will absolutely pack on the pounds quicker after a restrictive diet until your metabolism picks up again

I think that's the questionable part. How much of an affect will a high deficit have on your metabolism? A 400 calorie decrease would seem to be an extreme case, nonetheless it would only have you gaining less than a pound (.8) a week. How long would the effects last? Maybe two weeks? I don't know how you would estimate that.

From the scientific perspective, it doesn't quite add up. However, from a practical view point, it might make more sense. If somebody who normally eats at a surplus goes on a restrictive diet because a website tells them to, they could find it difficult. This could lead to stress or depression or some other emotional imbalance. This could lead to overeating for certain types. So if they come off the diet and eat at 1.5 * the surplus they were used to, they will gain weight at a faster rate than they were before going on the diet. That would explain a lot. Of course, the retort to this would be that the very restrictive diet itself is not the problem.

xHelloQuincyx

i totally agree with this, however it will prolly not happen anytime soon

sophierrw

Ok I am extremely confused. I am 5ft1 and 112 pounds. I do NOT want to lose a huge excess of weight as I am the right weight but I would like to tone up. My BMR is around 1300 cals and I'd say I am lightly active as I go to the gym 4 times a week, go to college and work at a bar 18+ hours a week. Can anyone please tell me how much i am supposed to be eating as I've been searching online for weeks and I still don't get it (sorry I'm a little slow!!). was thinking around 1400 cals? thanks x

heybales

Ok I am extremely confused. I am 5ft1 and 112 pounds. I do NOT want to lose a huge excess of weight as I am the right weight but I would like to tone up. My BMR is around 1300 cals and I'd say I am lightly active as I go to the gym 4 times a week, go to college and work at a bar 18+ hours a week. Can anyone please tell me how much i am supposed to be eating as I've been searching online for weeks and I still don't get it (sorry I'm a little slow!!). was thinking around 1400 cals? thanks x

So indeed healthy estimated BMR is 1225.
Your work activity level with exercise would be closer to Moderately Active easily, so estimated TDEE about 1900. Shoot, Sedentary you would almost 1500, so 1400 is way to little unless you want weight loss, and that is too low.
That should be the level of no weight gain or loss.

You stick at that 1900 goal every day and lift heavy 3x week. Make another day cardio to use all your new muscles. There is your 4 days.

You'll still find that fat will be coming off, as your muscle is getting stronger and weight perhaps staying the same.

konerusp

Heres my story,It will help you decide which way you want to go

Ive grown up as a dancer,ie dancing 3 hours a day sweating my *kitten* out.I had no idea how much i ate when i was a kid,but i knew it was not enough,i wasnt fat,but i had a ton of flab.When i went for higher studies i gained like 40 pounds of weight in 6 months still eating the same,i wasnt working out though.After my studies i got back to dancing and i was eating way less than my BMR.I did lose about 45 pounds in 3 months eating 800 cals a day and burining 2000 calories.Which i would have lost eventually if i ate above my BMR.But i had tons of fat stored in my body,i was at a healthy BMI,yet 30% fat.And not to mention i had fatigue all the time,i was aneamic,i had hair loss and breaking nails.Well i was working out and eating Super clean,where did the problems come from?I wasnt eating enough for my body to sustain all the energy expenditure. i have started eating above my BMR for 5 weeks and i lost 3 pounds.I again upped my cals to tdee-15% now,I havent put on any weight but havent lost anything as yet.I assume since i have a lot of body fat to lose it will take more time..Im not sure about weight loss as yet,but now i have energy to get through my day,my nails stopped breaking,im not aneamic anymore,hair loss has substantially reduced.

Low calorie diets did work for me but it came with unwanted side effects.At my lowest weight i was skinny, yet fatty.I now have better knowledge of concentrating on fat loss than fast weight loss.This isnt a biggest loser competition or something/nor do i have health problems to achieve super fast results.Im happier with eating higher calories and i can sustain this all my life if i wanted to,since i enjoy my share of treats,I LIVE now.

gsmithnp

So, I've read most of the posts on this thread (18 pages--YEEESH!) and come to the following conclusions:

The mantra of eat fewer calories than you burn to lose weight DOES work; the trick is to determine HOW MANY that is!!

IN GENERAL, one should not have net calories (food intake minus exercise) below BMR.
IN GENERAL, one should have net calories at or below TDEE.
THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS; if one has other medical conditions or is severely obese, these guidelines (and they are GUIDELINES not hard-and-fast rules) may not apply and they may need to do this under medical supervision. If someone is focusing on building muscle, they may need to follow a different strategy.

As such, here is my new strategy. To this point, have been trying to net 1200 cal per day--felt hungry, tired, crabby, and not enthusiastic anymore. No underlying medical problems, 5'3" 136lb, goal weight 125, age 37.

Fat2Fit calculations:
BMR 1360
Sedentary 1585
Lightly active 1816
Moderately active 2048
(nothing above that's gonna happen, so not putting it here)

FitnessFrog TDEE calculations:
Sedentary 1625
Lightly active 1862
Moderately active 2098


Pretty close numbers. I'm still not feeling warm and fuzzy about boosting net calories all the way to 1800 range, so I'm going midway and setting my goal as 1500 for now. That also goes along with the F2F statement of eating 200-300 fewer calories to boost weight loss when close to goal as well as the idea of decreasing TDEE by 15-20% (puts me at around 1500). I'm gonna give it a couple of weeks and see how it goes, and how I feel.

Please don't hurt me! :ohwell:

Sleepisam

I agree.
The low 1200 numbers are given to people who choose "Sedentary" and "Lose two pounds a week." Almost no one is Sedentary. And unless they have 50 or more pounds to lose, they shouldn't be set at two pounds. The site will prompt you to choose more reasonably, but people override the tool.

So how do we know what is or isn't sedentary? I work in an office all day. I'm sat at my desk for 9 hours. I come home and I play computer games and watch tv. It isn't the healthiest lifestyle but it's mine. I play table tennis every day mon-fri for at least 30 minutes and can often fit in a 30-45 minutes walk to and from work. So... am I sedentary?

CoderGal

I agree.
The low 1200 numbers are given to people who choose "Sedentary" and "Lose two pounds a week." Almost no one is Sedentary. And unless they have 50 or more pounds to lose, they shouldn't be set at two pounds. The site will prompt you to choose more reasonably, but people override the tool.

So how do we know what is or isn't sedentary? I work in an office all day. I'm sat at my desk for 9 hours. I come home and I play computer games and watch tv. It isn't the healthiest lifestyle but it's mine. I play table tennis every day mon-fri for at least 30 minutes and can often fit in a 30-45 minutes walk to and from work. So... am I sedentary?

I wasn't marked as 'sedentary' and did not ask to 'lose two pounds a week'. I asked for 1 lb a week and had exercise and got marked down to 1200.

And the person who stated sedentary gave definitions of what each one stands for. Look it up. You sound more like 'lightly active' to me.

MandyMooney61

I am new to boards but I have used MFP for a long time. Recently I have been back to logging everything and have not seen a change on the scale. Of course my calories were set at 1200 per day which after reading a lot of this thread I'm pretty sure is not enough! So I'm going to up my calorie intake a few hundred calories a day but I would like to know if I work out should I eat those calories that I burned back?

CoderGal

I am new to boards but I have used MFP for a long time. Recently I have been back to logging everything and have not seen a change on the scale. Of course my calories were set at 1200 per day which after reading a lot of this thread I'm pretty sure is not enough! So I'm going to up my calorie intake a few hundred calories a day but I would like to know if I work out should I eat those calories that I burned back?

This is highly debated. If you are measuring cardio burns accurately with hrm...then yes. If you are using over estimated calculations like mfp, then eat some of them back. If you use your fuel, you need to refuel. Then there's the people who argue you shouldn't eat them back who do not seem to understand that they are already eating at a calorie deficit. You should make that deficit as large as possible. If you wanted to do that, why bother eating at all.

MandyMooney61

Exactly! It is so hard sometimes to not become confused and just end up frustrated and discouraged! I do use my HRM when I work out so I do have a really good idea of what I am burning.
Could you explain why you should not go under you BMR with calories? Is it just because you will not get adequate nutrition? I still don't have a great understanding of this.

heybales

Exactly! It is so hard sometimes to not become confused and just end up frustrated and discouraged! I do use my HRM when I work out so I do have a really good idea of what I am burning.
Could you explain why you should not go under you BMR with calories? Is it just because you will not get adequate nutrition? I still don't have a great understanding of this.

It's an easy enough stat to obtain that draws a line in the sand that for many is the difference between slowly losing weight because your metabolism has slowed down, and losing just as slowly or faster with a full burning metabolism.
The former has much greater potential for burning through muscle while you lose, the latter has much greater potential for keeping it.
The former is terrible when it's time to enter maintenance level eating, the latter much easier.
The former causes many to binge or fail or get discouraged or have less energy, the latter has less/none of those.

One example above this post.

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/598815-going-crazy-on-how-many-cals-i-should-eat?page=5#posts-9304181