Carbs are making you fat
Replies
-
Honestly to much of anything is bad for ya. Moderation is the key in anything. I don't believe carbs make you fat, indulging makes ya fat lol, no exercise makes ya fat, eating nothing but junk all the time, the list can go on and on. I eat carbs but I'm a lot smaller now then I have ever been.0
-
People are making hash out of a very complex topic here. Carbs and dietary fat both have important contributing factors to unwanted weight gain. Calories in/out may be the ultimate arbiter of weight gain/loss, but caloric needs, insulin response, genetic somatype, and substances in your diet that screw with the brain's satiation signals also contribute significantly. Mental health and dependency plays a big part, too.
Atkins was successful because his diet, primarily consisting of protein and fat, makes you feel full much more quickly and forces your body to draw on those macronutrients instead of the much easier and more efficient carb-energy pathway. But is it healthy? Eh... A lot of experience later says no. Sure you can lose weight with it according to kcals in/out just like any other diet, but it's horrible in terms of good nutrition.
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
Oh and all those muscle guy pics who eat carbs? I wouldn't be nearly concerned with the mashed potatoes on their plates so much as the steroid salad they are also ingesting. Or injecting into their butt cheeks.
;-)
-A0 -
Yes, I believe I remember a double -blind study proving this. However, the subjects who ate the cupcakes died happy at least.
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, martini in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming 'WOO HOO what a ride!'"0 -
i think the important thing to take from this is that different diets work for different people. instead of all arguing, let's realize that we are all different. there is no magical equation like "178.224 grams of carbs, 143.856 grams of protein, and eat 86.684 grams of fat and you will be healthy no matter what". this is because, believe it or not, none of us are going to be able to react the same to different diets. this is where genetics really does come in. i personally believe you might have to try a couple of different diets, keep track of how your body reacts, and look back at the data, and find what works for you. like i said before, there is no magical formula. if there was then man kind would all abide by it. please give the arguments a rest and just focus on doing you0
-
People are making hash out of a very complex topic here. Carbs and dietary fat both have important contributing factors to unwanted weight gain. Calories in/out may be the ultimate arbiter of weight gain/loss, but caloric needs, insulin response, genetic somatype, and substances in your diet that screw with the brain's satiation signals also contribute significantly.
Atkins was successful because his diet, primarily consisting of protein and fat, makes you feel full much more quickly and forces your body to draw on those macronutrients instead of the much easier and more efficient carb-energy pathway. But is it healthy? Eh... A lot of experience later says no. Sure you can lose weight with it according to kcals in/out just like any other diet, but it's horrible in terms of good nutrition.
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
Oh and all those muscle guy pics who eat carbs? I wouldn't be nearly concerned with the mashed potatoes on their plates so much as the steroid salad they are also ingesting. Or injecting into their butt cheeks.
;-)
-A
ooooorrrr. . . people are responsible for getting themselves fat.. . . yes I like that, lets go with this. . .
edit: getting = making. . . wouldn't want the grammar police to show up and rain on this party too...0 -
Sorry if I am repeating anything said, I didn't make it past the first page without this one thing to say, as it irks me when people go back and forth about "studies show..." or " no, new studies show..." etc.
Bottom line: I can take ANY amount of data, pick out what I want to fit my desired outcome and it is still technically a legitimate study. Further, Studies can be altered by means of line of questioning. A person can literally be made to agree to anything! Basic statistics folks.
My personal study suggests a universal answer... DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!!
Sorry to sound *****y, but the matter-of-facters based on "studies and evidence" start to bug after a while. . . Unless you have a PHD and havd done the study physically yourself, stop offering other peoples advice based on a biased study. I am pretty sure I am going to catch flack for this but whatever, it's F***ing Monday, end of the month, payroll week and I am an accountant. . . you do the math on how my day has been.... thanks!
I'm curious as to what you mean that studies can be altered by "means of a line of questioning" And you are correct you can find a study to support about any argument out there, but when looking at the entire body of evidence you will get a clearer picture of where that evidence points.
When studies are done to prove or disprove something (bias-driven result) the line of questioning can be chosen in such a way that it can either support or disprove the subject at hand. Happens all the time.
ANd what you may consider evidence, I may not. What is supportive to you, may not be supportive to me. How can you truely establish a fact-driven statement unless you experience it for yourself? This is the sole reason why I may consider internet or reading material advice, but ultimately make my decision based on trial and error. Thank God for that too, otherwise I would have purchased a home at peak market, sold all of my gold, and have a lifetime supply of the South Beach Diet on hand...
And how does one control for all the confounders if you are using anecdotal evidence? And again when looking at the entire body of evidence you will get a much clearer picture then looking at single one off studies0 -
i think the important thing to take from this is that different diets work for different people. instead of all arguing, let's realize that we are all different. there is no magical equation like "178.224 grams of carbs, 143.856 grams of protein, and eat 86.684 grams of fat and you will be healthy no matter what". this is because, believe it or not, none of us are going to be able to react the same to different diets. this is where genetics really does come in. i personally believe you might have to try a couple of different diets, keep track of how your body reacts, and look back at the data, and find what works for you. like i said before, there is no magical formula. if there was then man kind would all abide by it. please give the arguments a rest and just focus on doing you
Spoken like a true genius. . . we should be bff's0 -
Not weighing in on this conversation, but it reminds me of Scott Pilgrim.
YES!
0 -
*sigh*People are making hash out of a very complex topic here. Carbs and dietary fat both have important contributing factors to unwanted weight gain. Calories in/out may be the ultimate arbiter of weight gain/loss, but caloric needs, insulin response, genetic somatype, and substances in your diet that screw with the brain's satiation signals also contribute significantly. Mental health and dependency plays a big part, too.
Atkins was successful because his diet, primarily consisting of protein and fat, makes you feel full much more quickly and forces your body to draw on those macronutrients instead of the much easier and more efficient carb-energy pathway. But is it healthy? Eh... A lot of experience later says no. Sure you can lose weight with it according to kcals in/out just like any other diet, but it's horrible in terms of good nutrition.
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
Oh and all those muscle guy pics who eat carbs? I wouldn't be nearly concerned with the mashed potatoes on their plates so much as the steroid salad they are also ingesting. Or injecting into their butt cheeks.
;-)
-A
Temporary fat storage means nothing when eating at a caloric deficit, 24 hour fat burning is the exact same net loss, regardless of macronutrient composition, holding calories the same. Thermodynamics still apply.0 -
Sorry if I am repeating anything said, I didn't make it past the first page without this one thing to say, as it irks me when people go back and forth about "studies show..." or " no, new studies show..." etc.
Bottom line: I can take ANY amount of data, pick out what I want to fit my desired outcome and it is still technically a legitimate study. Further, Studies can be altered by means of line of questioning. A person can literally be made to agree to anything! Basic statistics folks.
My personal study suggests a universal answer... DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!!
Sorry to sound *****y, but the matter-of-facters based on "studies and evidence" start to bug after a while. . . Unless you have a PHD and havd done the study physically yourself, stop offering other peoples advice based on a biased study. I am pretty sure I am going to catch flack for this but whatever, it's F***ing Monday, end of the month, payroll week and I am an accountant. . . you do the math on how my day has been.... thanks!
I'm curious as to what you mean that studies can be altered by "means of a line of questioning" And you are correct you can find a study to support about any argument out there, but when looking at the entire body of evidence you will get a clearer picture of where that evidence points.
When studies are done to prove or disprove something (bias-driven result) the line of questioning can be chosen in such a way that it can either support or disprove the subject at hand. Happens all the time.
ANd what you may consider evidence, I may not. What is supportive to you, may not be supportive to me. How can you truely establish a fact-driven statement unless you experience it for yourself? This is the sole reason why I may consider internet or reading material advice, but ultimately make my decision based on trial and error. Thank God for that too, otherwise I would have purchased a home at peak market, sold all of my gold, and have a lifetime supply of the South Beach Diet on hand...
Personal experience = anecdote != data0 -
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
So DNL is pretty common in humans?0 -
Sorry if I am repeating anything said, I didn't make it past the first page without this one thing to say, as it irks me when people go back and forth about "studies show..." or " no, new studies show..." etc.
Bottom line: I can take ANY amount of data, pick out what I want to fit my desired outcome and it is still technically a legitimate study. Further, Studies can be altered by means of line of questioning. A person can literally be made to agree to anything! Basic statistics folks.
My personal study suggests a universal answer... DO WHAT WORKS FOR YOU!!
Sorry to sound *****y, but the matter-of-facters based on "studies and evidence" start to bug after a while. . . Unless you have a PHD and havd done the study physically yourself, stop offering other peoples advice based on a biased study. I am pretty sure I am going to catch flack for this but whatever, it's F***ing Monday, end of the month, payroll week and I am an accountant. . . you do the math on how my day has been.... thanks!
I'm curious as to what you mean that studies can be altered by "means of a line of questioning" And you are correct you can find a study to support about any argument out there, but when looking at the entire body of evidence you will get a clearer picture of where that evidence points.
When studies are done to prove or disprove something (bias-driven result) the line of questioning can be chosen in such a way that it can either support or disprove the subject at hand. Happens all the time.
ANd what you may consider evidence, I may not. What is supportive to you, may not be supportive to me. How can you truely establish a fact-driven statement unless you experience it for yourself? This is the sole reason why I may consider internet or reading material advice, but ultimately make my decision based on trial and error. Thank God for that too, otherwise I would have purchased a home at peak market, sold all of my gold, and have a lifetime supply of the South Beach Diet on hand...
And how does one control for all the confounders if you are using anecdotal evidence? And again when looking at the entire body of evidence you will get a much clearer picture then looking at single one off studies
I could rebute with a similar falacy! Did I not just mention how I take into consideration the "opinions" of others and their "studies" however I decide what works and is effective based on my own experience? Now, am I telling you that what you think or believe in is wrong? Heck no. What I am saying is that basing your entire life and health on studies is not just silly, it's just plain ignorant. Why not do a little digging and figure out what works for you, rather than jumping on the nearest band wagon because Joe D. Blow did a study and said you had to in order to live a long skinny life....0 -
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
So DNL is pretty common in humans?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
Might wanna read this before answering Acg's question...0 -
The only reason I low carb is because it helps me stay at a deficit. As a major carb lover, having just one/two pieces of bread or 1 bowl of cereal is torture. Not having it at all is not torture. I eventually need to learn moderation but I'd rather eat 600g of broccoli and a pound or two of chicken to keep me full rather than a tiny bowl of pasta...which would lead me to eating at least half a pound of it or more.
YES!! This is exactly the reason I "prefer" not to eat certain carbs. I will eat some that are less easily digested or don't trigger cravings. You learn what those things are if you just pay attention.
I was starting to think the majority of posters here were cray-cray.0 -
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
So DNL is pretty common in humans?
HINT: The really short answer to that is a two letter word.0 -
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
So DNL is pretty common in humans?
HINT: The really short answer to that is a two letter word.
No, but "common" is also a pretty vague word. DNL facilitates additional weight gain. Fat is easier to store.
Unless you're telling everyone that because DNL isn't "common", then consuming 4000 kcals of carbs everyday will keep a 5'7 120 pound woman as thin as a rail because carb to fat storage just isn't "common" enough to be a source of weight gain. But then that would defy kcals in/out which everyone seems to agree is the biggest factor of all.0 -
When did anybody say that? You said it turns to fat easily. It doesn't. Especially in a caloric deficit. ANY macronutrient will be converted to fat in cases of caloric excess. In a caloric deficit, there is no fat storage. Again, Thermodynamics.
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
So DNL is pretty common in humans?
HINT: The really short answer to that is a two letter word.
No, but "common" is also a pretty vague word. DNL facilitates additional weight gain. Fat is easier to store.
Unless you're telling everyone that because DNL isn't "common", then consuming 4000 kcals of carbs everyday will keep a 5'7 120 pound woman as thin as a rail because carb to fat storage just isn't "common" enough to be a source of weight gain. But then that would defy kcals in/out which everyone seems to agree is the biggest factor of all.0 -
When did anybody say that? You said it turns to fat easily. It doesn't. Especially in a caloric deficit. ANY macronutrient will be converted to fat in cases of caloric excess. In a caloric deficit, there is no fat storage. Again, Thermodynamics.
On the other hand carbs jack your insulin, which tells the body excess energy is available and to do something with it. Well if you aren't using it for activity, the next trick is to replenish depleted glycogen in the muscles for instant future use. But once muscle glycogen has been topped off, those carbs have gotta go somewhere because they can't keep floating around in your bloodsteam. So nature made it very easy to turn excess carbs into fat. So easy in fact that your body only has to expend 4.4 calories of energy to transform 100 calories worth of carbs into fat stored in fat cells. (For a comparison, it's slightly easier to store fat as fat at 2.2 kcal/100, and a lot harder to store protein as fat at 30 kcal/100.) If you're eating foods high in carbs but not feeling full, you're induced to eat more than you really need.
And then there's fructose, which the body can't deal with like glucose or galactose and has to get the liver seriously involved. A significant portion of fructose gets turned into fat while being metabolized by the liver via a similar mechanism that metabolizes alcohol. Alas, no buzz. But guess what sucrose (table sugar) is made of?
So yes, kcals in/out but please let's give the body a little more credit for having really annoying ways to knock you off your path to the ideal body weight and size.
So DNL is pretty common in humans?
HINT: The really short answer to that is a two letter word.
No, but "common" is also a pretty vague word. DNL facilitates additional weight gain. Fat is easier to store.
Unless you're telling everyone that because DNL isn't "common", then consuming 4000 kcals of carbs everyday will keep a 5'7 120 pound woman as thin as a rail because carb to fat storage just isn't "common" enough to be a source of weight gain. But then that would defy kcals in/out which everyone seems to agree is the biggest factor of all.
"Easy" ... so I'm sloppy as well in my wording. But "common" isn't appropriate either.
"You said it turns to fat easily. It doesn't. Especially in a caloric deficit. "
I wasn't talking about caloric deficit. If you read my post, you'd see I was talking about what happens during caloric excess.
"ANY macronutrient will be converted to fat in cases of caloric excess."
Right. With the order of energy expended, fat taking the least amount of energy to do so, carbs only slightly more, and protein WAY further along.
Are we clear?0 -
FFS we had this conversation yesterday and the day before that and the day before that.0
-
So.... I'll see ya back here tomorrow, same time, same place?FFS we had this conversation yesterday and the day before that and the day before that.0 -
carbs turn to glycogen, and glycogen makes you look better... checkmate.0
-
I love carbs! I eat carbs everyday!!! In control portions and make sure to balance our protien and try and get healthy carbs but i eat carbs!! Im loosing weight, getting stronger (even toning my mucles :glasses: ), looking good and staying healthy! So carbs are not making me fat but have fun not eating them and ill just enjoy my carbs
0 -
I find this thread disturbing and almost hateful, its worse then high school!0
-
I find this thread disturbing and almost hateful, its worse then high school!
Why? Seems like a healthy debate to me.0 -
*Sits at a healthy weight, tucking into a bowl of porridge*0
-
*Sits at a healthy weight, tucking into a bowl of porridge*
Just had 2 oatmeal raisin cookies reading this!!:happy:0 -
Aww man, I'm jealous of you! Still, the apple and blueberries I added were gooood...0
-
Not all carbs but white carbs and all un naturral carbs!0
-
0 -
Mm I feel some people are a tad harsh but the OP didnt really explain why he believes what he does ;p
I personally am on a low carb diet >20g for medical issues. I am not exping the insulin spikes or sugar crashes like I was before and feeling fantastic for the first time in 5 freaking years!
My husband can eat carbs/sugar and lose weight, I on the other hand can not eat more then 20g of carbs a day without crashing and burning. My Insulin resistance is so bad that an apple will spike my levels out of control and ill feel like a pile of poo for a day or two after
I dont believe carbs make EVERYONE fat, I would argue tho carbs make certain types of people fat if they have certain medical conditions
tho! I have lost 25 pounds in 5 weeks since I went low carb.
I worked out 5 days a week w/trainer and followed the food advise exactly as instructed from the trainer/doctor. I lost 6 pounds in 2.5 months husband was down 35 pounds ??! Something was very wrong
found out I am IR did as instructed by the doctor and BAM down 25 pounds. Husband can enjoy his pasta/bread and I can hope for the day I will be able to eat bread without feeling ill afterwards! 0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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