Doctor says eating below BMR is fine
Replies
-
If you have a lot of weight to lose it will work, but the argument is really that it's not sustainable because at some point you'll plateau so you have to make a choice of cutting more or adding calories. Weight loss isn't linear and your metabolism will slow down at some point. There are some additional reasons why men don't eat under a certain caloric amount because it messes with testosterone (hormone) levels in general.0
-
Sure of course it is "fine", but what happens is your metabolism slows a bit & you lose more muscle mass than you would otherwise. Most people end up gaining all the weight back and possibly more because they increase their calorie intake too fast and go back to their typical normal pre-diet diet. Based on my own personal experience, if you increase SLOWLY, around 100 - 200 calories per week, you should have little to no problems. The scale WILL still increase a bit, probably 5 - 10 lbs, and some people would freak out at this and use it as an excuse to go back to eating less or even binging out of frustration, but you have to push through and ignore it. It'll just be due to water retention from eating more carbs & from having extra food in your system (to be crude: you literally have more poop in you). In a few weeks the number on the scale will either go back down to the weight you were at before you increased your calories if you are lucky or you will just maintain at the 5 - 10 lb higher weight.
You dont lose muscle mass if you eat the right amount of protein (about 1 gram of protein per body weight so for me that would be 215 grams of protein per day) and perform strength resistance training, ive been cutting for 3 and a bit weeks and id say my muscle especially on my arms is visibly larger certainly not less and im performing more strength exercises easier all the time, for example at first i found doing even 10 push ups taxing, now i can do 30 easy hence im stronger.
See thats the thing, i dont feel like im dieting if you see what i mean, im not cutting back and really finding it tough, im finding it very comfortable, im not dying to binge on food, im not dying to raid the fridge in the middle of the night, i can see myself easily eating this way for a long time, its not like im going to get to my goal weight of 180lbs and go cool i can stuff maccy ds again! thats not going to happen, the only way that would happen is if i was really hungry whilst eating what i am and felt i had to binge hence more calories, i dont.0 -
yes i wonder this too!I'm just wondering why no one on the first page has pictures.0 -
yes i wonder this too!I'm just wondering why no one on the first page has pictures.
I see lots of pictures mine included lol0 -
I initially read this as he's dropping 1k below BMR without exercising. Seemed like a recipe for disaster (i.e. significant muscle loss).
My personal results running a few hundred under BMR with exercise and fairly high protein has been positive.
Hahah nah, im roughly around 500 below my calculated bmr of 2200 food intake wise, i say roughly as i dont measure every calorie its all rough estimates, but my goal was to lose 2lbs a week, 1000 off my TDEE which is around 1700 cals a day which is what i eat.0 -
What is eating below bmr?0
-
yes i wonder this too!I'm just wondering why no one on the first page has pictures.
I
you! 0 -
I will always be team 'Do What Works For You.' Everyone can tell you that doctors are dumb, you're starving yourself, your metabolism is going to slow down, etc. If you're not hungry eating below BMR then you're good to go. If you're not getting enough food your body will let you know.
Bingo, i think ill let my body tell me if im starving rather than an online calculater on 'myfitgirls' website (and no it really isnt what it sounds like trust me its genuine), i reckon my body knows itself a bit better than an online calculator, if people want to live their lives based on numbers thats fine go ahead im not saying its wrong whatsoever, but dont get upset when some people feel quite comfortable not doing that and see results and share those results.0 -
i love how everyone is slandering doctors as if they are dumb as bricks. while they may not be as schooled in nutrition as a dietitian...they went to med school, and none of you did! (and that assumption IS correct, cause you wouldn't be dissing them if you was one of them, right?)
p.s. dietitians are what you want. nutritionists aren't standardized. enough said :P
I think it's very important to understand that doctors know little about nutrition and health. Yet, most of them give advice and medications every day to do with both of those things. Many harm people with their bad advice and treatments.
Doctors learn about disease and treatment of symptoms. Their education is very influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. Doctors have their uses, but to go in and accept everything they say and do without question is just plain foolish. Trust them blindly just because they are highly educated on a narrow scope of subjects? Well, you can choose to do that if you like.
Dieticians and nutritionists aren't a whole lot better imo. They are still the product of what they learned in school. The nutritionist in my community pushes a completely unhealthy, culturally inappropriate grain/sugar based diet. But on Friday she was buying hotdogs, Velveeta, and bread for her own supper. But if people eat some natural animal fat from wild animals, as they have for thousands of years, god forbid!
There is nothing wrong with using our own brains to determine if what an "expert" tells us actually makes sense. I know that common sense and critical thinking is getting pretty rare these days.... :sad:
crikey!!! I MUST remember that doctors know NOTHING of health!! I suppose lawyers know nothing about the law either and midwives know nothing about childbirth.....I suppose shopkeepers know nothing about shop-keeping. Wow, what IS the point of anyone learning anything about the profession the want to do if they obviously learn NOTHING in the process of the learning??
As for the starvation mode thingy, I am very grateful to the opening poster for this feed, I always wonder how people on lighter life actually manage to lose weight the way they do....surely (of anyone) THEY should be in starvation mode!!!
I love that you said midwives instead of OB's. That's an argument for another day and another site though.
Carry on. 0 -
score! :smokin:
yes i wonder this too!I'm just wondering why no one on the first page has pictures.
I you!0 -
I can't remember who said this, but someone was talking about transformations... and they were talking about Jerry from Subway... there is a reason why he keeps his shirt on.
Losing weight =/= better physique0 -
Doctors and pcp's, in most cases, know the bare minimum, if anything at all, about nutrition and a body's nutritional needs.
You need to see a dietitian or nutritionist to get proffesionally recommended help catered to your body.
I will not give you my personal opinion on what you should or shouldn't be eating, because I am neither.
This.0 -
i can see myself easily eating this way for a long time
I think you'll feel an energy hit pretty soon. You're 6'4 and exercising (cardio plus 25kilo? dumbbells), while eating like a stable weight sedentary 5'6. Your metabolism will push you. Just pay attention to it.0 -
Op I have seen you post on here that you don't eat above bmr because you will gain, but TDEE is the number that eating above would cause one to gain weight. Bmr and TDEE will be different even if you set your TDEE to not reflect exercise.
Ex. My bmr is just over 1400, now if I then figire my TDEE at sedentary that number is still higher than bmr at around 1750.
Its because of my lifestyle, its EXTREMELY sedentary, my TDEE without exercise would be 2500 roughly using my bmr estimate, if i ate my bmr which is 2200 and did nothing i wouldn't be losing much weight at all, it would take years at that rate, i dont exercise every day i have sunday as a 'rest day' which means i wouldnt even lose a pound a week if i ate my bmr given my lifestyle, thats why i eat below it and exercise to create the deficit i want to lose 2 pounds a week, it works for me.0 -
My doctor also has me eating below my BMR. The online calc's say it is 1900 as I am very overweight and very very very sedentiary. However, my doctor has me eating 1200 calories a day. I have been losing about 3 lbs a week. I don't mind eating so low. I actually have more energy than when I was at 1900 calories. It is a lifestyle I can sustain, whereas 2000 calories was not something I could keep doing for very long.
Just remember that everyone is different. Your doctor knows you better than we do, and better than a generic online calculator so trust in him. As long as you are feeling good and your health is good, I would follow his advice.0 -
I just don't want people going on a VLCD because some dude comes in and thinks the more he writes the more it means. Then backs it up with "I asked a doctor" and "I read alot of stuff".
Lol, I started a ketogenic diet against my medical professional's advice. She said I was gonna gain weight, get dizzy, be lethargic, get bad cholesterol and have a heart attack.
7 months later... 7 months with just thick ribeye steak, juicy pulled pork, fatty chicken drumsticks, some cheese, eggs, bacon and almonds... 7 months with no vegetables, no whole grains, no high fructose corn syrup (but lots of aspartame and splenda!) I had lost 40lbs, had perfect blood pressure and heart rates, and my blood test showed my cholesterol was so low I had to start supplementing with MORE BUTTER.
So yeah. That person trained for a decade in the specialty of treating illnesses had no idea how to make me healthy. Sometimes the people on the internet really are right and the established "fact" is wrong.
In this case, I *have* heard of extremely obese people (like, over 500lb) being put on "fasting diets" where they eat nothing but multivitamins and water every day until they reach a weight where they can support movement on their own. This, of course, has to be medically supervised very often and closely because the patients risk heart attacks, anemia, and deossification. There was even a person who died from lactic adcidosis after losing all the weight and was finally starting to eat food again. One died on the 13th day of the starvation fast from a bowel obstruction.0 -
At first I was going to rant about what your doctor said, but then I read. Two points she made and I agree. One she eats in a caloric range...surprise surprise it's not one magic number it's a variable number based on many factors. Second, I completely agree that one of the best methods to set up your caloric RANGE is to look at your goal weight and base it off of maintenance.
Of course we all know BMR is mutable and changes depending on body condition, illness, body composition ect. There is no accurate way to calculate a BMR all are estimates with some indirect caliorimetry, being better than others. It's all a guess.
Last, nurses dont calculate how much a patient is fed when they are in a coma! Dietitians do and yes at minimal you base it on their BMR or easy method 20kcalxkg. But once again this is variable depending on what diseases the patient has or trauma. You would feed a burn patient or a head trauma at least 30kcal/kg. Pediatrics and neonates is another whole ball game. If they are on propofol which once again can decrease the overall calorie intake. However, on average the goal of a person in a coma is to maintain as much LBM and weight, unless morbidly obese, and prevent skin break down.0 -
Because this thread is extremely high in opinions and extremely low in science:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/fast-weight-loss-changes-hunger-hormones
This study mentioned examines VLCDs. Eating slightly below your BMR like the OP's doing hasn't been studied extensively as far as I know (if it has, links please, I'd love to read), but I'd rather be safe and not risk messing around with my hormones, personally.
Oh, and your comment about women dieting back in the 50s? It was not in style for women to have muscle definition, so who cares if that's what their body chewed up? Personally, no thanks, I like my quads.0 -
i can see myself easily eating this way for a long time
I think you'll feel an energy hit pretty soon. You're 6'4 and exercising (cardio plus 25kilo? dumbbells), while eating like a stable weight sedentary 5'6. Your metabolism will push you. Just pay attention to it.
Well i cant say how ill feel in the future all i can say is how im feeling now and i feel absolutely fine, the more cardio i do the easier its becoming, im performing longer strength training than i was before this diet and im looking far more ripped for doing so, its just comfortable, its not even a case of numbers really im just eating 3 steady healthy meals a day and exercising and its very comfortable, as i say im never at any stage starving hungry in fact today alone all 3 meals i ate when i could easily have not, wasn't 'hungry' so to speak at all.0 -
My doctor also has me eating below my BMR. The online calc's say it is 1900 as I am very overweight and very very very sedentiary. However, my doctor has me eating 1200 calories a day. I have been losing about 3 lbs a week. I don't mind eating so low. I actually have more energy than when I was at 1900 calories. It is a lifestyle I can sustain, whereas 2000 calories was not something I could keep doing for very long.
Just remember that everyone is different. Your doctor knows you better than we do, and better than a generic online calculator so trust in him. As long as you are feeling good and your health is good, I would follow his advice.
There you go, your eating 700 below bmr and thats been medically prescribed, that dosnt mean thats right for everyone but it is for you, just be warned you may be told by certain people on here you going to "turn into a blabbering wreck" "start biting peoples fingers off at random" and "eventually die of starvation"....sorry to be the bringer of bad news
Only kidding ignore these people and best of luck with your weight loss. 0 -
Because this thread is extremely high in opinions and extremely low in science:
http://www.precisionnutrition.com/fast-weight-loss-changes-hunger-hormones
This study mentioned examines VLCDs. Eating slightly below your BMR like the OP's doing hasn't been studied extensively as far as I know (if it has, links please, I'd love to read), but I'd rather be safe and not risk messing around with my hormones, personally.
Oh, and your comment about women dieting back in the 50s? It was not in style for women to have muscle definition, so who cares if that's what their body chewed up? Personally, no thanks, I like my quads.
Right so basically theres no proven studies been done for people who eat slightly below their bmr? so no one knows if its 'oh so very bad your going to die book a hole in the ground time correct'? im not on a VLCD whatever, im not 'starving myself' unless my bodys playing a game of chicken and waiting to surprise me one morning with the hahaha got ya now your dead trick i think id know if i was in starvation mode, im taking a wild guess that id be rather peckish? well im not so its all good.
As for the women in the 50s comments your taking it out of context, my point was they didnt have all these bmr online calculators to tell them what there metabolic rate was, they didnt know what a ruddy TDEE was, they used basic human logic, ie eat less eat cleaner and work out, if some of the stuff on this forum were to be belived no one would ever be anorexic seeing as the body wouldnt allow it, starvation mode would set in and youd just store fat, not lose weight......obviously thats rubbish.
Again ill repeat, christian bale survived 4 months on an apple and a can of tuna a day, i very much doubt he met his bmr level never mind his tdee level, he didnt die he didnt become some mass murderer with a finger fixation he simply ya know lost weight, then when the movie was over he gained it back, didnt seem to do him any harm.0 -
This is Christian Bale pre-Machinist:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm472029184/tt0144084
This is Bale on the Machinist diet:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3843790848/tt0361862
As you can see, he just burned up a bunch of muscle.0 -
I can't remember who said this, but someone was talking about transformations... and they were talking about Jerry from Subway... there is a reason why he keeps his shirt on.
Losing weight =/= better physique
or some people do not have good skin elasticity. that is a poor example.
I gain weight, I get stretch marks,
I lose weight i get stretch marks around my crotch cause the skin is tightening.0 -
At first I was going to rant about what your doctor said, but then I read. Two points she made and I agree. One she eats in a caloric range...surprise surprise it's not one magic number it's a variable number based on many factors. Second, I completely agree that one of the best methods to set up your caloric RANGE is to look at your goal weight and base it off of maintenance.
Of course we all know BMR is mutable and changes depending on body condition, illness, body composition ect. There is no accurate way to calculate a BMR all are estimates with some indirect caliorimetry, being better than others. It's all a guess.
Last, nurses dont calculate how much a patient is fed when they are in a coma! Dietitians do and yes at minimal you base it on their BMR or easy method 20kcalxkg. But once again this is variable depending on what diseases the patient has or trauma. You would feed a burn patient or a head trauma at least 30kcal/kg. Pediatrics and neonates is another whole ball game. If they are on propofol which once again can decrease the overall calorie intake. However, on average the goal of a person in a coma is to maintain as much LBM and weight, unless morbidly obese, and prevent skin break down.
The "It's all a guess" part from above seems to be lost on so many. I have to say I've chuckled a few times reading this thread when someone says "You must eat your BMR or [consequence list]"
Ok so I should consume BMR. Is that Mifflin St Jeor (2364 calories for me)? Pete Townshend says I should have 2563 (I assume that's the same WHO*) Katch-McCardle (2251) maybe? I think I'll go with Harris-Benedict (2664) so I can eat some more during the day.
*This is a joke, please don't explain that WHO is really the World Health Organization and not one of the greatest bands ever.0 -
This is Christian Bale pre-Machinist:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm472029184/tt0144084
This is Bale on the Machinist diet:
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3843790848/tt0361862
As you can see, he just burned up a bunch of muscle.
The links dont work for me? but your comment isnt really in context, for example how much body fat to christian bale have at the time he started the diet? considering hes a movie star and probably worked out like a bodybuilder id say the only thing he probably could lose was muscle, how much fat do you think he had pre diet? secondly the point was that if i or anyone else for that matter came on here and said i was living off an apple and a can of tuna a day with christian bales physique and bmr settings etc what would the responses be??
Your going to go in starvation mode
You will permanently destroy your metabolism
Youll die of starvation
You wont lose weight your body will store it in starvation mode
Youll have this strange urge to go on a mass murdering spree and kill people by finger decapitation
Ok maybe not the last one...:)
etc etc
Its rubbish, its proven rubbish, no one would ever be able to lose weight if this was true, he was just an example i used to make a point, IM NOT saying what he did was healthy, not at all, what im saying is it can be done without a person killing themselves, permanently destroying their metabolism beyond repair or carving up peoples bodily functions as was suggested earlier in this thread, im sure he would have consulted a rather decent nutritionist before going on that diet probably the best out there given his wealth, i doubt that nutritionist was in his ear everyday going "now christian remember you MUST absolutely MUST eat your BMR otherwise bad bad things will happen its on the internet bro"0 -
At first I was going to rant about what your doctor said, but then I read. Two points she made and I agree. One she eats in a caloric range...surprise surprise it's not one magic number it's a variable number based on many factors. Second, I completely agree that one of the best methods to set up your caloric RANGE is to look at your goal weight and base it off of maintenance.
Of course we all know BMR is mutable and changes depending on body condition, illness, body composition ect. There is no accurate way to calculate a BMR all are estimates with some indirect caliorimetry, being better than others. It's all a guess.
Last, nurses dont calculate how much a patient is fed when they are in a coma! Dietitians do and yes at minimal you base it on their BMR or easy method 20kcalxkg. But once again this is variable depending on what diseases the patient has or trauma. You would feed a burn patient or a head trauma at least 30kcal/kg. Pediatrics and neonates is another whole ball game. If they are on propofol which once again can decrease the overall calorie intake. However, on average the goal of a person in a coma is to maintain as much LBM and weight, unless morbidly obese, and prevent skin break down.
The "It's all a guess" part from above seems to be lost on so many. I have to say I've chuckled a few times reading this thread when someone says "You must eat your BMR or [consequence list]"
Ok so I should consume BMR. Is that Mifflin St Jeor (2364 calories for me)? Pete Townshend says I should have 2563 (I assume that's the same WHO*) Katch-McCardle (2251) maybe? I think I'll go with Harris-Benedict (2664) so I can eat some more during the day.
*This is a joke, please don't explain that WHO is really the World Health Organization and not one of the greatest bands ever.
Hahaha quality, and the point ive been trying to make.
People get so caught up in online numbers and feel they have to live their lives of these godlike numbers otherwise they will die or develop some serious illness if they dont, if thats what you want to do its fine ive got no idea if thats 'right' or 'wrong' the truth is there is no right or wrong, which is kinda the point, just because some other 6 feet 4 25 year old guy who weighs the same as me eats a load more dosnt mean i need to, maybe he does more work? (wouldn't be hard) maybe he works out more, maybe hes christian bale!!? the point is 2 people with the same 'stats' could very well require 2 very different diet plans.
Hence all these online calculators really are best for only using as a rough guide, a basic idea of where your at, not a life style dependence.0 -
Man all this talk about Christian Bale! ive got a sudden urge to watch Batman now!0
-
At first I was going to rant about what your doctor said, but then I read. Two points she made and I agree. One she eats in a caloric range...surprise surprise it's not one magic number it's a variable number based on many factors. Second, I completely agree that one of the best methods to set up your caloric RANGE is to look at your goal weight and base it off of maintenance.
Of course we all know BMR is mutable and changes depending on body condition, illness, body composition ect. There is no accurate way to calculate a BMR all are estimates with some indirect caliorimetry, being better than others. It's all a guess.
Last, nurses dont calculate how much a patient is fed when they are in a coma! Dietitians do and yes at minimal you base it on their BMR or easy method 20kcalxkg. But once again this is variable depending on what diseases the patient has or trauma. You would feed a burn patient or a head trauma at least 30kcal/kg. Pediatrics and neonates is another whole ball game. If they are on propofol which once again can decrease the overall calorie intake. However, on average the goal of a person in a coma is to maintain as much LBM and weight, unless morbidly obese, and prevent skin break down.
The "It's all a guess" part from above seems to be lost on so many. I have to say I've chuckled a few times reading this thread when someone says "You must eat your BMR or [consequence list]"
Ok so I should consume BMR. Is that Mifflin St Jeor (2364 calories for me)? Pete Townshend says I should have 2563 (I assume that's the same WHO*) Katch-McCardle (2251) maybe? I think I'll go with Harris-Benedict (2664) so I can eat some more during the day.
*This is a joke, please don't explain that WHO is really the World Health Organization and not one of the greatest bands ever.
I have my bmr professionally tested so I go with that.0 -
Honestly,
I have never seen anyone on these forums at any time say if you eat below or slightly below your BMR disastrous things will happen. You claim that is the message everyone puts out, when that isn't the message at all. Therefore you decide you want to "defend" eating below BMR.
Plenty of people on 1200 cal a day diets...that is below their BMR....plenty of people that eat at BMR...plenty of people that eat above BMR and they ALL lose weight.
The issue I see the most with those that consistently eat below their BMR is that they don't/can't sustain that activity, it becomes too hard for them and they binge...they end up gaining back, and alot of times more than what they've lost. (And alot of them if they've been doing it long enough start to consume muscle mass as well)
Why you see people recommend to eat TDEE -20% is that it puts you in that range that is easily sustainable and still provides adequate healthy weight loss. Fast weight loss is rarely sustainable. Not everyone is the same, and everyone here knows that.
I have a friend on a physician monitored 950 cal diet...but I would never make a post about how that "works" for her, because it is simply dangerous for others to try without the same level of monitored care.
Most people that I've seen on 1200 cal diets, live on it fine for a while, then as they lean out they can't sustain it, and end up upping calories because they simply don't give their bodies the fuel it needs.
I wish you would get off the BMR soapbox...you want to eat under BMR, that's great, have at it.
I happen to like recommending to people to eat at a level that provides weight loss, but doesn't throw them in a major calorie deficit, as I know most people can't and won't be able to sustain that.
Regardless, I wish you success in your weight loss, even though I think you'd lose weight just fine at BMR!0 -
Honestly,
I have never seen anyone on these forums at any time say if you eat below or slightly below your BMR disastrous things will happen. You claim that is the message everyone puts out, when that isn't the message at all. Therefore you decide you want to "defend" eating below BMR.
Plenty of people on 1200 cal a day diets...that is below their BMR....plenty of people that eat at BMR...plenty of people that eat above BMR and they ALL lose weight.
The issue I see the most with those that consistently eat below their BMR is that they don't/can't sustain that activity, it becomes too hard for them and they binge...they end up gaining back, and alot of times more than what they've lost. (And alot of them if they've been doing it long enough start to consume muscle mass as well)
Why you see people recommend to eat TDEE -20% is that it puts you in that range that is easily sustainable and still provides adequate healthy weight loss. Fast weight loss is rarely sustainable. Not everyone is the same, and everyone here knows that.
I have a friend on a physician monitored 950 cal diet...but I would never make a post about how that "works" for her, because it is simply dangerous for others to try without the same level of monitored care.
Most people that I've seen on 1200 cal diets, live on it fine for a while, then as they lean out they can't sustain it, and end up upping calories because they simply don't give their bodies the fuel it needs.
I wish you would get off the BMR soapbox...you want to eat under BMR, that's great, have at it.
I happen to like recommending to people to eat at a level that provides weight loss, but doesn't throw them in a major calorie deficit, as I know most people can't and won't be able to sustain that.
Regardless, I wish you success in your weight loss, even though I think you'd lose weight just fine at BMR!
Ok i think we got off on the wrong foot and i also think your misunderstanding me as well as i was you earlier in this thread, let me clear some things up on my side.
Im really not saying "everyone eat below bmr its fine its great im doing it you should" NO, im not saying this at all, im saying this is at the moment at least working fine FOR ME, and a doctor as told me its fine, i think where were getting confused here is your interpreting that as me saying its great everyone eat below bmr, im honestly not, my post have become a tad more sarcastic as the night has gone on because ive been accused of doing this and its annoying when im really not, my point from the very beginning was its not bad to eat below bmr its not the death zone SOME make it out to be and yes some do read through this thread if you like, im saying some can maybe some cant, i have no idea im not a nutritionist i dont claim to be anything of the sort, all i can and am doing is passing on what im doing and how im doing it, thats all nothing more nothing less.
As for the ability to sustain it, yes i understand this, but again thats not the same for everybody, im more than content eating between 1600-2000 cals a day, i dont at any stage feel hungry or without enegery, it feels fine FOR ME, i cant predict how ill feel down the line but all i can say as of now is i dont see any reason why id want to binge once id lost my goal weight, simply because i dont feel like im dieting if that makes sense, i dont feel like im begrudging myself food, i feel good, i eat when i want and i dont when i dont have any need or requirement to, if i end any given day on 1500 calories for example and im in bed im not going to go "oh crap i need more calories i havnt eaten *insert number here* and then proceed to raid the fridge to satisfy a number if im feeling perfectly fine ie not hungry, that to me seems pointless.
I dont WANT to eat under my bmr, theres no WANT about it, i want to eat what feels comfortable for me, and i fit that into a weightloss diet that gives me a 1000 2 pound a week deficit, i dont think of food as a number, my body will tell me if im underrating the old fashioned way by moaning like a you know what until i do, i dont need a calculator to tell me when im hungry.
Anyway i hope weve kind of started to understand ech others respective positions here and i appreciate the last comment, and i wish you the same.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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