Is sugar addiction real?
Replies
-
Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:
Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.
The problem with sugar addiction-or any other type of food addiction-is that it can be totally shared WITH your children, and will teach them horrible habits. As a food addict myself, let me tell you, it's really not easy to deal with...at all. The kids won't go hungry, but it's really easy to use kids as the reason to get food, to go out to eat, to buy and eat an entire tub of ice cream in a night (or cupcake frosting). You show your kids that it's okay to eat that way, and the cycle repeats itself. So honestly, I'd say it's worse than a crack addiction because you're actually doing it in front of your kids and showing them that this is the way to be. It's a struggle...and not a joke.
No one is arguing whether people have horrible eating habits, struggle or binge with food, or emotionally eat, and that these behaviors can be very damaging. The argument has to do with whether the bad habit rises to the level of addiction. As for your assertion that your food issues are "worse than a crack addiction" I have to tell you that this is exactly why several of us, myself included, are so heavily against these ridiculous claims. Crack, or for that matter, cocaine in general, is no joke and it destroys addicts' families and children as well as the addict. I mean this with all compassion, but grow up.
Edit: typo0 -
dr oz is a cardiologist, too.
Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.
I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.
I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?0 -
I would say yes. I am addicted to sugar, to the point that I get extremely cranky if I don't get it. My husband has actually gone to the store, bought chocolate for me and then practically thrown it at me when he got home because I was such a bear!
I'm the type of person that will sit and eat 1/2 a bag of Hershey's Hugs. My daughter bought me a huge box of chocolates for Mother's Day. I ate it all in less than two weeks. I will usually eat chocolate until I feel sick. I don't do it because I'm feeling depressed or stressed or anything like that, I do it because I want chocolate and I want a lot of it!
So my short answer is a very definite YES, you can get addicted to sugar!
This could be me. Totally addicted to sugar.0 -
dr oz is a cardiologist, too.
Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.
I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.
I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?
If you do your research, sure, why not?0 -
In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats
I don't understand what this comment means?
It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:
So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?
I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.
The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.
waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:
You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.
As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.
You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"
I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.
I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.
If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.
Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?
Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.
Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.
There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft
Oh the ones you've yet to produce?
Find them yourself, they're out there. I'm not your gopher. I read three the other day. If you can't find them, then maybe it's because you don't want to??
Burden of proof is on the claim maker...0 -
In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats
I don't understand what this comment means?
It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:
So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?
I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.
The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.
waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:
You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.
As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.
You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"
I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.
I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.
If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.
Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?
Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.
Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.
There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft
Oh the ones you've yet to produce?
Find them yourself, they're out there. I'm not your gopher. I read three the other day. If you can't find them, then maybe it's because you don't want to??
You really don't understand burden of proof at all, do you?0 -
Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:
Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.
^ This. It's about time people stop using terms like "addicted" because they have self control issues.
This is kind of an idiotic statement. It takes self control to beat any addiction.0 -
dr oz is a cardiologist, too.
Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.
I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.
I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?
If you do your research, sure, why not?
of course. but to just accept it blindly -- because he's a doctor! -- isn't good enough.
(and even if research is done, that doesn't necessarily make one an expert in a field.)0 -
In for answers on the diagnostic criteria for "sugar addiction" and proof that doesn't involve rats
I don't understand what this comment means?
It means someone likes to argue......and YES, sugar addiction is real.......says about 98% of humans, not rats......seems you are once again outnumbered :laugh: :laugh:
So approx 7 billion people agree that sugar addiction is real? You'd think if that was the case there would be pretty clear and uniform diagnostic criteria for it. Does health insurance typically cover sugar addiction treatment or is there a premier rehab clinic for sugar addiction?
I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others......but again I ask you, where's your proof? Since you are so opinionated on the subject......got anything to back it up other than your opinion? And the health insurance thing......there is a lot they don't cover, doesn't mean the person's health issue isn't real.
The burden of proof is on the claim maker, so still awaiting you to present your evidence of it's existence. So far we've gotten anecdotal evidence and studies on rats.
waiting.....................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz........that's what I thought. :noway:
You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated.
As I said, so far I've only seen you post your opinion about sugar addiction but nothing to back it up. Just proof, plain and simple.......and per your self-imposed rules; no rats, please.
You'll have to please quote what claim you want substantiated. And to quote you "I realize you want to throw the burden of proof on others"
I don't necessarily want to throw the burden of proof on others,.........I'm just tired of hearing others opinions vs what scientists have shown to be true. You may not accept it as proof but the medical community does and in MY OPINION that is more than good enough for me. As far as quoting what I want substantiated, it's more your opinion......that's the point. You've never, to my knowledge offered a 'REAL" claim based on anything other than your opinion. And while I'm asking, I would love to know what degrees you hold that back up your opinion. My opinion is not based on me but on the work of respected professors and scientists, which makes it fact not opinion.
I don't think you know what the word fact actually means in the context of this discussion. As for the medical profession accepting it as proof, you'll have to enlighten me why things like sugar addiction are not being included in the new DSM V, if it was a "fact" you'd think it would be included, if not there, you'd think there'd be some mention of it while searching the NIH website or other similar websites. At the very least if it was a fact, you'd think there'd be some universally accepted diagnostic criteria for such an ailment.
If i've never claimed anything in this debate, I fail to see what you want me to substantiate. You are the one making claims left and right, but fail to substantiate any of them.
Is it your opinion "sugar addicts" cannot have sugar in moderation and if so what amount quantifies as moderation?
Of course I know what context it's being used. And I think you know exactly what I want you to substantiate but you can't so you keep trying to throw it back to me. We've had this conversation before and I've given you the studies and you refuse to accept them because of the rats. Once again, rats have been used and will continue to be used in studies in relation to humans. Do you know better than the scientists? Still waiting on your degrees too, btw.
Rat studies are useful only insofar as they are hypothesis-generating. No scientist worth his/her salt would make claims about humans based solely on animal models.
There were brain scans on humans too but of course those aren't good enough either........pffft
Oh the ones you've yet to produce?
Find them yourself, they're out there. I'm not your gopher. I read three the other day. If you can't find them, then maybe it's because you don't want to??
You really don't understand burden of proof at all, do you?
Actually, I do. You really don't understand I'm not your gopher either do you?0 -
Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:
Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.
The problem with sugar addiction-or any other type of food addiction-is that it can be totally shared WITH your children, and will teach them horrible habits. As a food addict myself, let me tell you, it's really not easy to deal with...at all. The kids won't go hungry, but it's really easy to use kids as the reason to get food, to go out to eat, to buy and eat an entire tub of ice cream in a night (or cupcake frosting). You show your kids that it's okay to eat that way, and the cycle repeats itself. So honestly, I'd say it's worse than a crack addiction because you're actually doing it in front of your kids and showing them that this is the way to be. It's a struggle...and not a joke.
No one is arguing whether people have horrible eating habits, struggle or binge with food, or emotionally eat, and that these behaviors can be very damaging. The argument has to do with whether the bad habit rises to the level of addiction. As for your assertion that your food issues are "worse than a crack addiction" I have to tell you that this is exactly why several of us, myself included, are so heavily against these ridiculous claims. Crack, or for that matter, cocaine in general, is no joke and it destroys addicts' families and children as well as the addict. I mean this with all compassion, but grow up.
Edit: typo
Unless you've had to deal with it yourself, or had to go through treatment for it, then you have no idea what you're talking about. I have my opinion, and you have yours. Deal with it, and grow up yourself, darlin'.0 -
dr oz is a cardiologist, too.
Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.
I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.
I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?
If you do your research, sure, why not?
That is a very casual attitude about very complicated matters, and while it is common among the general public it does not go over well in professional circles.0 -
Sugar is very addicting, and very bad for you unless you are getting it in a natural state. Very unhealthy to eat.0
-
Yes ! As bad an addiction as crack cocaine! Speaking from experience :sad:
Please tell me more about the last time your children went hungry because you spent all your money on cupcake frosting.
The problem with sugar addiction-or any other type of food addiction-is that it can be totally shared WITH your children, and will teach them horrible habits. As a food addict myself, let me tell you, it's really not easy to deal with...at all. The kids won't go hungry, but it's really easy to use kids as the reason to get food, to go out to eat, to buy and eat an entire tub of ice cream in a night (or cupcake frosting). You show your kids that it's okay to eat that way, and the cycle repeats itself. So honestly, I'd say it's worse than a crack addiction because you're actually doing it in front of your kids and showing them that this is the way to be. It's a struggle...and not a joke.
No one is arguing whether people have horrible eating habits, struggle or binge with food, or emotionally eat, and that these behaviors can be very damaging. The argument has to do with whether the bad habit rises to the level of addiction. As for your assertion that your food issues are "worse than a crack addiction" I have to tell you that this is exactly why several of us, myself included, are so heavily against these ridiculous claims. Crack, or for that matter, cocaine in general, is no joke and it destroys addicts' families and children as well as the addict. I mean this with all compassion, but grow up.
Edit: typo
Unless you've had to deal with it yourself, or had to go through treatment for it, then you have no idea what you're talking about. I have my opinion, and you have yours. Deal with it, and grow up yourself, darlin'.
I'm related to and have been around a number of real addicts as well as one who claims to have a sugar addiction. The sugar addict is the most clueless one of the bunch and has no intention of changing. It's an excuse for further bad behavior. So yes, I speak from experience. And yes, your claims are ludicrous.0 -
dr oz is a cardiologist, too.
Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.
I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.
I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?
If you do your research, sure, why not?
That is a very casual attitude about very complicated matters, and while it is common among the general public it does not go over well in professional circles.
right.
even if research is done, that doesn't necessarily make one an expert in a field. I once researched the hell out of breast feeding, for example. actually wrote a really strong Sunday feature on the benefits for both mom and baby, covered multiple angles ... one would think I was an expert in the field by reading that story. I'm not. at all.0 -
dr oz is a cardiologist, too.
Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.
I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.
I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?
If you do your research, sure, why not?
That is a very casual attitude about very complicated matters, and while it is common among the general public it does not go over well in professional circles.
Not casual at all. All people learn the same way in all circles; memory, studying and repetition.0 -
Have you ever prostituted yourself to go buy a dime bag of Ores? If not then you are not even lose to addicted. Have you ever stolen from someone to go buy Sees candy? Sorry your not an addict.
In the past, I've fvcked guys from Craigslist to get weed for free. Even though weed supposedly isn't addictive either. But it certainly wasn't about the sex. Oh, and I've definitely stolen candy before. So what does that make me?
People get all hung up on the definition of addiction, when really, addictions are mostly psychological and based off of habits and routines. Just because you don't suffer withdrawal symptoms as intense as from narcotics doesn't mean withdrawal doesn't exist. ANY substance that is repeatedly in your system on a daily basis is going to result in SOME form of withdrawal when that substance is suddenly absent-- mood swings, irritability, inability to sleep, etc.
The "high", or pleasant feeling, I get from chowing down a huge bowl of ice cream is just about as effective and immediate as the high I get from smoking a bowl. And both leave me feeling just about equally crappy a few hours later.
Just because there are varying scales of withdrawal doesn't mean addiction can't exist on less intense levels than heroin, cocaine, etc.
TL;DR stop acting as if hard drugs are the only things a person can get addicted to. It's psychological just as much as physiological! That is all.0 -
What have I learned in this thread? That a lot of threads end up dominated by two or three people hammering each other. And that twenty-level quotes within quotes within quotes can be kind of pretty looking, but that doesn't make this whole exchange any less tiresome.0
-
People, an addiction is an addiction the substance of abuse is irrelevant. As an addict, I sunk to that low depth where I couldn't crawl out on my own. I can easily slip into that old addictive pattern at any time. I realized there was a problem when I would lie, hide, and steal to get my substance of choice and I was slowly killing myself and hurting my family just to get my fix. To argue apples or oranges is irrelevant. If someone feels they have a problem with addiction then it is our job to reach out to that person and suggest they get professional counseling.0
-
What have I learned in this thread? That a lot of threads end up dominated by two or three people hammering each other. And that twenty-level quotes within quotes within quotes can be kind of pretty looking, but that doesn't make this whole exchange any less tiresome.
You forgot the part where the people that argue with one another insist-- over and over-- that they didn't come here to argue.
0 -
dr oz is a cardiologist, too.
Are you implying that cardiologists (in general) are wrong...bad...irresponsible? Because that's too much of a generalization for me. If you haven't read the book, don't imply anything about the author. Thanks.
I'm implying that just because he's an expert in one area doesn't mean he's an expert in another -- as dr oz proves time and time again.
I'm a damn good sports reporter/writer/editor/journalist. for this reason, I should be able to write a trustworthy book on, say, war-time correspondence. right?
If you do your research, sure, why not?
That is a very casual attitude about very complicated matters, and while it is common among the general public it does not go over well in professional circles.
right.
even if research is done, that doesn't necessarily make one an expert in a field. I once researched the hell out of breast feeding, for example. actually wrote a really strong Sunday feature on the benefits for both mom and baby, covered multiple angles ... one would think I was an expert in the field by reading that story. I'm not. at all.
Wait......wasn't there a movie where this guy strapped on a replica of a woman's breast with milk for the purpose of breast feeding? It can be done. I have faith.0 -
IDK, but theres' definitely something to it. When I used to do a low carb diet that required quitting sugar completely it wasn't easy. Then once "clean" off the sugar, it was like if I had too much in the form of a simple sugar like cookie, cake, whatnot, it started me craving sugary foods and carbs in general. So to my mind, it's some kind of a trigger for wanting more of itself, so unsure what to call it but an addiction sounds close. Although I know addiction is the topic of the day, and so I hesitate to say it since I know some people are up in arms about the misuse of the word.
For sure though too much sugar makes you want more. That I know.
I beilieve that sugar is addictive, moreover, add wheat to sugar and you're hooked! You can't stop eating...or I can't when I've combined them in the past...bowls of sweetened cereal, cookies, cakes, donuts...couldn't stop til they were all gone...and then I'd crave some more. I read Wheat Belly last December, and it clicked. I stopped eating grains (and also sugar) and I honestly don't want them at all...I don't even think about them anymore.
Congrats! I've been thinking about reading that too. I'm practicing 80/20 primal. I've done it before and felt so much better.
Thanks! Wheat Belly's author is a well respected cardiologist, so the book is factual. I think you'd enjoy it and definitely learn some interesting things. I know many MFP members criticize low carb, but it's what works for me...and others as well. We all individually have to find what works for us, and then Do It.
Pls stop, the book is factual since he is a cardiologist? Did you do any other research on the subject, free of confirmation bias? Here let me help
Fast forward to the last min or so if you don't want to watch the whole thing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ucxeiyjpg
Also
http://noglutennoproblem.blogspot.com/2012/03/wheat-belly-busted.html
Since apparently, You Haven't Read The Book...only watched the videos...how do you know if it's factual or NOT? Obviously we disagree about this. Good luck with your opinions, I'll keep mine as well, thanks.0 -
What have I learned in this thread? That a lot of threads end up dominated by two or three people hammering each other. And that twenty-level quotes within quotes within quotes can be kind of pretty looking, but that doesn't make this whole exchange any less tiresome.
I'm in awe of the quote upon quote upon quote phenomenon as well. These people are pretty stubborn. Looks like they need to take up political and religious subjects next. 0 -
People, an addiction is an addiction the substance of abuse is irrelevant. As an addict, I sunk to that low depth where I couldn't crawl out on my own. I can easily slip into that old addictive pattern at any time. I realized there was a problem when I would lie, hide, and steal to get my substance of choice and I was slowly killing myself and hurting my family just to get my fix. To argue apples or oranges is irrelevant. If someone feels they have a problem with addiction then it is our job to reach out to that person and suggest they get professional counseling.
See, that's the smartest advice, period and my whole point exactly. Why lay a burden of proof on someone that is experiencing an addiction instead of offering help.0 -
You really don't understand burden of proof at all, do you?
Actually, I do. You really don't understand I'm not your gopher either do you?
DA: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I have irrefutable evidence that the defendant is guilty of this heinous crime.
PD: Would counsel be so kind as to provide this evidence?
DA: I'm not your gopher, find it yourself.
Sounds legit.0 -
Dear Posters,
I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread.
The forum guidelines include this item:
1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation
a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.
b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.
If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.
With respect,
Olivia
MyFitnessPal Community Manager0
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