Foods aren't unhealthy, diets are.
Replies
-
A lot of people look at a single food and make quickly designate that food as either healthy or unhealthy. Their definitions range the gamut. Does it have a lot of sugar or better yet added sugar? Does it have a lot of fat? Is it calorically dense while simultaneously nutrient sparse? Is it processed? Does it contain more than five ingredients? The list goes on.
If those criteria define a food as unhealthy, that would mean that if you eat it, you will be unhealthy. After all, if it's unhealthy wouldn't it, by the nature of its definition, make the person that eats it unhealthy? That doesn't seem to be the case. With the exception of individuals with medical reasons to avoid certain foods, people are able to eat those foods while maintaining a clean bill of health immediately after consumption, a day after consumption, a week after consumption, a year after consumption and even a decade after consumption.
'But if they eat enough of it, they'll be unhealthy!' you say. In a sense, that's true and leads me to my final point.
If a person eats nothing but pop tarts, his diet (the sum total of foods he consumes over a period of time) will not be healthy. The same can be said for any food, even foods that are classically seen as healthy. Take broccoli for example. No one ever claims that broccoli is an unhealthy food. It's filled with vitamins and minerals that the human body can use to help it function properly. However, a diet that consisted of nothing but broccoli would be unhealthy because it alone cannot support the human body and its needs.
It's the diet as whole that matters, the sum of its parts, not parts by themselves. It's myopic to look at single foods and put a health label on it. It's the bigger picture that has to be the focus if health is goal. A diet that satisfies the bodies needs for calories (neither too far over nor too far under), protein, carbs, fats and the vital micro nutrients is healthy whether it contains the occasional processed, sugar added chocolate chip cookie or not.
Healthy diets make healthy people, not healthy foods.
I love this post!!0 -
Just for clarity:
junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.
is is an accepted term.
From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar
Full Definition of JUNK FOOD
1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>
It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.
Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead
Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like what happens when people refuse to accept a common and well known term or terms.
Also known as the get your stupid facts out of my reality distortion field argument.
Oh good, the guy that doesn't have meaning rebuttals and adds nothing to the debate. Plenty of people here have disagreed with my premise (tennisdude and others) and that's great. They engaged in an exchange of ideas while you seem incapable of doing so. Thanks for stopping by.0 -
Just for clarity:
junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.
is is an accepted term.
From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar
Full Definition of JUNK FOOD
1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>
It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.
Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead
Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like what happens when people refuse to accept a common and well known term or terms.
Also known as the get your stupid facts out of my reality distortion field argument.
Oh good, the guy that doesn't have meaning rebuttals and adds nothing to the debate. Plenty of people here have disagreed with my premise (tennisdude and others) and that's great. They engaged in an exchange of ideas while you seem incapable of doing so. Thanks for stopping by.
Well I'm not sure what meaningful debate can be had if all you're going to do is deny the existance of anything that doesn't fit into your little manufactured world. ____ don't real! Only feels! is a real good argument tactic if you're on Tumblr, but otherwise it's just silly.
For your next trick will you be denying the existance of Canada? I've always been skeptical myself.0 -
Just for clarity:
junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.
is is an accepted term.
From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar
Full Definition of JUNK FOOD
1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>
It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.
Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead
Interesting. Sounds an awful lot like what happens when people refuse to accept a common and well known term or terms.
Also known as the get your stupid facts out of my reality distortion field argument.
Oh good, the guy that doesn't have meaning rebuttals and adds nothing to the debate. Plenty of people here have disagreed with my premise (tennisdude and others) and that's great. They engaged in an exchange of ideas while you seem incapable of doing so. Thanks for stopping by.
Well I'm not sure what meaningful debate can be had if all you're going to do is deny the existance of anything that doesn't fit into your little manufactured world. ____ don't real! Only feels! is a real good argument tactic if you're on Tumblr, but otherwise it's just silly.
For your next trick will you be denying the existance of Canada? I've always been skeptical myself.
Again, thanks for stopping by.0 -
Just for clarity:
junk food
noun
food that has low nutritional value, typically produced in the form of packaged snacks needing little or no preparation.
is is an accepted term.
From merriam webster:
junk food noun
: food that is not good for your health because it contains high amounts of fat or sugar
Full Definition of JUNK FOOD
1
: food that is high in calories but low in nutritional content
2
: something that is appealing or enjoyable but of little or no real value <video junk food>
It shouldn't be an accepted term. Just because it's in the dictionary, doesn't mean it should have a place in the nutrition debate. In fact, it's unwise to do so. It's called semantic infiltration. When a skillful or persistent semanticist can persuade an opponent to accept his/her terms of debate, the opponent knowingly or unknowingly adopts those distortions and by extension, adopts the perception of that term. In this case, it's distorting the idea of the relative value of different foods by using unhelpful terms like "junk" or "unhealthy". If we accept those definitions and use them, then we are admitting that a food with no negative effects on the diet as a whole, is still in some way going to have a negative impact on an otherwise healthy person.
Semantic infiltration: the systematic distortion of meaning of certain words to confuse or mislead
If that is the case then we can call any term into question. Pink. Why is that pink?: I say it's green. The pink ball is now green because i reject your representation of the color pink.
For this debate specifically. I do not think the term "junk food" is unhelpful. By and large American are sorely uneducated about nutrition. Strictly speaking broccoli is a better choice over snack cakes. Simple labels makes it easy for a typical person to say "I want to eat better so I will avoid junk food" You can't argue that eating a bunch of foods that would fall under the term "junk food" is healthier or better for you then eating a bunch of foods that do not fall under this heading. Id' be hard pressed to eat a healthy, balanced diet that was comprised even half way of junk food.0 -
Breaking news JoRocka,
When you are doing keto - your brain is not using 130g of glucose! It will probably only be using about 30g and the rest ketones (and if available lactose).
you are tripping around the point by trying to drown it out with tiny details to obscure your first initial- huge broad paintbrush of a point.
carb = macro nutrient= you said NONE ESSENTIAL.
YOU NEED them to survive. YOU NEED a form of carb to survive. I am honestly not sure how this point could be made ANY more clear.
Actually not to nitpick this but carbs are not an essential nutrient in the sense that the body can manufacture its own glucose when it has too. IMO this is not optimal but it can none the less.0 -
Clearly the problem is that some people are unaware that proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are nutrients. (Either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge)0
-
Clearly the problem is that some people are unaware that proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are nutrients. (Either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge)
It's also pretty clear that the term "essential" is not fully understood...0 -
Strictly speaking broccoli is a better choice over snack cakes.
...Not if you've already eaten a plate of broccoli. Too much broccoli can cause flatulence and/or gas pains. I absolutely LOVE broccoli, but I have to eat it in moderation, the same as everything else.
This is the inherent problem in declaring food as "healthy" or "junk." EVERYthing we eat is relevant to our lifestyle and to everything ELSE we eat. We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.0 -
This is the inherent problem in declaring food as "healthy" or "junk." EVERYthing we eat is relevant to our lifestyle and to everything ELSE we eat. We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.
^^^This...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Breaking news JoRocka,
When you are doing keto - your brain is not using 130g of glucose! It will probably only be using about 30g and the rest ketones (and if available lactose).
you are tripping around the point by trying to drown it out with tiny details to obscure your first initial- huge broad paintbrush of a point.
carb = macro nutrient= you said NONE ESSENTIAL.
YOU NEED them to survive. YOU NEED a form of carb to survive. I am honestly not sure how this point could be made ANY more clear.
Actually not to nitpick this but carbs are not an essential nutrient in the sense that the body can manufacture its own glucose when it has too. IMO this is not optimal but it can none the less.
I get that. I get keto- and that you can survive off your body processing protein for your brain to keep functioning (I won't say live because from what I have researched- uber low carb diets with rigorous testing has shown a decline in performance out put at the end of the test that involved low carbs compared to counterparts with med/high quantities) but yes you can survive.
Being said: I still haven't seen a single person who says "carbs aren't essential" who isn't consuming significant quantities of vegetables.
I guess that's my biggest beef- people are saying you don't need it- and it's not that big of a deal to cut it out- when they aren't cutting it out at all- veggies have a TON of carbs in them- just not 'potatoe/grain/pasta' carbs.
You can't just make a blanket statement about something like that and turn around and say - oh well that doesn't count because it's a veggie.We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.
well duh- that's because if we ate food in a vacuum it would be dirty!!!0 -
This thread needs more animated GIF's please.0
-
Breaking news JoRocka,
When you are doing keto - your brain is not using 130g of glucose! It will probably only be using about 30g and the rest ketones (and if available lactose).
you are tripping around the point by trying to drown it out with tiny details to obscure your first initial- huge broad paintbrush of a point.
carb = macro nutrient= you said NONE ESSENTIAL.
YOU NEED them to survive. YOU NEED a form of carb to survive. I am honestly not sure how this point could be made ANY more clear.
Actually not to nitpick this but carbs are not an essential nutrient in the sense that the body can manufacture its own glucose when it has too. IMO this is not optimal but it can none the less.
I get that. I get keto- and that you can survive off your body processing protein for your brain to keep functioning (I won't say live because from what I have researched- uber low carb diets with rigorous testing has shown a decline in performance out put at the end of the test that involved low carbs compared to counterparts with med/high quantities) but yes you can survive.
Being said: I still haven't seen a single person who says "carbs aren't essential" who isn't consuming significant quantities of vegetables.
I guess that's my biggest beef- people are saying you don't need it- and it's not that big of a deal to cut it out- when they aren't cutting it out at all- veggies have a TON of carbs in them- just not 'potatoe/grain/pasta' carbs.
You can't just make a blanket statement about something like that and turn around and say - oh well that doesn't count because it's a veggie.We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.
well duh- that's because if we ate food in a vacuum it would be dirty!!!
I'm with you...0 -
It certainly wouldn't be optimal but it is possible to build muscle on a low carb or keto diet.
I agree some level of carbs (based on individuals goals) is optimal, but for survival not essential.
Some level of carbs would include the micro-nutrient rich foods known as vegetables and fruits! Avoiding those makes it difficult to have a healthy diet.
Also? I kinda like being able to poop on a regular basis.0 -
Breaking news JoRocka,
When you are doing keto - your brain is not using 130g of glucose! It will probably only be using about 30g and the rest ketones (and if available lactose).
you are tripping around the point by trying to drown it out with tiny details to obscure your first initial- huge broad paintbrush of a point.
carb = macro nutrient= you said NONE ESSENTIAL.
YOU NEED them to survive. YOU NEED a form of carb to survive. I am honestly not sure how this point could be made ANY more clear.
Actually not to nitpick this but carbs are not an essential nutrient in the sense that the body can manufacture its own glucose when it has too. IMO this is not optimal but it can none the less.
I get that. I get keto- and that you can survive off your body processing protein for your brain to keep functioning (I won't say live because from what I have researched- uber low carb diets with rigorous testing has shown a decline in performance out put at the end of the test that involved low carbs compared to counterparts with med/high quantities) but yes you can survive.
Being said: I still haven't seen a single person who says "carbs aren't essential" who isn't consuming significant quantities of vegetables.
I guess that's my biggest beef- people are saying you don't need it- and it's not that big of a deal to cut it out- when they aren't cutting it out at all- veggies have a TON of carbs in them- just not 'potatoe/grain/pasta' carbs.
You can't just make a blanket statement about something like that and turn around and say - oh well that doesn't count because it's a veggie.
I think you missed part of the discussion here. No one was arguing in favour of eating 0 carbs - the ones pointing out that strictly speaking carbs aren't essential and that a human could live (however sub-optimally) without any carbs said they ate carbs and that they believed some carb intake was preferable, specifically mentioning vegetables for instance. They're not saying that eating vegetables doesn't count as eating carbs - you mixed up parts of their argument.
I don't think you disagree at all here actually - you also acknowledge carbs are non-essential for human survival, but that it's probably better to have at least some, like veggies.0 -
I guess that's my biggest beef- people are saying you don't need it- and it's not that big of a deal to cut it out- when they aren't cutting it out at all- veggies have a TON of carbs in them
The ones I eat are mainly less than 5% so if I eat a pound a day that's under 25 grams. (Excluding fibre).0 -
Strictly speaking broccoli is a better choice over snack cakes.
...Not if you've already eaten a plate of broccoli. Too much broccoli can cause flatulence and/or gas pains. I absolutely LOVE broccoli, but I have to eat it in moderation, the same as everything else.
This is the inherent problem in declaring food as "healthy" or "junk." EVERYthing we eat is relevant to our lifestyle and to everything ELSE we eat. We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.
Right.. and there are about a million other "what if" scenarios you can throw out there to prove or disprove any part of what I said based no your personal opinion and vica versa.
The point being.. junk food is what it is.. if it fits into *your* diet, then good for you. it is still junk food by definition. Personally? I'd choose broccoli over the snack cake every time and if I get bored of broccoli i'd eat chicken breast over a snack cake. But you are free to do what you want. That doesn't change the category a food fall into.0 -
Clearly the problem is that some people are unaware that proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are nutrients. (Either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge)
Actually the definitions of junk food usually refer to nutritional value, not the presence of nutrients, and those are slightly different concepts. Nutritional value tends to relate more to it's value in giving you a nutritious diet, whereas nutrient is simply a scientific concept for basically any food matter. Nutritional value is relative to other foods' nutritional values, so something that has little nutritional value is a food that, compared to other foods, offers you little by way of nutrients or help towards a nutritious diet. AKA, junk food. Most of which will contain things like carbs, fat, sugar, sodium, and not much else that's helpful to you. Compared to say a vegetable that will have a bunch of stuff that's good for you.
This is all really a useless discussion; junk food is an accepted term in the English West - that's a fact. Whether you personally find it useful when discussion nutrition is another matter, and is really about personal preference and perception.0 -
It certainly wouldn't be optimal but it is possible to build muscle on a low carb or keto diet.
I agree some level of carbs (based on individuals goals) is optimal, but for survival not essential.
Some level of carbs would include the micro-nutrient rich foods known as vegetables and fruits! Avoiding those makes it difficult to have a healthy diet.
Also? I kinda like being able to poop on a regular basis.
Regularity is a good thing! :drinker:We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.
well duh- that's because if we ate food in a vacuum it would be dirty!!!
Do you have peer-reviewed research to prove that? :laugh:0 -
My diet is very healthy...
...and also contains a lot of what some of you would call "junk food".
Now, what are we arguing here?0 -
I think you missed part of the discussion here. No one was arguing in favour of eating 0 carbs - the ones pointing out that strictly speaking carbs aren't essential and that a human could live (however sub-optimally) without any carbs said they ate carbs and that they believed some carb intake was preferable, specifically mentioning vegetables for instance. They're not saying that eating vegetables doesn't count as eating carbs - you mixed up parts of their argument.
I don't think you disagree at all here actually - you also acknowledge carbs are non-essential for human survival, but that it's probably better to have at least some, like veggies.
What I'm missing is how you can say something is not essential (essential, necessary- a requirement- think's don't happen without it meaning- like air- is essential- I cannot continue to function with out it)... but but then say no - you are just getting it from somewhere else.
Either you can live without carbs or you cannot.
The reality is - you can't.
You NEED a form of carb- I don't care if you get them from veggies or potatoes or ice cream. I've never seen/heard of anyone successfully having an actual legitmate ZERO carb diet.
You may not need very much- but an actual true zero carb diet isn't sustainable. Unless you eat straight meats I'm just not seeing how it's going to happen- Inuits being something that pops to mind- but as far as I remember- they aren't a 70/30/0 diet or any split that has a zero for carbs.
Now. If someone can please point me to a study showing otherwise I'd be happy to read it.
also reading up on this is making me effing head hurt
seriously? no carb- but whole grain is okay? This is precisely why this whole conversation is annoying and frustrating. Just because it isn't starchy doesn't mean it's not a carb.I do think it’s healthy to cut out refined sugars (simple carbs) almost completely from your diet, though. In my opinion, that is my definition of the healthy “no-carb” diet, since no one really counts fruits, veggies, and milk as “carbs”.
But, let’s not forget how healthy whole-grain carbs are! Maybe that’s another post…
people make my head want to seriously explode. All over my computer desk.0 -
I guess that's my biggest beef- people are saying you don't need it- and it's not that big of a deal to cut it out- when they aren't cutting it out at all- veggies have a TON of carbs in them
The ones I eat are mainly less than 5% so if I eat a pound a day that's under 25 grams. (Excluding fibre).
25 =/= 0
you are not eating a zero carb diet- that's just low carb.
this. this makes me crazy. Yes- I'm a nerd and yes it annoys me. Zero is zero.
not 1
not 10
not 15
not 25
not under 40.
zero is zero.0 -
Clearly the problem is that some people are unaware that proteins, fats, and carbohydrates are nutrients. (Either unaware, or unwilling to acknowledge)
Actually the definitions of junk food usually refer to nutritional value, not the presence of nutrients, and those are slightly different concepts.
Nutrients *have* value. This statement makes no sense. It implies that either some nutrients are more valuable than others, or that some nutrients are not valuable.0 -
Most of which will contain things like carbs, fat, sugar, sodium, and not much else that's helpful to you. Compared to say a vegetable that will have a bunch of stuff that's good for you.
Again, this is nonsense. Carbs and fats are two of the three main nutrients. Sugar is a *type* of carb, a subset. Most vegetables contain no fats at all, so it is *very* relevant in context, but completely irrelevant to compare one food to another.0 -
Strictly speaking broccoli is a better choice over snack cakes.
...Not if you've already eaten a plate of broccoli. Too much broccoli can cause flatulence and/or gas pains. I absolutely LOVE broccoli, but I have to eat it in moderation, the same as everything else.
This is the inherent problem in declaring food as "healthy" or "junk." EVERYthing we eat is relevant to our lifestyle and to everything ELSE we eat. We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.
Right.. and there are about a million other "what if" scenarios you can throw out there to prove or disprove any part of what I said based no your personal opinion and vica versa.
The point being.. junk food is what it is.. if it fits into *your* diet, then good for you. it is still junk food by definition. Personally? I'd choose broccoli over the snack cake every time and if I get bored of broccoli i'd eat chicken breast over a snack cake. But you are free to do what you want. That doesn't change the category a food fall into.
Which is why the context of the overall diet is crucial to deciding whether or not a particular food item is beneficial. Every day we each face these scenarios and make choices several times per day. Grabbing one of those choices and making it the end-all-beat-all decision for your health is ludicrous.0 -
Snack cakes over broccoli every time.Strictly speaking broccoli is a better choice over snack cakes.
...Not if you've already eaten a plate of broccoli. Too much broccoli can cause flatulence and/or gas pains. I absolutely LOVE broccoli, but I have to eat it in moderation, the same as everything else.
This is the inherent problem in declaring food as "healthy" or "junk." EVERYthing we eat is relevant to our lifestyle and to everything ELSE we eat. We do not eat single food items in a vacuum.
Meh...
I don't want snack cakes in my stir fry. Blech! :laugh:0 -
That doesn't change the category a food fall into.
chicken = protein with a bit of fat (unless it's fried)
broccoli = carbs
snack cakes = carbs + fat
You can't claim to categorize foods by nutrients, then ignore the nutritional value of the food. (Well, I guess you can, but you sound silly)0 -
Most of which will contain things like carbs, fat, sugar, sodium, and not much else that's helpful to you. Compared to say a vegetable that will have a bunch of stuff that's good for you.
Again, this is nonsense. Carbs and fats are two of the three main nutrients. Sugar is a *type* of carb, a subset. Most vegetables contain no fats at all, so it is *very* relevant in context, but completely irrelevant to compare one food to another.
I'm aware sugar's a form of carb - just breaking it out further. I'm also aware carbs and fats are two of the most consumed nutrients. ALSO aware that vegetables don't usually contain fats. None of that has anything to do with my point nor is it relevant to the discussion we're having. It is actually relevant to compare a junk food vs. a non junk food in a discussion about junk food.
People are taking issue with the definition of junk food refering to nutritional values and their argument is to point out that carbs fats and proteins (aka macronutrients) are nutrients. Everyone's aware of that - you need some form of nutrient in order for something to BE food. The point is that nutritional value further distinguishes from there. If your idea of nutritional value is simply something that has a nutrient in it, then that term becomes completely and utterly useless because that's the definition of food.
My point, again, is that junk food is a way of differentiating foods that have comparably less nutritional value than other foods. If your argument is that junk food has nutrients in it too because it has carbs and fats, etc. then really all you're arguing is that it's food. Which no one is debating.0 -
Most of which will contain things like carbs, fat, sugar, sodium, and not much else that's helpful to you. Compared to say a vegetable that will have a bunch of stuff that's good for you.
Again, this is nonsense. Carbs and fats are two of the three main nutrients. Sugar is a *type* of carb, a subset. Most vegetables contain no fats at all, so it is *very* relevant in context, but completely irrelevant to compare one food to another.
I'm aware sugar's a form of carb - just breaking it out further. I'm also aware carbs and fats are two of the most consumed nutrients. ALSO aware that vegetables don't usually contain fats. None of that has anything to do with my point nor is it relevant to the discussion we're having. It is actually relevant to compare a junk food vs. a non junk food in a discussion about junk food.
People are taking issue with the definition of junk food refering to nutritional values and their argument is to point out that carbs fats and proteins (aka macronutrients) are nutrients. Everyone's aware of that - you need some form of nutrient in order for something to BE food. The point is that nutritional value further distinguishes from there. If your idea of nutritional value is simply something that has a nutrient in it, then that term becomes completely and utterly useless because that's the definition of food.
My point, again, is that junk food is a way of differentiating foods that have comparably less nutritional value than other foods. If your argument is that junk food has nutrients in it too because it has carbs and fats, etc. then really all you're arguing is that it's food. Which no one is debating.
ORLY?!?
Numerous MFP forums threads indicating certain foods are "not actually food and it's so much not food that our bodies don't know what to do with it" would say otherwise.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 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