Fed Up Documentary
Options
Replies
-
Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/09/health/beating-the-bulge-brazil-obesity/
What's it say in the black text box on the cover picture ?
I'll tell you..."access to processed foods".
I'm done debating this by the way. You believe what you want and I will do the same.
First of all, that link contradicts your other 'source'
"In 2012, around one in seven Brazilians were classed as obese. Globally, Brazil is far behind countries such as the United States and Mexico, where around a third of people are obese, but the concern is the rapid rate of weight gain. The country once vulnerable to malnutrition and the associated health impacts, such as impaired growth, is instead now vulnerable to obesity and resulting heart disease and diabetes. In 1975 just 19% of Brazilian men and 29% of Brazilian women were overweight: In 2014 those figures are now 54% and 48% respectively.""
Secondly, nice cherry picking
Thirdly, its a news article and does not show the food consumption statistics.
Fourthly, you actually probably did not cherry pick - you likely did not read the whole article - otherwise you would have used a different quote as access to processed foods =/= sugar consumption.
I'm not sure why that article was published considering your suggestion that there is not an obesity issue in Brazil. Can you explain this to me before I go to bed ?
Look at your chart, then read the article you posted.
Also, tell me where I said there was not one.Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
You were suggesting that there was no epidemic in Brazil.
When I think of processed food the first thing I think of is cereal... and what is most kids cereal packed with ?
No I was not.
Yeah, ok.
If many processed foods are high in refined sugars, and the obesity spike is linked to access to processed food then what would a person with common sense say about excessive refined sugar consumption ?
Please refer to my other comment re the fact that there are no stats shown or linked.
Also, you realize that processed foods are also often high in fats and non-refined sugar carbs right?
These people are getting fat because they're drinking all of these sugary drinks and eating all of those crappy foods. Why can't you just admit that ?
These people are getting fat because they are consuming more calories than they burn. This could be the result of eating larger quantities, eating more calorie-dense foods in place of bulkier foods, or of decreasing activity.0 -
http://www.nsca.com/uploadedFiles/NSCA/Inactive_Content/Program_Books/PTC_2013_Program_Book/Aragon.pdf
Allow Alan Aragon to teach you something...Slide 34
Quoting...in the small chance it may be read.
0 -
Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/09/health/beating-the-bulge-brazil-obesity/
What's it say in the black text box on the cover picture ?
I'll tell you..."access to processed foods".
I'm done debating this by the way. You believe what you want and I will do the same.
First of all, that link contradicts your other 'source'
"In 2012, around one in seven Brazilians were classed as obese. Globally, Brazil is far behind countries such as the United States and Mexico, where around a third of people are obese, but the concern is the rapid rate of weight gain. The country once vulnerable to malnutrition and the associated health impacts, such as impaired growth, is instead now vulnerable to obesity and resulting heart disease and diabetes. In 1975 just 19% of Brazilian men and 29% of Brazilian women were overweight: In 2014 those figures are now 54% and 48% respectively.""
Secondly, nice cherry picking
Thirdly, its a news article and does not show the food consumption statistics.
Fourthly, you actually probably did not cherry pick - you likely did not read the whole article - otherwise you would have used a different quote as access to processed foods =/= sugar consumption.
I'm not sure why that article was published considering your suggestion that there is not an obesity issue in Brazil. Can you explain this to me before I go to bed ?
Look at your chart, then read the article you posted.
Also, tell me where I said there was not one.Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
You were suggesting that there was no epidemic in Brazil.
When I think of processed food the first thing I think of is cereal... and what is most kids cereal packed with ?
No I was not.
Yeah, ok.
If many processed foods are high in refined sugars, and the obesity spike is linked to access to processed food then what would a person with common sense say about excessive refined sugar consumption ?
Please refer to my other comment re the fact that there are no stats shown or linked.
Also, you realize that processed foods are also often high in fats and non-refined sugar carbs right?
These people are getting fat because they're drinking all of these sugary drinks and eating all of those crappy foods. Why can't you just admit that ?
Because I have not seen anything to show that - just you guessing.
I'm going to chalk this up as you just being either clueless or an absolute idiot. Either way I hope you're not a nutritionist.
-9 -
Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/09/health/beating-the-bulge-brazil-obesity/
What's it say in the black text box on the cover picture ?
I'll tell you..."access to processed foods".
I'm done debating this by the way. You believe what you want and I will do the same.
First of all, that link contradicts your other 'source'
"In 2012, around one in seven Brazilians were classed as obese. Globally, Brazil is far behind countries such as the United States and Mexico, where around a third of people are obese, but the concern is the rapid rate of weight gain. The country once vulnerable to malnutrition and the associated health impacts, such as impaired growth, is instead now vulnerable to obesity and resulting heart disease and diabetes. In 1975 just 19% of Brazilian men and 29% of Brazilian women were overweight: In 2014 those figures are now 54% and 48% respectively.""
Secondly, nice cherry picking
Thirdly, its a news article and does not show the food consumption statistics.
Fourthly, you actually probably did not cherry pick - you likely did not read the whole article - otherwise you would have used a different quote as access to processed foods =/= sugar consumption.
I'm not sure why that article was published considering your suggestion that there is not an obesity issue in Brazil. Can you explain this to me before I go to bed ?
Look at your chart, then read the article you posted.
Also, tell me where I said there was not one.Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
You were suggesting that there was no epidemic in Brazil.
When I think of processed food the first thing I think of is cereal... and what is most kids cereal packed with ?
No I was not.
Yeah, ok.
If many processed foods are high in refined sugars, and the obesity spike is linked to access to processed food then what would a person with common sense say about excessive refined sugar consumption ?
Please refer to my other comment re the fact that there are no stats shown or linked.
Also, you realize that processed foods are also often high in fats and non-refined sugar carbs right?
These people are getting fat because they're drinking all of these sugary drinks and eating all of those crappy foods. Why can't you just admit that ?
Because I have not seen anything to show that - just you guessing.
I'm going to chalk this up as you just being either clueless or an absolute idiot. Either way I hope you're not a nutritionist.
Ad hominen attacks do not support your argument.0 -
I asked a Brazilian friend what he thought. He said Brazil is now full of all-you-can-eat buffets, and the middle class has grown significantly so that there is more expendable income for eating out.0
-
Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/09/health/beating-the-bulge-brazil-obesity/
What's it say in the black text box on the cover picture ?
I'll tell you..."access to processed foods".
I'm done debating this by the way. You believe what you want and I will do the same.
First of all, that link contradicts your other 'source'
"In 2012, around one in seven Brazilians were classed as obese. Globally, Brazil is far behind countries such as the United States and Mexico, where around a third of people are obese, but the concern is the rapid rate of weight gain. The country once vulnerable to malnutrition and the associated health impacts, such as impaired growth, is instead now vulnerable to obesity and resulting heart disease and diabetes. In 1975 just 19% of Brazilian men and 29% of Brazilian women were overweight: In 2014 those figures are now 54% and 48% respectively.""
Secondly, nice cherry picking
Thirdly, its a news article and does not show the food consumption statistics.
Fourthly, you actually probably did not cherry pick - you likely did not read the whole article - otherwise you would have used a different quote as access to processed foods =/= sugar consumption.
I'm not sure why that article was published considering your suggestion that there is not an obesity issue in Brazil. Can you explain this to me before I go to bed ?
Look at your chart, then read the article you posted.
Also, tell me where I said there was not one.Wait...what happened to the insulin response and how sugar is responsible for the obesity 'epidemic' in Thailand and Brazil?
You were suggesting that there was no epidemic in Brazil.
When I think of processed food the first thing I think of is cereal... and what is most kids cereal packed with ?
No I was not.
Yeah, ok.
If many processed foods are high in refined sugars, and the obesity spike is linked to access to processed food then what would a person with common sense say about excessive refined sugar consumption ?
Please refer to my other comment re the fact that there are no stats shown or linked.
Also, you realize that processed foods are also often high in fats and non-refined sugar carbs right?
These people are getting fat because they're drinking all of these sugary drinks and eating all of those crappy foods. Why can't you just admit that ?
Because I have not seen anything to show that - just you guessing.
I'm going to chalk this up as you just being either clueless or an absolute idiot. Either way I hope you're not a nutritionist.
Ad hominen attacks do not support your argument.
That is true from where I sit.
0 -
"In the mid-1970s, only 2.8% of adult men and 7.8% of adult women in Brazil were obese. In 2008–2009, obesity prevalence was 12.5% among men and 16.9% among women."
Just need to find out what happened in those 35 or so years that lead to a massive spike in obesity. There are a few ways to look at it.
-You can say people have more money in a booming economy, therefore they are able to afford more food, therefore they end up eating more.
-You can say people have less money in a struggling economy, therefore they are able to afford less nutritious food, therefore they end up eating more calorie dense food with less nutrition.
-You can say that the economy is a zero sum game, which means the elites have the money to afford more food and they eat it. The poor have less money so they eat cheaper foods which often have higher calories and less nutrition.
-You can say that it is genetically encoded in our bodies to eat as much as possible when food is available. With a booming economy comes more food at our finger tips which leads to more food consumption.
The arguments you can make go on and on and on. There are surely scholarly articles out there to support each one. I know Brazil is a quickly developing nation now, but I don't know much about anything that has happened there between the 1970s and 2000s. I can't make much of an argument for why they have an obesity issue now. My guess is an overworked, over-stressed working middle and lower class turns to foods high in calories for energy in a world now that revolves around everything needing to be done right now as quickly as possible. Nobody has any time to sit down and relax, which causes people to eat more for a boost of energy. Everything is moving too quickly and everyone is just balls to the wall stressed so they munch on chips, drink soda, and overall eat too much.
I don't know...0 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »"In the mid-1970s, only 2.8% of adult men and 7.8% of adult women in Brazil were obese. In 2008–2009, obesity prevalence was 12.5% among men and 16.9% among women."
Just need to find out what happened in those 35 or so years that lead to a massive spike in obesity. There are a few ways to look at it.
-You can say people have more money in a booming economy, therefore they are able to afford more food, therefore they end up eating more.
-You can say people have less money in a struggling economy, therefore they are able to afford less nutritious food, therefore they end up eating more calorie dense food with less nutrition.
-You can say that the economy is a zero sum game, which means the elites have the money to afford more food and they eat it. The poor have less money so they eat cheaper foods which often have higher calories and less nutrition.
-You can say that it is genetically encoded in our bodies to eat as much as possible when food is available. With a booming economy comes more food at our finger tips which leads to more food consumption.
The arguments you can make go on and on and on. There are surely scholarly articles out there to support each one. I know Brazil is a quickly developing nation now, but I don't know much about anything that has happened there between the 1970s and 2000s. I can't make much of an argument for why they have an obesity issue now. My guess is an overworked, over-stressed working middle and lower class turns to foods high in calories for energy in a world now that revolves around everything needing to be done right now as quickly as possible. Nobody has any time to sit down and relax, which causes people to eat more for a boost of energy. Everything is moving too quickly and everyone is just balls to the wall stressed so they much on chips, drink soda, and overall eat too much.
I don't know...
Great post.
0 -
I don't know, its 2:30 in the morning and people are screaming about obesity in nations that are thousands of miles away from me. I'm just trying to watch my own butt size.
0 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »I don't know, its 2:30 in the morning and people are screaming about obesity in nations that are thousands of miles away from me. I'm just trying to watch my own butt size.
Not sure how much it would apply to all the countries that have seen an increase in obesity, but I would also add the availability of highly palatable and 'convenient' foods. The more developed a nation becomes, the more availability of these I would imagine there are (or at least, from what I have seen from travelling). Usually these foods have added fats (and yes, added sugars) to make them more palatable. They are usually more calorie dense and less satiating (in the main) that whole foods.
Also, the decrease of physical activity is also a huge factor as a whole.
0 -
Wow! This thread really blew up! Say, I have been reading and researching nutrition for 30 years or more (lots of interest in it and kind of my hobby) and have seen over the years, specific foods get maligned and then accepted again. Eggs were the first "evil" food that I remember and it was replaced with "egg beaters." Now eggs are okay (in moderation) and even promoted as a healthy protein rich food. The latest craze seems to be gluten.
The creator of the documentary has his/her viewpoint and is going to present a pretty convincing argument to support it. Having not seen the documentary, I will comment no further. One should read a lot of books on various views and then test the waters. Does this view make sense? Who is the producer of the documentary and what is his/her background? Who are the stakeholders? It doesn't make sense to me to watch one documentary and then revamp one's whole diet based on it.0 -
uconnwinsnc1 wrote: »I don't know, its 2:30 in the morning and people are screaming about obesity in nations that are thousands of miles away from me. I'm just trying to watch my own butt size.
Where is the fun in minding your own business.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Well I think I've got most of my troll bingo card checked. Just the supplement salesman and Paleo guy to go.
You have been busy then.
0 -
Documentaries like that tend to be crap. They tend to merely be conspiracy theories, and nothing more. I urge you to do your own research, and see what you can find supporting this theory, because i'd care to bet that there's not much research that supports this.I realize now, we the public have been 'worlded and twirled" by the truly wealthy 10% in the world, and the governments they control to control us the masses of white lab rats.
Don't get me wrong, i think that we as a society need to always be critical. We need to always be critical of our government and the things that they tell us, and we need to make sure that we hold them accountable. That being said, the way that your body works has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the government. It has nothing to do with you assuming that the wealthiest 10% of the country treats you like a lab rat (all that documentary did was successfully instill an exaggerated victim complex in you), and everything to do with the calories you consume, versus the calories you consume. Stop blaming the government for your weight if it doesn't make you happy. If you're unhappy about the state of your health and/or your weight, then take control of it - work to proactively make changes in your habits. Don't passively sit around watching documentaries that enable you to blame others for the choices that you make.At age 36, I weighed 129, then suddenly I went to 143, 164, 177, 199, then up to 200 plus, my highest being 217. What did I do to make this happen? I changed my diet and became what I thought was a vegetarian. I replaced meat with non meat boxed, bagged, frozen, canned substitutes..... (Richard Simmons come to mind) and after joining a gym, and starting to "exercise" I jumped from 143. to 217 in a few years.
Unless you have a hormonal imbalance/something like hypothyroidism, your weight is a reflection of the calories you consume versus the calories that you expend on a daily basis. You don't 'suddenly' have this happen overnight with the flip of a switch, nor is it something that happens when you drastically and unnecessarily cut out entire foods or even food groups. So if your weight went up, up, up, what did you do to make this happen? You consumed more calories, and consumed more than you were expending. Exercising is only a small part of the equation as well - so you exercising and gaining weight doesn't prove anything (especially since people can gain weight from increasing their muscle mass, depending on what particular type(s) of workouts they're doing).
People tend to make minuscule mistakes that make a world's difference when it comes to weight gain/loss/maintenance- like with portion size. Many people are accustomed to what they consider to be normalized portion sizes, when in reality many companies will purposefully make their portion sizes smaller, to in change make the calorie/fat/etc., content of their product seem smaller (only because the serving size is smaller....) which you're then not aware of, when you serve yourself some food. So you could be logging one portion when in reality you're having four, which ALONE would account for your weight gain over time. Don't be so quick to blame elaborate conspiracy theories.I started to gain weight...then I was pitched the "calories in/out" song by the local gym and diet guru's on television.
It's not a song and dance - it's the way that the body metabolizes the energy, nutrients, macronutrients, minerals, etc., that you receive by consuming food. If you think that it's another dietary fad, i could easily find you a few scientific articles to support this (unless you also think that all scientific studies are also little white lab rats controlled by the wealthiest 10% - i'm not saying that sarcastically either since i know some people are skeptical of research but i did fully intend that witty pun).I changed my diet and became what I thought was a vegetarian. I replaced meat with non meat boxed, bagged, frozen, canned substitutes. I started to gain weight......... Bigger and fatter, and more out of shape, on a "vegetarian" "exercise" several hours a day plan.
Vegetarian doesn't mean healthy, nor does it mean weight loss. It merely is a diet that people embark on, attempting to exploit animals less. The fact that you started being vegetarian with the expectation of dramatic weight loss (when most people tend to gain weight if they're not educated when embarking on a vegetarian/vegan diet) is problematic in and of it's self. You can be healthy or unhealthy eating animal products or not consuming animal products, and the same goes for weight loss.The ONLY time I seemed to drop weight was when I wasn't eating at all for whatever reason, sometimes a much as 4 pounds a day.
Yes - starving yourself for periods of time [for whatever reason] does cause drastic weight loss. However it is NOT healthy, NOT sustainable, and NOT advisable by any means (unless you want to gain the weight back, and then some).Well, this white lab rat is going on the Fed Up Challenge on December 6th, 2014 for the 10 days of no sugars, and processed foods, and in my case no meats or dairy or eggs either. Lets see what happens.
To be quite blunt - when something in your life isn't working, you need to change what you're doing or nothing is ever going to change for you. Seeing how in your life you've attempted to embark on unbalanced diet plans - only to gain weight in the long run - i don't foresee this being any different, because restriction of food groups usually cravings for said food groups. Restriction in general causes weight gain, so it's really counterproductive that you're looking at this from a restrictive perspective as opposed to a balanced energy and nutritive perspective. After 10 days you're going to find yourself cravings all of the things you didn't allow yourself to have (if you do in fact even last those 10 days), and chances are your body is going to go into overdrive once you introduce them back into your diet
Also - cutting out processed foods? So you're literally just living off of raw fruits and vegetables? The word processed is very subjective and varies from person to person, as well as from group to group. Also, NOT ALL FOOD PROCESSING IS BAD. There are vitamins that we don't get on a daily basis, fortified into our food products - for a reason! They don't fortify cereals, breads, etc., merely because they can. Again - being critical is a good thing, but having a strictly dichotomous attitude isn't.0 -
Biggirllittledreams wrote: »
Also - cutting out processed foods? So you're literally just living off of raw fruits and vegetables? The word processed is very subjective and varies from person to person, as well as from group to group. Also, NOT ALL FOOD PROCESSING IS BAD. There are vitamins that we don't get on a daily basis, fortified into our food products - for a reason! They don't fortify cereals, breads, etc., merely because they can. Again - being critical is a good thing, but having a strictly dichotomous attitude isn't.
I think that what is generally meant with processed foods is foods that are pre-processed in the supermarket, such as fruit loops, cup noodles, etc. as diets that insist on not consuming processed foods do allow you to cook and make your own bread, for instance.
So, if I had to guess, a diet involving no meat, dairies and eggs would be a simple vegan diet, but using whole rice and flour. I would even include basic foods such as bread and pasta in it if you buy them from an organic supermarket or contain no additives. (as in this case, I would not see a difference between buying it and making your own, other than a waste of time) I also wonder if OP plans to consume fish, as that could be a good substitute for meat?
Then again, a ten-day challenge in actually making all your food from "raw materials" may be interesting, as long as one does not expect to magically lose weight from it.
(Not going to do it, though, not enough time) 0 -
PikaKnight wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »SnuggleSmacks wrote: »It is my opinion that I am a billionaire.
So...what now...do I clap, or click my heels, or what?
that can be factually disproven.
Stop being a *kitten*.
But so can "sugar is addictive." So....YOU stop being a j*******!
My point is simply that refined sugar can be addictive. Some people resist the urge to pound their body with it and others do not. Those that do not are typically over weight and/or unhealthy.
Would you disagree ?
And what do these things have in common with eating sugar? They are psychological "addictions", which, at the most is what a "real sugar addiction" would be...which means it's not actually sugar that is addictive, but the person's behaviour and habits towards it.
Actually, no. Sugar rewards has been shown to surpass those of cocaine.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.00006980 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »
First it was women over 40 are different, now it's over 60....
These posts are so amusing, I'm going to click the little star thingy so I can continue to be in on the fun! 0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »At the risk of being flagged, what I'm taking from this thread (from OP and the majority of those agreeing) is that going vegetarian makes you fat.
Eat meat people =D
Srsly, that's a joke. I don't think a lot of people who start eating vegetarian, for moral reasons, realise they are going to have to pay really strict attention to their nutrition. I really take for granted getting all the essential amino acids from my meat, I couldn't even begin to contemplate the balance of foods you'd need to eat to get them all elsewhere (while keeping a sensible energy balance), hats off to you.
Convenience foods are what they are - convenient. Like others have said, companies are there to make money not look out for your health, that's up to the individual.
Yes--it is very difficult to eat a vegan diet and remain healthy. Not impossible, mind you--but difficult. An ovo-lacto vegetarian diet is what a large proportion of the world lives on. Typically, those people have a problem getting enough total calories.
Interestingly, our farming ancestors of 150 years ago, ate about the same amount of protein (from meat, fish poultry, eggs and dairy) and fat as we do. What they didn't eat was the huge amount of sugar and starch that we do (sugar was expensive until the 20th century and grain was more expensive than now because of the "grain miracle" of the 20th century). And they did a lot of heavy manual labor. They were typically quite slender. Only the wealthy were fat and it was considered a mark of their status that they were "portly".
How do ovo-lacto vegetarians have trouble getting enough calories? Beans, legumes, nuts and oils are in our diets. I'm one and I wouldn't be on MFP if I hadn't had a problem eating too many calories to begin with.
0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »SizeSixat100 wrote: »I just watched the Fed Up Documentary 2013 produced by Katie Couric in 2013. I don't know how I missed it? But it hit the nail on the head with my weight loss (and gain) issues starting in 1994/1995. At age 36, I weighed 129, then suddenly I went to 143, 164, 177, 199, then up to 200 plus, my highest being 217. What did I do to make this happen? I changed my diet and became what I thought was a vegetarian. I replaced meat with non meat boxed, bagged, frozen, canned substitutes. I started to gain weight...then I was pitched the "calories in/out" song by the local gym and diet guru's on television. (Richard Simmons come to mind) and after joining a gym, and starting to "exercise" I jumped from 143. to 217 in a few years. Bigger and fatter, and more out of shape, on a "vegetarian" "exercise" several hours a day plan. The ONLY time I seemed to drop weight was when I wasn't eating at all for whatever reason, sometimes a much as 4 pounds a day. I followed the Susan Powter No Fat rules, and they did help, but those replacements for meat are just as bad and any processed foods. I realize now, we the public have been 'worlded and twirled" by the truly wealthy 10% in the world, and the governments they control to control us the masses of white lab rats.
Well, this white lab rat is going on the Fed Up Challenge on December 6th, 2014 for the 10 days of no sugars, and processed foods, and in my case no meats or dairy or eggs either. Lets see what happens.
Best wishes to you and all that do that.
While I do meat and eggs I decided to go high fat and cut the sugar 7 Aug 2014 when the doctor wanted me to start injecting Enbrel for my arthritis related pain after I read what that drug can do ones body.
I got on coconut oil as my main fat BUT did not cold turkey SUGAR. 7 Oct 2014 I totally went low carb and NO added sugar for real. I have only lost 10 pounds but added a good amount of muscle since I had lost so much muscle mass over the years. Pain level has dropped from 7-8 to 2-3 and I can now get out of cars, my seat after a movie, etc without help and can walk a 1/4 mile up and down a steep hill without stopping to rest. Sugar is toxic it seems my wrecked body.
Fed Up is not junk science I found.
I haven't eaten sugar in years because it triggers my migraines. But you know what? I still got psoriatic arthritis and still need a drug like Embrel (I'm on Humira).
BTW? I started walking with a cane and now do up to three miles with a 7 incline on the treadmill.
Fed up is junk science and if you have an autoimmune disease, not eating sugar isn't going to do a thing to help it.
0 -
SanteMulberry wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I'm 42 and I can say with all certainty that it's a lot harder to lose weight now then it was when I was in my twenties!
I lost the weight after both my pregnancies and my body bounced back and looked like it did before babies. Now I've lost weight again and body does not look the same as it did back then!!
Thank you. You can see what I've been talking about.
It is harder to lose weight when you're older, and when you have thyroid issues, but the problem is that it's not the only argument you're making. You're thanking the OP here, and she didn't agree with all the other stuff you said in your original post about diet composition for older women. Your arguments are all over the place.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 392 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 926 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions