Questions about sugar
Replies
-
LOLThank you everyone! I'm not going to worry about it so long as it's "healthy" and natural sugar I'm consuming... and not from a snickers bar haha!
I go over every day!! But then I lost over 100 pounds doing so and now no longer have heart disease and have blood pressure of a teenager. *shrugs*
0 -
Type 2 diabetes is not caused by sugarzzzzzzzzzzChrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I really, really want a Snickers bar right now. I'm sick. A Snickers should take pity on me and materialize in my living room so I could eat it.
I really want one now too... lol!
Isn't that unhealthy???
yep. Not healthy. But you people make me stress me out. haha!
Remind me why it's not healthy???
Uh... ever heard of insulin resistance? Metabolic syndrome? Type 2 diabetes, perhaps?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Plus, some people are allergic to peanuts, therefore Snickers are, by definition, unhealthy for everyone.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I really, really want a Snickers bar right now. I'm sick. A Snickers should take pity on me and materialize in my living room so I could eat it.
I really want one now too... lol!
Isn't that unhealthy???
yep. Not healthy. But you people make me stress me out. haha!
Remind me why it's not healthy???
Uh... ever heard of insulin resistance? Metabolic syndrome? Type 2 diabetes, perhaps?
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I really, really want a Snickers bar right now. I'm sick. A Snickers should take pity on me and materialize in my living room so I could eat it.
I really want one now too... lol!
Isn't that unhealthy???
yep. Not healthy. But you people make me stress me out. haha!
Remind me why it's not healthy???
Uh... ever heard of insulin resistance? Metabolic syndrome? Type 2 diabetes, perhaps?
Lol so medical condition makes it unhealthy?????
Ridiculous argument is ridiculous...0 -
Person has shellfish allergy, therefore, shellfish is bad for everyone... Logic, you have none.0
-
not at all. Those levels in MFP are minimums and you only need to concern yourself with going over any of them if you have a medical condition requiring you to keep them low.
The sugar level is not meant to be a minimum. I don't track it myself, but there's no daily requirement for sugar.
0 -
britishbroccoli wrote: »It won't affect your weight loss at all. I turned off the "Sugar" reading in my diary and replaced it with Iron, since I'm anemic. You don't need to watch your sugar levels unless you're diabetic/insulin sensitive.
Calories in vs out determine weight loss, not sugar.
Yep. I did the same thing.0 -
Serious epic wins today, I tell you.
Almost as good as the can you keep a secret one.0 -
Man I wish I got money for every time I get a Bingo, lol.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »I really, really want a Snickers bar right now. I'm sick. A Snickers should take pity on me and materialize in my living room so I could eat it.
I really want one now too... lol!
Isn't that unhealthy???
yep. Not healthy. But you people make me stress me out. haha!
Remind me why it's not healthy???
Uh... ever heard of insulin resistance? Metabolic syndrome? Type 2 diabetes, perhaps?
So wait. I'll play and use your logic.
I have celiac disease.
No one should eat gluten.
See how that works?
0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
So 1 snickers will make you unhealthy?
Nope. Never said it would. My point is that there is a lot more to nutritional health than macros. You know like vitamins, mineral, antioxidants. When you are eating in calorie restriction and trying to meet the nutritional needsof your body, youare better served by eating fruit than snickers . If you deny fruit is better for you than snickers then I can't think of a single reason to continue having this conversation0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
So 1 snickers will make you unhealthy?
Nope. Never said it would. My point is that there is a lot more to nutritional health than macros. You know like vitamins, mineral, antioxidants. When you are eating in calorie restriction and trying to meet the nutritional needsof your body, youare better served by eating fruit than snickers . If you deny fruit is better for you than snickers then I can't think of a single reason to continue having this conversation
So the only "unhealthy" thing about it is that it could potentially crowd out other nutrients? Wouldn't this be true for any food? I mean, I could eat black beans instead of the fruit. If I need -- in a given day -- what is in the black beans more than I need what is in the fruit, does that make fruit unhealthy?0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
It is low on workout days. It's 58g on non-workout days.jofjltncb6 wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
I think you are wrong here. As luck would have it, this is part of my planned menu for tomorrow.HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
The bottom numbers are my macro goals for the day. The top numbers are what I (will have) logged for the day. Tell me the problem with the Snickers here.
No problem with the Snickers...
...but your fat target seems deleteriously low.
Edited to add: On a weekly basis, I target 24.37% of my calories being from fat. Is that deleteriously low, in your view?
Honestly, it does still sound a little low, but that's admittedly based more on "feel" and "average active adult male" assumptions than on any actual calculations. I didn't actually do any math on these new numbers. (Okay, strike that last statement. I just did some math. Assuming 185 pounds, that's <0.3g/pound, which is "low" fat consumption.)
Your 35g fat limit (when I assumed that was daily) set off my "definitely too low" alarms for someone with a ~2k daily limit...because <0.2g/pound is low enough that I would expect it to negatively impact proper hormone regulation/production.
I'm curious, though, what's your reasoning for keeping fat so low?0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
So 1 snickers will make you unhealthy?
Nope. Never said it would. My point is that there is a lot more to nutritional health than macros. You know like vitamins, mineral, antioxidants. When you are eating in calorie restriction and trying to meet the nutritional needsof your body, youare better served by eating fruit than snickers . If you deny fruit is better for you than snickers then I can't think of a single reason to continue having this conversation
In a diet comprised entirely of fruit, substituting a Snickers bar for some of that fruit is healthier. Every time. (There are many other scenarios not at this extreme where that is still the case.)
It is simply incorrect to assert that "you are better served by eating fruit than snickers" in all cases.
There is a lot more to nutritional health than evaluating each food choice in an absolute vacuum irrespective of consideration of overall diet.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
So 1 snickers will make you unhealthy?
Nope. Never said it would. My point is that there is a lot more to nutritional health than macros. You know like vitamins, mineral, antioxidants. When you are eating in calorie restriction and trying to meet the nutritional needsof your body, youare better served by eating fruit than snickers . If you deny fruit is better for you than snickers then I can't think of a single reason to continue having this conversation
That's why everyone says hit macros AND micros0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
There is so much WTF in this post I don't even know where to start.
Yeah, no, I think I'll just leave it alone.
I'll answer your question about the dairy. I ate 2 servings of cottage cheese (226g) and 1 serving of yogurt (227g). My biggest hit of sugar that day, and half my intake, was from cauliflower. 20 grams of sugar in that serving. It was a LOT of cauliflower.
I'm a vegetarian.
The yogurt and cottage cheese were unsweetened. I ate the cottage cheese with chopped vegetables and the yogurt with PB2.
0 -
Yes, if by eating the fruit instead of the black beans, you were therefore not getting the nutrients you needed from the beans. We are designed to have a widely varied diet. Am I saying that you can't have a Snickers and be healthy? No. But I am saying that the Snickers is not contributing to your health. Even if I were to agree that sugar is sugar, (which is debatable, but is a matter of semantics) the sugar in fruit is accompanied by fiber. It is harder for your body to digest and therefore results in lower amounts of insulin being released that the simple, refined sugar in a candy bar. Insulin prompts the body to store glycogen, either in muscles, or as fat. So a Snickers has 33 grams of Carbs, (1 gram of Fiber, and 27 grams of sugar). An orange has 21 grams of Carbs (4.3 grams of Fiber and 17 grams of sugar). The energy from the orange will be released slower, your body will have a chance to actually use the energy from it as it is released. But in addition to just energy the orange also has Calcium, Magnesium, Vitamins A, C, and B-6.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
I'm not focused solely on weight loss...but I also don't believe that "too much sugar" is the primary cause of the problem. I believe it is excess calories (from all sources) and decreased activity resulting in a caloric surplus that leads to obesity and a host of related health problems.
And yet much of my diet is "processed".
As for your comment on the "several IIFYM people. . .look older" comment, perhaps this is more your perception bias than anything meaningful...
...because I think the good looking actual current pictures of the "IIFYM people" look a lot better than the cartoons, pets, and inspirational quotes I've noticed are incredibly popular among so many of the "don't eat crap" proponents.
Or perhaps it's the wisdom of actual years of experience and education that lead to their positions on the topic vs the youthful exuberance of the relatively younger ones pushing "processed = bad".0 -
jofjltncb6 wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
So 1 snickers will make you unhealthy?
Nope. Never said it would. My point is that there is a lot more to nutritional health than macros. You know like vitamins, mineral, antioxidants. When you are eating in calorie restriction and trying to meet the nutritional needsof your body, youare better served by eating fruit than snickers . If you deny fruit is better for you than snickers then I can't think of a single reason to continue having this conversation
In a diet comprised entirely of fruit, substituting a Snickers bar for some of that fruit is healthier. Every time. (There are many other scenarios not at this extreme where that is still the case.)
It is simply incorrect to assert that "you are better served by eating fruit than snickers" in all cases.
There is a lot more to nutritional health than evaluating each food choice in an absolute vacuum irrespective of consideration of overall diet.
Really? When did we start talking about eating an all fruit diet? I missed that part.0 -
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
Part of what the macros are doing is to help us moderate our diets on a daily level. Too much of anything is probably not great--we need variety. While one day will not make or break you, it is helpful to have that reminder in everyday tracking. Americans are used to a diet which contains vastly too much sugar in all of its forms--that seems normal, especially to people who are used to eating a lot of processed foods, but it might not be the best plan in the long term.
Not everybody here is focused solely on weight loss. I want to live well, to be fit and to minimize the effects of some fairly serious health issues. I have excellent longevity in my family tree and I want to look and feel good as I age, because in all likelihood I am going to make it to a fairly old age.
There are several IIFYM people here who have lost a lot of weight, but when you zoom in on their faces, they look a lot older than you would expect. Sure, aging has to do with genetics and all kinds of lifestyle choices, but it seems like, in some cases, the sugar isn't helping much. Yes, n=not very many and the research in this area is fairly new and somewhat limited. ..but I will keep eating within the goals, just in case.
Are you really . . . analyzing people's faces and then looking at their diary to see the trend in sugar consumption?
And you're doing that without knowing anything about how their family members have aged or how much sun they've had or anything else?
Gee, sounds totally legit.
0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »
Yes, if by eating the fruit instead of the black beans, you were therefore not getting the nutrients you needed from the beans. We are designed to have a widely varied diet. Am I saying that you can't have a Snickers and be healthy? No. But I am saying that the Snickers is not contributing to your health. Even if I were to agree that sugar is sugar, (which is debatable, but is a matter of semantics) the sugar in fruit is accompanied by fiber. It is harder for your body to digest and therefore results in lower amounts of insulin being released that the simple, refined sugar in a candy bar. Insulin prompts the body to store glycogen, either in muscles, or as fat. So a Snickers has 33 grams of Carbs, (1 gram of Fiber, and 27 grams of sugar). An orange has 21 grams of Carbs (4.3 grams of Fiber and 17 grams of sugar). The energy from the orange will be released slower, your body will have a chance to actually use the energy from it as it is released. But in addition to just energy the orange also has Calcium, Magnesium, Vitamins A, C, and B-6.
Okay, if anything can be unhealthy if you could benefit more from eating something else, then everything is unhealthy. So what is the big deal about the Snickers?
Why don't we just eat perfectly balanced nutrientgoo?0 -
HeatherZousel wrote: »jofjltncb6 wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
I think OP is right here. When you are restricting calories you should try to eat things that will benefit your body. If you are eating fruit you are clearly benefiting your body far more than a snickers would. What is weightloss without health.
So 1 snickers will make you unhealthy?
Nope. Never said it would. My point is that there is a lot more to nutritional health than macros. You know like vitamins, mineral, antioxidants. When you are eating in calorie restriction and trying to meet the nutritional needsof your body, youare better served by eating fruit than snickers . If you deny fruit is better for you than snickers then I can't think of a single reason to continue having this conversation
In a diet comprised entirely of fruit, substituting a Snickers bar for some of that fruit is healthier. Every time. (There are many other scenarios not at this extreme where that is still the case.)
It is simply incorrect to assert that "you are better served by eating fruit than snickers" in all cases.
There is a lot more to nutritional health than evaluating each food choice in an absolute vacuum irrespective of consideration of overall diet.
Really? When did we start talking about eating an all fruit diet? I missed that part.
About the time you made an absolute statement lacking any context at all that one is better served by eating fruit than snickers?
And then compounded by your assertion that if one is to deny that fruit is better than a snickers, you were not interested in continuing the conversation?
I am denying that fruit is better than a snickers in every case and that the diet in total must be considered before you can make such a claim...
...because dietary context matters. Always has. Always will.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
Yes, if by eating the fruit instead of the black beans, you were therefore not getting the nutrients you needed from the beans. We are designed to have a widely varied diet. Am I saying that you can't have a Snickers and be healthy? No. But I am saying that the Snickers is not contributing to your health. Even if I were to agree that sugar is sugar, (which is debatable, but is a matter of semantics) the sugar in fruit is accompanied by fiber. It is harder for your body to digest and therefore results in lower amounts of insulin being released that the simple, refined sugar in a candy bar. Insulin prompts the body to store glycogen, either in muscles, or as fat. So a Snickers has 33 grams of Carbs, (1 gram of Fiber, and 27 grams of sugar). An orange has 21 grams of Carbs (4.3 grams of Fiber and 17 grams of sugar). The energy from the orange will be released slower, your body will have a chance to actually use the energy from it as it is released. But in addition to just energy the orange also has Calcium, Magnesium, Vitamins A, C, and B-6.
Okay, if anything can be unhealthy if you could benefit more from eating something else, then everything is unhealthy. So what is the big deal about the Snickers?
Why don't we just eat perfectly balanced nutrientgoo?
IT'S PEOPLE!
ETA: No, for real. There's a product called Soylent that aims to make perfectly balanced nutrientgoo.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
Yes, if by eating the fruit instead of the black beans, you were therefore not getting the nutrients you needed from the beans. We are designed to have a widely varied diet. Am I saying that you can't have a Snickers and be healthy? No. But I am saying that the Snickers is not contributing to your health. Even if I were to agree that sugar is sugar, (which is debatable, but is a matter of semantics) the sugar in fruit is accompanied by fiber. It is harder for your body to digest and therefore results in lower amounts of insulin being released that the simple, refined sugar in a candy bar. Insulin prompts the body to store glycogen, either in muscles, or as fat. So a Snickers has 33 grams of Carbs, (1 gram of Fiber, and 27 grams of sugar). An orange has 21 grams of Carbs (4.3 grams of Fiber and 17 grams of sugar). The energy from the orange will be released slower, your body will have a chance to actually use the energy from it as it is released. But in addition to just energy the orange also has Calcium, Magnesium, Vitamins A, C, and B-6.
Okay, if anything can be unhealthy if you could benefit more from eating something else, then everything is unhealthy. So what is the big deal about the Snickers?
Why don't we just eat perfectly balanced nutrientgoo?
IT'S PEOPLE!
ETA: No, for real. There's a product called Soylent that aims to make perfectly balanced nutrientgoo.
But your face will look young forever!0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »HeatherZousel wrote: »
Yes, if by eating the fruit instead of the black beans, you were therefore not getting the nutrients you needed from the beans. We are designed to have a widely varied diet. Am I saying that you can't have a Snickers and be healthy? No. But I am saying that the Snickers is not contributing to your health. Even if I were to agree that sugar is sugar, (which is debatable, but is a matter of semantics) the sugar in fruit is accompanied by fiber. It is harder for your body to digest and therefore results in lower amounts of insulin being released that the simple, refined sugar in a candy bar. Insulin prompts the body to store glycogen, either in muscles, or as fat. So a Snickers has 33 grams of Carbs, (1 gram of Fiber, and 27 grams of sugar). An orange has 21 grams of Carbs (4.3 grams of Fiber and 17 grams of sugar). The energy from the orange will be released slower, your body will have a chance to actually use the energy from it as it is released. But in addition to just energy the orange also has Calcium, Magnesium, Vitamins A, C, and B-6.
Okay, if anything can be unhealthy if you could benefit more from eating something else, then everything is unhealthy. So what is the big deal about the Snickers?
Why don't we just eat perfectly balanced nutrientgoo?
IT'S PEOPLE!
ETA: No, for real. There's a product called Soylent that aims to make perfectly balanced nutrientgoo.
But your face will look young forever!
I'll take my chances and eat the Snickers.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
azulvioleta6 wrote: »mamapeach910 wrote: »azulvioleta6 wrote: »Just because "everyone" is doing it doesn't mean that it is OK.
Many people can lose weight while consuming too much sugar. Some of us cannot. It's not only a question of weight loss--too much sugar in your diet isn't great for long-term health.
I manage to eat a fair amount of chocolate and fruit and still not go over my sugar allowance. Switch some of your fruit consumption to vegetable consumption. It's not that hard.
Did you read my post about the day I went over on sugar from consuming dairy and vegetables? No fruit?
Besides, how much is "too much"?
Nope, I didn't see that. How much dairy did you eat that day?
Too much is when you are going over your allowances. I don't think that I have EVER gone over--that's a heck of a lot of sugar.
It depends. If you are on 1200, the limit is 45 grams. I posted recently that I had hit 44 grams based on one apple (15 grams) plus a bunch of veggies, I believe. I regularly hit in that ballpark even though I don't eat that much fruit at this time of year (arguably more would be healthy). I currently tend to eat fruit+dairy (one serving each) at breakfast and lots of veggies plus some small amounts in misc things. Now, this is nowhere near my limit, since I don't eat 1200 calories, but when discussing how easy or hard it is to hit, I think the fact that lots of people are on 1200 is relevant.
And I suspect that it would be good for me (or at least not bad) to eat more fruit, as I do in the summer (typically by exchanging it with starchy carbs). Just one more piece of fruit would increase my totals a lot.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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