The Clean Eating Myth
Replies
-
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto out for you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Worthwhile. That is a great word.
I don't think anyone here would argue with that. I think we all strive to eat an overall healthful diet. The question burning in everyone's mind is why does a Twinkie in the context of, for argument's sake, an otherwise "clean" diet, wipe out everything. I don't get why eating a ton of protein and fresh vegetables is trumped by a snack cake.
0 -
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.
IIFYM0 -
This content has been removed.
-
mantium999 wrote: »
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.
IIFYM
Yeah. The facepalm was long and hard on that last post.0 -
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.
Kind like like what many of us do as well. You know, the ones that IIFYM. Like I said earlier but conveniently was ignored by the ones saying we ate nothing but processed foods. The fact that people that take an IIFYM approach that know about nutrition actually don't eat very different then how they do. But they want to just pretend so if we actually sit in a room all day eating cookies.
They are simply irritated that they worry too much about what they eat, when the reality is most of the successful folks, whether "clean" or IIFYM, in reality, do the same friggin thing.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.
Kind like like what many of us do as well. You know, the ones that IIFYM. Like I said earlier but conveniently was ignored by the ones saying we ate nothing but processed foods. The fact that people that take an IIFYM approach that know about nutrition actually don't eat very different then how they do. But they want to just pretend so if we actually sit in a room all day eating cookies.
They are simply irritated that they worry too much about what they eat, when the reality is most of the successful folks, whether "clean" or IIFYM, in reality, do the same friggin thing.
It's every damn time.
Righteous starting posts inevitably declining into the admission that processed and convenience foods are mostly fine as long as you try for a mostly nutrient dense diet.0 -
mantium999 wrote: »
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.
Kind like like what many of us do as well. You know, the ones that IIFYM. Like I said earlier but conveniently was ignored by the ones saying we ate nothing but processed foods. The fact that people that take an IIFYM approach that know about nutrition actually don't eat very different then how they do. But they want to just pretend so if we actually sit in a room all day eating cookies.
They are simply irritated that they worry too much about what they eat, when the reality is most of the successful folks, whether "clean" or IIFYM, in reality, do the same friggin thing.
It's that label. It is so stinkin' important to them to fit into a group and have a label for how they eat and feel slightly superior to everyone else. They perceive an attack on their logic as a personal attack.
0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Kimberly_Harper wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
At some point every anti-clean-eating MFP user started parroting the term "straw man" incessantly in these forums, and I couldn't figure out why, until I was forwarded this link.
http://iifym.com/debating-iifym-trolls-on-facebook/
This also probably explains why an "argumentum ab auctoritate" was dropped by someone who didn't give the impression that Latin was in his educational background, lol. Just read these talking points, and go forth into battle, IIFYM warriors
ROFL!!
Do I hear anyone saying: touché!?
That's the one I was trying to quote/reply to! What a revelation to find that the repeated terms and methods I see in these threads actually has a source and an outline. It's like cult follower training! Even so, it was pretty educational as far as teaching effective ways to debate.
I wouldn't make too much of it. I'd never seen that page before, and "strawman" is a common term, especially but not only on the internet. The idea that it comes from that page (doesn't when I use it) seems far-fetched to me.
The more important question is if it's actually applicable or not when the accusation is leveled. That's where logic should be beneficial.
That nonsense about 100% cake diets were immediately brought up here despite how person B is defined explains quite well why it's a common accusation in "clean eating" discussions.
I would REALLY like to have a discussion of what's wrong with eating like person B not based on complete made up nonsense about 100% cake diets or the like, because (1) I don't think there is anything wrong with it; and (2) I think essentially everyone who claims to be a "clean" eater ALSO eats that way. I know lots of Paleo eaters offline (through CF), and they generally do. They just don't pretend otherwise, like some of the holy than thou types on MFP.
Most of the people I know who eat "clean" or Paleo, also sometimes eat food in the non-clean (wide definition) category and don't feel guilty about it or off-plan about it too much, unless they go over in calories. In fact, when my doctor suggested I try the Paleo route she mentioned "3 cheat-meals per week" which I understand to mean eating off-plan. (and within your caloric goal)
I don't understand why people jump to the "if you eat Twinkies 100% of the time" argument because who does that for real? Even the folks who argue to the death about "I can eat whatever I want as long as I stay in my calorie goals" eat "clean" or healthy much of the time (no I'm not posting a study to define what I mean by clean or healthy).
I also don't understand why people get so defensive when someone mentions Paleo or "clean" eating, unless those people are making judgments or accusations of others. It is similar to the "why do people get so angry with vegans" argument. Yes, I use a Paleo template for eating. No I don't care how the rest of you eat nor do I have an opinion of whether you are eating right or wrong. We are all accomplishing the same goal (movement toward or maintaining ideal weight) in different ways.
So the OP answer would still be "C", and everyone needs to chill about judging whether they go that route via Person A or Person B, as long as they get there. Comparing personal experiences between A and B's ways of staying within their calories would be a good discussion, without all the Judgy McJudgersons. (If you scan through the thread, there are people who lost their weight both ways and feel very passionate about that. Good for them/us!)
Yeah, I don't really disagree with any of that--it's similar to my own experience.
I will say that I don't think I am "defensive" about paleo or "clean" eating. I dislike the term "clean" but mostly didn't think much about until coming here and constantly getting accused of stupid stuff like not caring about nutrition or wanting to eat all "junk." It's especially funny since I probably was a "clean" eater at one point, just didn't know the term, and it's my own tendencies for going overboard that make me wary of the whole thing. I often say I don't care what others do, but am interested in debating when we get proclamations about what's generally healthy or not, etc.0 -
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Sounds pretty much how I prefer to eat.
I don't claim its "clean" or assume it's different from the concerns others have, though, unless they specifically say so. It's those assumptions that bother me.0 -
Kimberly_Harper wrote: »
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto out for you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Worthwhile. That is a great word.
I don't think anyone here would argue with that. I think we all strive to eat an overall healthful diet. The question burning in everyone's mind is why does a Twinkie in the context of, for argument's sake, an otherwise "clean" diet, wipe out everything. I don't get why eating a ton of protein and fresh vegetables is trumped by a snack cake.
This, exactly!0 -
mantium999 wrote: »
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.
Kind like like what many of us do as well. You know, the ones that IIFYM. Like I said earlier but conveniently was ignored by the ones saying we ate nothing but processed foods. The fact that people that take an IIFYM approach that know about nutrition actually don't eat very different then how they do. But they want to just pretend so if we actually sit in a room all day eating cookies.
They are simply irritated that they worry too much about what they eat, when the reality is most of the successful folks, whether "clean" or IIFYM, in reality, do the same friggin thing.
It's every damn time.
Righteous starting posts inevitably declining into the admission that processed and convenience foods are mostly fine as long as you try for a mostly nutrient dense diet.
Wait. We might be getting somewhere. Is the reality that they really eat like us the reason for the "all donuts all the time" strawman? We "have" to be in opposition to them because we take a different position/have a different attitude towards the food. So the presumption goes that there has to be an extreme going on?
I'm dead on my feet right now and struggling to make sense ... so is this really the root of the myth/problem/fallacy of all the back and forth?
0 -
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
wait you don't eat clean?
wtffffffffffffffffffffffffffff
ffffffffffffffffffff0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »mantium999 wrote: »
Let's stay on topic, as per the request of the mods. Now. Can you answer my questions? What is an anti-clean eater?
Oh, well since the mods requested it, I have no choice but to comply...
I don't have any interest in laying out a definition of clean eating. I've gone through this countless times, and it will lead us nowhere. I'm still awaiting some clean eating talking points in my mailbox, and will share them as soon as they are made available to me.
If you are asking me my concept of nutrition, I balance macro-nutrients and limit my calories to a fixed level every day, but I also try to minimize the volume of processed foods, artificial ingredients, steroids, hormones, pesticides, dyes, etc. that I consume as much as possible. However, a lot of the time, I eat what is available primarily due to convenience. But I think that the concept of striving toward eating higher quality food is worthwhile.
There, I have shared my insidious clean eating manifesto with you, I hope it was everything you'd hoped for.
Oh. So it sounds like you eat a variety of whole foods (maybe 80%?) to meet your macro/micro nutrient goals and then some convenience foods (20%?) to fill in the rest of your diet?
I see.
Kind like like what many of us do as well. You know, the ones that IIFYM. Like I said earlier but conveniently was ignored by the ones saying we ate nothing but processed foods. The fact that people that take an IIFYM approach that know about nutrition actually don't eat very different then how they do. But they want to just pretend so if we actually sit in a room all day eating cookies.
They are simply irritated that they worry too much about what they eat, when the reality is most of the successful folks, whether "clean" or IIFYM, in reality, do the same friggin thing.
It's every damn time.
Righteous starting posts inevitably declining into the admission that processed and convenience foods are mostly fine as long as you try for a mostly nutrient dense diet.
Wait. We might be getting somewhere. Is the reality that they really eat like us the reason for the "all donuts all the time" strawman? We "have" to be in opposition to them because we take a different position/have a different attitude towards the food. So the presumption goes that there has to be an extreme going on?
I'm dead on my feet right now and struggling to make sense ... so is this really the root of the myth/problem/fallacy of all the back and forth?
No, you're making sense and I agree. It's like what I said about the label, the need to see us as "other."
0 -
So the people who tout zero processed/packaged foods and preservatives/chemicals and tell us we're gonna die from eating a doughnut (regardless of how much organic veggies and free range chicken we've consumed that day) are actually eating about the same things we are?
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
0 -
A calorie is a calorie but what artery it clogs or toxin it impacts my body with does count for me. When I choose my foods I treat them like expensive gas for my car. The more nutrition for my calorie count the richer my fuel. More bang for my buck.0
-
cartjockey wrote: »A calorie is a calorie but what artery it clogs or toxin it impacts my body with does count for me. When I choose my foods I treat them like expensive gas for my car. The more nutrition for my calorie count the richer my fuel. More bang for my buck.
I see what you mean, but I'm curious...what toxins do you usually find in foods? I know that there's a few ingredients in ultra-processed things like soda which could be considered questionable (brominated vegetable oil, certain dyes and artificial sweeteners maybe)...but in, say, frozen dinners or canned veggies or other convenience foods which aren't considered "clean," what toxins might be present?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
cartjockey wrote: »A calorie is a calorie but what artery it clogs or toxin it impacts my body with does count for me. When I choose my foods I treat them like expensive gas for my car. The more nutrition for my calorie count the richer my fuel. More bang for my buck.
Tell us more about some of these toxins in food.
Also? Another example of a person who doesn't understand the words "risk factor". A single food choice does not a "bad diet" make. An overall bad diet is what's cited as a risk factor.
The bottom line from the medical establishment is that the CAUSE of atherosclerosis isn't known.
0 -
cartjockey wrote: »A calorie is a calorie but what artery it clogs or toxin it impacts my body with does count for me. When I choose my foods I treat them like expensive gas for my car. The more nutrition for my calorie count the richer my fuel. More bang for my buck.
Yeah, no.0 -
cartjockey wrote: »A calorie is a calorie but what artery it clogs or toxin it impacts my body with does count for me. When I choose my foods I treat them like expensive gas for my car. The more nutrition for my calorie count the richer my fuel. More bang for my buck.
So far basically everyone who has participated in this discussion is a person B, not a person A, including those who for some reason like to think they eat "cleaner" than others.
So as a person B I can say that I am pretty sure I'm not ingesting toxins nor clogging my arteries (ironically, the usual artery clogging suspects are highly approved by the most common types of "clean" eaters in these discussions).
I agree that nutrition is important, I don't agree that means that every single food decision made over the course of a day or week MUST prioritize nutrition or minimizing calories over other things. First, of course, one needs adequate calories for one's activity level (and personally I'm basically at maintenance). Second, the benefit to even more broccoli over, say, some rice and a little butter to eat with it, is not always that clear, assuming you are already eating a nutrient dense diet. People can easily start going overboard in ways that are ultimately counterproductive. At least, I know I can.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »How much science has been done on gut bacteria? Isn't this research still in its infancy? It's certainly not enough to say that elimination of food types is necessary?
I think people are jumping on the latest buzz in the media on this one. I can't find much balanced information on the topic on a quick google search.
I'll keep eating my yogurt and eating in moderation.
As they always do. Remember the "protein causes cancer" study from a year back or two?0 -
My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
I agree.
IMO, the Highly processed (donuts, cookies chips, hamburger helper type stuff, etc) will have more sodium and such, which will most likely cause a bit of fluid retention making it look like the clean eater is losing more.
0 -
Looncove_Farm wrote: »My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
I agree.
IMO, the Highly processed (donuts, cookies chips, hamburger helper type stuff, etc) will have more sodium and such, which will most likely cause a bit of fluid retention making it look like the clean eater is losing more.
I think you are assuming Person B eats only processed "unhealthy" foods. The OP stipulates that they both eat nutrient dense foods and meet their macro and micro nutrient goals. Only difference is that Person B incorporates some ice cream or cookies as their calories allow, instead of having more chicken breast or other whole foods.0 -
Looncove_Farm wrote: »My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
I agree.
IMO, the Highly processed (donuts, cookies chips, hamburger helper type stuff, etc) will have more sodium and such, which will most likely cause a bit of fluid retention making it look like the clean eater is losing more.
It was presumed that micronutrient content of the diets in both scenarios was the same. Since sodium is a micronutrient, that wouldn't factor into things.
It was also stated that dieter B wasn't eating ONLY processed foods.
0 -
Will today be the day someone is able to address the "health" myth? I think we've pretty much laid the weight loss one to rest.0
-
Looncove_Farm wrote: »My answer is C they will both lose relatively the save weight within about +/- five pounds of one another.
discuss….
I agree.
IMO, the Highly processed (donuts, cookies chips, hamburger helper type stuff, etc) will have more sodium and such, which will most likely cause a bit of fluid retention making it look like the clean eater is losing more.
I think you are assuming Person B eats only processed "unhealthy" foods. The OP stipulates that they both eat nutrient dense foods and meet their macro and micro nutrient goals. Only difference is that Person B incorporates some ice cream or cookies as their calories allow, instead of having more chicken breast or other whole foods.
Yes--like I said above, I've gone through periods where I essentially cut out these foods and others where I include them in moderation. I really don't think I get that much sodium (in fact, I'm pretty sure the main source is salt I add when cooking, which doesn't vary between the two periods) and I generally don't see any sodium influence on my weight (and the person wouldn't anyway if nothing changed between the beginning of the period and the end).
I might see a brief upswing the night after having a meal out depending on where I go.
The fact I eat ice cream has zero effect on the amount of chicken breast I eat. I find it hard to imagine those are subs to anyone.
(Also, skinless, boneless chicken breast vs. say, homemade ice cream -- is one really more of a "processed" or "whole" food? I think people are using "whole" to mean nutrient dense and processed or "highly processed" to mean non-nutrient dense, and that's really not what they mean. For example, protein powder or any pre-made meal would be "highly processed," and yet I would consider both potentially nutrient dense, depending on what you are looking for and what they are.)0 -
Checking in from the casino and I see this thread has gone to plaid lol...
Oh, I have not received my latest marching orders from the iifym kabal, has anyone else? And if yes, can you update me????0 -
Checking in from the casino and I see this thread has gone to plaid lol...
Oh, I have not received my latest marching orders from the iifym kabal, has anyone else? And if yes, can you update me????
And yes, we are all meeting at midnight at the Carl's Jr. Remember to bring your secret internet argument decoder ring.0 -
mamapeach910 wrote: »Will today be the day someone is able to address the "health" myth? I think we've pretty much laid the weight loss one to rest.
Well, it's now Caturday in the US. Maybe?0 -
Checking in from the casino and I see this thread has gone to plaid lol...
Oh, I have not received my latest marching orders from the iifym kabal, has anyone else? And if yes, can you update me????
haha shiiit you knew where this was going when you started it
and it went there
oh MFP you never change0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 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