For all the non believers, Cutting back on junk food matters so much!
Options
Replies
-
Meh, I still use the word "junk" food as I think it does apply to many foods. The stereotypical stuff like hostess cupcakes and what not. They aren't all that nutrient dense and don't provide much energy so I think the term "junk" applies. The difference for me is that I don't necessarily think "junk" automatically is a negative.
ill cosign that.0 -
Meh, I still use the word "junk" food as I think it does apply to many foods. The stereotypical stuff like hostess cupcakes and what not. They aren't all that nutrient dense and don't provide much energy so I think the term "junk" applies. The difference for me is that I don't necessarily think "junk" automatically is a negative.
Agreed.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »NJDevilsFan7576 wrote: »I feel bad now... I should have said calorie deficits matter. I should have at least remembered one thing my girlfriend has drilled into my head this last year.
Don't feel bad. A lot of people here are sensitive to the term "junk food" becauase of the negative association it creates. Food is fuel; it has no inherent goodness or badness.
You've got a lot of points to be proud of in your post:- eating normal meals
- weighing food
- no need for detoxes and cleanses (there is 1 cleanse that might help, though)
- positive attitude
All in all, it was a decent 100th post. 6/10, would read again.
Nice Job Op ,
And your attitude is refreshing to see.
0 -
To be completely honest, I think some people on here look for these broad food label terms (like "junk", "clean", "dirty") just to start an argument.. Let's try using a better approach on the forums so that we're not all viewed as knit-picking a**holes who just come on here to feel smarter than someone else. We all know what "junk" food is for the most part, and it's not something any of us would recommend on a consistent basis - consistent being all the time. We all know what the clean eaters are referring to when they say "clean" food - It's simple, nutritionally dense foods high in micro nutrients, and foods that are normally labeled as "healthy". I have no problem with those of you (Sarauk2sf, for example) who take the time to RESPECTFULLY explain why you might not use those labels and why you would recommend others lose the labels themselves. For one, it helps people understand weight loss while maintaining diet flexibility. But for those of you who come to the thread, post something negative about the OP's POV in an unwelcoming and sometimes disrespectful tone is disheartening. Stop, think about your response, and then make your point without coming across like an a=hole. End Rant/0
-
sjohnson__1 wrote: »To be completely honest, I think some people on here look for these broad food label terms (like "junk", "clean", "dirty") just to start an argument.. Let's try using a better approach on the forums so that we're not all viewed as knit-picking a**holes who just come on here to feel smarter than someone else. We all know what "junk" food is for the most part, and it's not something any of us would recommend on a consistent basis - consistent being all the time. We all know what the clean eaters are referring to when they say "clean" food - It's simple, nutritionally dense foods high in micro nutrients, and foods that are normally labeled as "healthy". I have no problem with those of you (Sarauk2sf, for example) who take the time to RESPECTFULLY explain why you might not use those labels and why you would recommend others lose the labels themselves. For one, it helps people understand weight loss while maintaining diet flexibility. But for those of you who come to the thread, post something negative about the OP's POV in an unwelcoming and sometimes disrespectful tone is disheartening. Stop, think about your response, and then make your point without coming across like an a=hole. End Rant/
You are my hero!0 -
sjohnson__1 wrote: »To be completely honest, I think some people on here look for these broad food label terms (like "junk", "clean", "dirty") just to start an argument.. Let's try using a better approach on the forums so that we're not all viewed as knit-picking a**holes who just come on here to feel smarter than someone else. We all know what "junk" food is for the most part, and it's not something any of us would recommend on a consistent basis - consistent being all the time. We all know what the clean eaters are referring to when they say "clean" food - It's simple, nutritionally dense foods high in micro nutrients, and foods that are normally labeled as "healthy". I have no problem with those of you (Sarauk2sf, for example) who take the time to RESPECTFULLY explain why you might not use those labels and why you would recommend others lose the labels themselves. For one, it helps people understand weight loss while maintaining diet flexibility. But for those of you who come to the thread, post something negative about the OP's POV in an unwelcoming and sometimes disrespectful tone is disheartening. Stop, think about your response, and then make your point without coming across like an a=hole. End Rant/
I did not really see anything negative in response to OP ...
most seemed to congratulate him and just mention that junk does not equal bad...unless I missed something..0 -
sjohnson__1 wrote: »To be completely honest, I think some people on here look for these broad food label terms (like "junk", "clean", "dirty") just to start an argument.. Let's try using a better approach on the forums so that we're not all viewed as knit-picking a**holes who just come on here to feel smarter than someone else. We all know what "junk" food is for the most part, and it's not something any of us would recommend on a consistent basis - consistent being all the time. We all know what the clean eaters are referring to when they say "clean" food - It's simple, nutritionally dense foods high in micro nutrients, and foods that are normally labeled as "healthy". I have no problem with those of you (Sarauk2sf, for example) who take the time to RESPECTFULLY explain why you might not use those labels and why you would recommend others lose the labels themselves. For one, it helps people understand weight loss while maintaining diet flexibility. But for those of you who come to the thread, post something negative about the OP's POV in an unwelcoming and sometimes disrespectful tone is disheartening. Stop, think about your response, and then make your point without coming across like an a=hole. End Rant/
I believe we had previously settled on "more ideal" and "less ideal" as the proper food descriptors. @_John_ should be able to confirm.0 -
I get the point of these arguments that no food is "junk," I really do, but for the most part I feel like it's a stupid argument over semantics and words. Like someone said above, everybody basically knows what is meant when someone says "junk food." Me, I think of anything full of processed unrefined carbs, excess added sugar, salt, etc. Like donuts, cheetos, doritos, oreos, and muffins that are just cake in disguise, as junk food.
For someone who is 5'2" and stuck trying to keep my consumption at a paltry 1400 net calories, calorie-dense processed "junk" food is just something that doesn't fit into my diet. I'm not saying that I never eat it - in fact, I'm almost NEVER under my calorie goal lately and I pretty much eat some "junk" food at least twice a day - which is probably my biggest problem why I am stuck at my current weight.
When you're supposed to attempt to eat no more than 1400-1700 total calories (because on gym days, I can burn up to 1800 calories total so I can afford to eat more) it's so hard to stick to your goal when you eat even 300 calories of "junk" food. Because that 300 calories is basically an entire meal. And if that 300 calories was, let's say, a donut, it wouldn't even fill me up. Because a donut basically is sugar and fat, and while the fat gives you at least a little bit of satieity (sp?), the sugar pretty much melts into nothing and you still feel hungry. At least, I do.
300 calories of veggies and fruit is yummy, yes, but I'd argue it gives your brain less pleasure than a gooey delicious donut, which is basically like crack to your brain because it's such a sugar rush. That's why it's more tempting to eat the donut instead, because we know how it'll make us feel. I keep digressing. 300 calories of fruits and veggies fills up your stomach a whole lot more than one donut. It's a huge volume of food in comparison. It's got fiber, vitamins, all the good stuff that a donut won't have. So is it vital to my own weight loss that I cut out the "junk" food so that I can be full and satisfied and eat the volume I want while remaining under my calories?
The answer for me, personally, is YES. I cannot eat "junk" food if I want to lose weight. I am still eating junk food, and I am not losing weight. I'm working out 4-5 times a week at the gym for at least an hour each time, and yet I can't lose weight because I can't control my calories, because I'm still basically binging on bread, ice cream, chocolate, and sugars of some kind every day. It's my own dangmn fault and I know I'm the one to blame for putting it into my mouth, but I can look at my diary every day for the past month and say, "If only I hadn't eaten X, I would have hit my calorie goal that day."
TL/DR: Junk food simply doesn't work for weight loss when you are short and don't have a lot of calories to spare on empty white sugar carbs. Quit bashing people who use the label "junk" food, you freaking know exactly what it means.0 -
I'm such a threadkiller
0 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »I get the point of these arguments that no food is "junk," I really do, but for the most part I feel like it's a stupid argument over semantics and words.
You could cut and paste this into almost every thread on the MFP forums.0 -
I completely agree. I have been losing approximately 4 lbs a week, BUT, I also FEEL better. more energy, I sleep better, no more acid re-flux.
congratulations and keep going!
0 -
I think you're doing great, making the changes that work for YOU.0
-
happysquidmuffin wrote: »I get the point of these arguments that no food is "junk," I really do, but for the most part I feel like it's a stupid argument over semantics and words. Like someone said above, everybody basically knows what is meant when someone says "junk food." Me, I think of anything full of processed unrefined carbs, excess added sugar, salt, etc. Like donuts, cheetos, doritos, oreos, and muffins that are just cake in disguise, as junk food.
For someone who is 5'2" and stuck trying to keep my consumption at a paltry 1400 net calories, calorie-dense processed "junk" food is just something that doesn't fit into my diet. I'm not saying that I never eat it - in fact, I'm almost NEVER under my calorie goal lately and I pretty much eat some "junk" food at least twice a day - which is probably my biggest problem why I am stuck at my current weight.
When you're supposed to attempt to eat no more than 1400-1700 total calories (because on gym days, I can burn up to 1800 calories total so I can afford to eat more) it's so hard to stick to your goal when you eat even 300 calories of "junk" food. Because that 300 calories is basically an entire meal. And if that 300 calories was, let's say, a donut, it wouldn't even fill me up. Because a donut basically is sugar and fat, and while the fat gives you at least a little bit of satieity (sp?), the sugar pretty much melts into nothing and you still feel hungry. At least, I do.
300 calories of veggies and fruit is yummy, yes, but I'd argue it gives your brain less pleasure than a gooey delicious donut, which is basically like crack to your brain because it's such a sugar rush. That's why it's more tempting to eat the donut instead, because we know how it'll make us feel. I keep digressing. 300 calories of fruits and veggies fills up your stomach a whole lot more than one donut. It's a huge volume of food in comparison. It's got fiber, vitamins, all the good stuff that a donut won't have. So is it vital to my own weight loss that I cut out the "junk" food so that I can be full and satisfied and eat the volume I want while remaining under my calories?
The answer for me, personally, is YES. I cannot eat "junk" food if I want to lose weight. I am still eating junk food, and I am not losing weight. I'm working out 4-5 times a week at the gym for at least an hour each time, and yet I can't lose weight because I can't control my calories, because I'm still basically binging on bread, ice cream, chocolate, and sugars of some kind every day. It's my own dangmn fault and I know I'm the one to blame for putting it into my mouth, but I can look at my diary every day for the past month and say, "If only I hadn't eaten X, I would have hit my calorie goal that day."
TL/DR: Junk food simply doesn't work for weight loss when you are short and don't have a lot of calories to spare on empty white sugar carbs. Quit bashing people who use the label "junk" food, you freaking know exactly what it means.
who is advocating for 1400 calories of processed foods?
and how are you defining processed? If I get a package of durum linguine is that bad because it is processed? What if it is "lean cuisine" frozen dinner, again is that bad because processed?
The problem is that people want to throw out blanket terms like "processed," "junk food," "sugar is bad," and they never really define what they are talking about.
and why are you setting up a false choice between vegetables and a donut. You can have both and hit your macros/micros/calorie targets and that is "healthy"....
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is arguing that donuts and vegetables are the same nutritionally.
And please stop with the "donuts please my brain more nonsense" you can get the same brain pleasure from petting a puppy.0 -
But you can't eat a freakin puppy...And please stop with the "donuts please my brain more nonsense" you can get the same brain pleasure from petting a puppy.
Seriously though, shallow bashing of my post because I can't possibly list every possible comparison of food A to food B? I chose to compare donuts to fruits/veggies simply because it popped into my mind as an obvious comparison between foods that can be compared on opposite ends of the spectrum, nutrition-dense vs. nutrition-poor. Who cares that I chose to compare donuts to fruits and vegetables? Would you rather I compare peanut butter to nutella? Does that make more sense to you? *rolls eyes*
And did I EVER say ANYONE was advocating eating 1400 calories of processed foods?
I already gave MY personal definition of processed foods. At the same time, I was using my examples of junk food because I felt most people who use the term "junk" food would agree that those foods aren't exactly ideal. I don't care to argue over whether pasta is bad or good. I believe pasta is better than oreos but worse than grilled chicken breast. There, you happy?
Moderation is great, and I don't believe sugar or fat or carbs are the enemy, I'm just saying, for some people calorie-dense foods don't fit easily into a calorie goal because they add calories quickly and you might hit your calorie goal before eating the amount at which you DESIRE to eat in order to feel satisfied.
A calorie is a calorie, but calories come in different sizes. Hence my example of one dense donut versus mounds of vegetables. Or whatever you'd prefer the comparison to be.
I'm not advocating going vegan ("not that there's anything wrong with that" - I mean that with a Seinfeld sort of tone) or grain-free (unless you're celiac) or juicing or diet pills or something. I'm an omnivore and proud of it. I'm just a short person with a sedentary job trying to explain that calorie dense / "JUNK" foods don't fit easily into MY diet.
There is no possible way someone can write something and explain every possible angle, every disclaimer, every possible option related to every single word or opinion that is written. So why is it that people try to fidn something someone DIDN'T say, to twist around what they DID say? Silly internet, you are internetting hard today.
Sigh, you completely miss the point of my post. But then again, I don't exactly have high expectations for an internet debate, so, I forgive you. All in good fun.
*Disclaimer-because-now-you-think-I've-got-the-butthurts: I'm not butthurt, I'm just bored.
0 -
And I don't even like donuts that much... I prefer homemade cookies or anything that involves Reece's peanut butter. And I just plain eat too much. But it's alot harder to go over on calories if you're stuffing your face with carrots or beans.0
-
happysquidmuffin wrote: »I get the point of these arguments that no food is "junk," I really do, but for the most part I feel like it's a stupid argument over semantics and words. Like someone said above, everybody basically knows what is meant when someone says "junk food." Me, I think of anything full of processed unrefined carbs, excess added sugar, salt, etc. Like donuts, cheetos, doritos, oreos, and muffins that are just cake in disguise, as junk food.
For someone who is 5'2" and stuck trying to keep my consumption at a paltry 1400 net calories, calorie-dense processed "junk" food is just something that doesn't fit into my diet. I'm not saying that I never eat it - in fact, I'm almost NEVER under my calorie goal lately and I pretty much eat some "junk" food at least twice a day - which is probably my biggest problem why I am stuck at my current weight.
When you're supposed to attempt to eat no more than 1400-1700 total calories (because on gym days, I can burn up to 1800 calories total so I can afford to eat more) it's so hard to stick to your goal when you eat even 300 calories of "junk" food. Because that 300 calories is basically an entire meal. And if that 300 calories was, let's say, a donut, it wouldn't even fill me up. Because a donut basically is sugar and fat, and while the fat gives you at least a little bit of satieity (sp?), the sugar pretty much melts into nothing and you still feel hungry. At least, I do.
300 calories of veggies and fruit is yummy, yes, but I'd argue it gives your brain less pleasure than a gooey delicious donut, which is basically like crack to your brain because it's such a sugar rush. That's why it's more tempting to eat the donut instead, because we know how it'll make us feel. I keep digressing. 300 calories of fruits and veggies fills up your stomach a whole lot more than one donut. It's a huge volume of food in comparison. It's got fiber, vitamins, all the good stuff that a donut won't have. So is it vital to my own weight loss that I cut out the "junk" food so that I can be full and satisfied and eat the volume I want while remaining under my calories?
The answer for me, personally, is YES. I cannot eat "junk" food if I want to lose weight. I am still eating junk food, and I am not losing weight. I'm working out 4-5 times a week at the gym for at least an hour each time, and yet I can't lose weight because I can't control my calories, because I'm still basically binging on bread, ice cream, chocolate, and sugars of some kind every day. It's my own dangmn fault and I know I'm the one to blame for putting it into my mouth, but I can look at my diary every day for the past month and say, "If only I hadn't eaten X, I would have hit my calorie goal that day."
TL/DR: Junk food simply doesn't work for weight loss when you are short and don't have a lot of calories to spare on empty white sugar carbs. Quit bashing people who use the label "junk" food, you freaking know exactly what it means.
who is advocating for 1400 calories of processed foods?
and how are you defining processed? If I get a package of durum linguine is that bad because it is processed? What if it is "lean cuisine" frozen dinner, again is that bad because processed?
The problem is that people want to throw out blanket terms like "processed," "junk food," "sugar is bad," and they never really define what they are talking about.
and why are you setting up a false choice between vegetables and a donut. You can have both and hit your macros/micros/calorie targets and that is "healthy"....
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is arguing that donuts and vegetables are the same nutritionally.
And please stop with the "donuts please my brain more nonsense" you can get the same brain pleasure from petting a puppy.
I ate the puppy and pet the donut. Now my hands are sticky and the police are knocking at my door. I think I *kitten* up.
I don't think she's talking about a 1400c diet of processed food. She's saying that when she has to net 1400c, it's tough for her to eat hit her goals and be able to work in the junk.0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »I get the point of these arguments that no food is "junk," I really do, but for the most part I feel like it's a stupid argument over semantics and words. Like someone said above, everybody basically knows what is meant when someone says "junk food." Me, I think of anything full of processed unrefined carbs, excess added sugar, salt, etc. Like donuts, cheetos, doritos, oreos, and muffins that are just cake in disguise, as junk food.
For someone who is 5'2" and stuck trying to keep my consumption at a paltry 1400 net calories, calorie-dense processed "junk" food is just something that doesn't fit into my diet. I'm not saying that I never eat it - in fact, I'm almost NEVER under my calorie goal lately and I pretty much eat some "junk" food at least twice a day - which is probably my biggest problem why I am stuck at my current weight.
When you're supposed to attempt to eat no more than 1400-1700 total calories (because on gym days, I can burn up to 1800 calories total so I can afford to eat more) it's so hard to stick to your goal when you eat even 300 calories of "junk" food. Because that 300 calories is basically an entire meal. And if that 300 calories was, let's say, a donut, it wouldn't even fill me up. Because a donut basically is sugar and fat, and while the fat gives you at least a little bit of satieity (sp?), the sugar pretty much melts into nothing and you still feel hungry. At least, I do.
300 calories of veggies and fruit is yummy, yes, but I'd argue it gives your brain less pleasure than a gooey delicious donut, which is basically like crack to your brain because it's such a sugar rush. That's why it's more tempting to eat the donut instead, because we know how it'll make us feel. I keep digressing. 300 calories of fruits and veggies fills up your stomach a whole lot more than one donut. It's a huge volume of food in comparison. It's got fiber, vitamins, all the good stuff that a donut won't have. So is it vital to my own weight loss that I cut out the "junk" food so that I can be full and satisfied and eat the volume I want while remaining under my calories?
The answer for me, personally, is YES. I cannot eat "junk" food if I want to lose weight. I am still eating junk food, and I am not losing weight. I'm working out 4-5 times a week at the gym for at least an hour each time, and yet I can't lose weight because I can't control my calories, because I'm still basically binging on bread, ice cream, chocolate, and sugars of some kind every day. It's my own dangmn fault and I know I'm the one to blame for putting it into my mouth, but I can look at my diary every day for the past month and say, "If only I hadn't eaten X, I would have hit my calorie goal that day."
TL/DR: Junk food simply doesn't work for weight loss when you are short and don't have a lot of calories to spare on empty white sugar carbs. Quit bashing people who use the label "junk" food, you freaking know exactly what it means.
who is advocating for 1400 calories of processed foods?
and how are you defining processed? If I get a package of durum linguine is that bad because it is processed? What if it is "lean cuisine" frozen dinner, again is that bad because processed?
The problem is that people want to throw out blanket terms like "processed," "junk food," "sugar is bad," and they never really define what they are talking about.
and why are you setting up a false choice between vegetables and a donut. You can have both and hit your macros/micros/calorie targets and that is "healthy"....
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is arguing that donuts and vegetables are the same nutritionally.
And please stop with the "donuts please my brain more nonsense" you can get the same brain pleasure from petting a puppy.
I ate the puppy and pet the donut. Now my hands are sticky and the police are knocking at my door. I think I *kitten* up.
I don't think she's talking about a 1400c diet of processed food. She's saying that when she has to net 1400c, it's tough for her to eat hit her goals and be able to work in the junk.
you are a horrible person...but I like it!0 -
Congrats on your loss0
-
tincanonastring wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »I get the point of these arguments that no food is "junk," I really do, but for the most part I feel like it's a stupid argument over semantics and words.
You could cut and paste this into almost every thread on the MFP forums.
I think ill use this line on my girlfriend when ever I get the chance
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »I get the point of these arguments that no food is "junk," I really do, but for the most part I feel like it's a stupid argument over semantics and words. Like someone said above, everybody basically knows what is meant when someone says "junk food." Me, I think of anything full of processed unrefined carbs, excess added sugar, salt, etc. Like donuts, cheetos, doritos, oreos, and muffins that are just cake in disguise, as junk food.
For someone who is 5'2" and stuck trying to keep my consumption at a paltry 1400 net calories, calorie-dense processed "junk" food is just something that doesn't fit into my diet. I'm not saying that I never eat it - in fact, I'm almost NEVER under my calorie goal lately and I pretty much eat some "junk" food at least twice a day - which is probably my biggest problem why I am stuck at my current weight.
When you're supposed to attempt to eat no more than 1400-1700 total calories (because on gym days, I can burn up to 1800 calories total so I can afford to eat more) it's so hard to stick to your goal when you eat even 300 calories of "junk" food. Because that 300 calories is basically an entire meal. And if that 300 calories was, let's say, a donut, it wouldn't even fill me up. Because a donut basically is sugar and fat, and while the fat gives you at least a little bit of satieity (sp?), the sugar pretty much melts into nothing and you still feel hungry. At least, I do.
300 calories of veggies and fruit is yummy, yes, but I'd argue it gives your brain less pleasure than a gooey delicious donut, which is basically like crack to your brain because it's such a sugar rush. That's why it's more tempting to eat the donut instead, because we know how it'll make us feel. I keep digressing. 300 calories of fruits and veggies fills up your stomach a whole lot more than one donut. It's a huge volume of food in comparison. It's got fiber, vitamins, all the good stuff that a donut won't have. So is it vital to my own weight loss that I cut out the "junk" food so that I can be full and satisfied and eat the volume I want while remaining under my calories?
The answer for me, personally, is YES. I cannot eat "junk" food if I want to lose weight. I am still eating junk food, and I am not losing weight. I'm working out 4-5 times a week at the gym for at least an hour each time, and yet I can't lose weight because I can't control my calories, because I'm still basically binging on bread, ice cream, chocolate, and sugars of some kind every day. It's my own dangmn fault and I know I'm the one to blame for putting it into my mouth, but I can look at my diary every day for the past month and say, "If only I hadn't eaten X, I would have hit my calorie goal that day."
TL/DR: Junk food simply doesn't work for weight loss when you are short and don't have a lot of calories to spare on empty white sugar carbs. Quit bashing people who use the label "junk" food, you freaking know exactly what it means.
who is advocating for 1400 calories of processed foods?
and how are you defining processed? If I get a package of durum linguine is that bad because it is processed? What if it is "lean cuisine" frozen dinner, again is that bad because processed?
The problem is that people want to throw out blanket terms like "processed," "junk food," "sugar is bad," and they never really define what they are talking about.
and why are you setting up a false choice between vegetables and a donut. You can have both and hit your macros/micros/calorie targets and that is "healthy"....
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is arguing that donuts and vegetables are the same nutritionally.
And please stop with the "donuts please my brain more nonsense" you can get the same brain pleasure from petting a puppy.
I ate the puppy and pet the donut. Now my hands are sticky and the police are knocking at my door. I think I *kitten* up.
I don't think she's talking about a 1400c diet of processed food. She's saying that when she has to net 1400c, it's tough for her to eat hit her goals and be able to work in the junk.
you are a horrible person...but I like it!
What's wrong with eating puppies? People in my culture eat puppies. I'm offended now
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
Do you Love MyFitnessPal? Have you crushed a goal or improved your life through better nutrition using MyFitnessPal?
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!
Share your success and inspire others. Leave us a review on Apple Or Google Play stores!