For Some of Us there ARE Bad Foods
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?
How can we have any without context?
So if I hurt my toe do I need context for that to be bad?
Yes. If you did it saving an orphanage, is it as bad as hurting it in the context of you picked a lousy place for your nightstand?
Yes, I would think so. Saving the orphanage would be good, but hurting my toe would still be bad. If your child died saving an orphanage, would you not think their death was bad?
I'm not sure I could unqualified say it was bad because it would require me to say it is bad that there is an orphanage full of orphans that are alive. I'd find it better if both could have lived.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?
How can we have any without context?
So if I hurt my toe do I need context for that to be bad?
Yes. If you did it saving an orphanage, is it as bad as hurting it in the context of you picked a lousy place for your nightstand?
Yes, I would think so. Saving the orphanage would be good, but hurting my toe would still be bad. If your child died saving an orphanage, would you not think their death was bad?
I'm not sure I could unqualified say it was bad because it would require me to say it is bad that there is an orphanage full of orphans that are alive. I'd find it better if both could have lived.
In your opinion can something not be good and bad, or have good and bad components?0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »I'm going to regret tossing my two cents into this discussion with the way this thread is going (especially given some of the players in this thread), but here goes nothing.
I lost the majority of my weight during something that I call The Year of Weddings. Over the course of 6 months I had 4 close friends get married. And that year included a number of showers, bachelorette parties, craft parties, engagement parties, cake tastings, cupcake tastings, and all of the other events that happen every year (birthdays, game days, holidays, etc.).
I was struggling a lot to stick with my plan. And as I got deeper into the diet and my calories started to drop and fatigue started to set in, I was struggling with some serious mental and food issues. I was regularly breaking into tears about the foods I was eating. I cried in a friend's driveway before her bridal shower. I cried in a restaurant with my family because they were out of quinoa burgers. I was also having occasional binges where I felt like I actually had no control over my body. It felt like I was sitting beside myself watching my body gorge itself to the point of pain as some kind of self-harm mechanism. And no matter how loudly I shouted, my body would not stop. It was not a happy time for me.
I was already seeing a therapist for anxiety and depression and I didn't bring any of this up with her at first because I thought it was entirely normal (it's hard to see it when you're in it, sometimes). Dieting is supposed to be about pain, right? You're supposed to be miserable, right? So I suffered.
When I finally did describe it to her what I was describing turned out not to be normal. She made me realize that it wasn't okay and she worked with me to reevaluate why it was happening. I wasn't ready to give up the diet despite her advice (I was open and honest with her about it - I still had quite a bit to lose and I wasn't to the point of being diagnosed with BED or other EDs), but I could not go on as I had been.
Learning to reevaluate the way I looked at foods and take the judgement away was the only thing that allowed me to continue. If I hadn't discovered how to do that (in large part thanks to these boards) I am fairly certain that I would not have reached my goals and probably would have spiraled further out of control.
For me, the idea of good foods and bad foods is damaging to my mental health. For me, it is not something that I can worth with within the framework of a healthy diet (remember, mental health is important too!). For me, I will not allow that idea to work its way into my brain again and start doing more damage.
I don't care what you call your food. But if you say it out loud or you say it on the boards, I will add the opposing view. If I can stop just one other person from going down the same route I went down, all of the stupid arguments the posters here want to have about it will be worth my time.
And I just wanted to throw in a big THANK YOU to you for sharing this because I have struggled this way for YEARS and I didn't know that wasn't how it was supposed to be. I'm now working on re-adjusting how I look at food and it's slowly working, though it's not changing overnight. So I hope you don't regret posting it too much, there are those of us lurkers who appreciate it.
On a side note, I realize not everyone is this way and so won't relate but it is nice for those of us who do.
Other random side note: I love where this thread has ended up.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Soooo... We can't talk about good and bad weather any longer? Yikes! I think it's bad that the words good and bad cannot be used here without inciting a moralistic argument.
Read up the thread and you'll see bad weather isn't as helpful as saying "the weather here today is rainy and I don't care for it," because while you might say that is bad weather, Shirley Manson would say your bad weather is the only time she's happy.
What!? That's garbage!
I hope you're just being sarcastic. i think there are so many different perceptions of 'bad' and 'good'. You asked about if someone's child died saving other children in an orphanage... my personal perception would not be that my child's death was 'bad' in that instance. Every single person on earth dies, and that would be a brave, selfless death. A good death. Not a bad death.
As far as hurting a toe, there are far worse hurts a person could suffer, so again, it's a matter of perception. A stubbed toe can hurt for a while, but a Tylenol can ease the pain. A broken toe is quite a bit worse, but heals over time. What about other things worse than toes? Cancer for instance? I'd rather hurt my toe than get cancer. The toe seems pretty 'good' in that comparison.
There are no black and whites in most situations, and we need to be so careful when it comes to discussions about things like food.
Being nice to each other should always be tantamount. We don't need to be 'right', being kind is more important.
I'd like to help people lose weight, and understand that food is not the enemy, but if feelings are going to be hurt, I'll back out of the fight rather than keep going - it's why I dropped off of MFP for a while.
Food is never 'bad', we just need to work on our own perceptions of food and how we feel about our ability to control our consumption of it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Soooo... We can't talk about good and bad weather any longer? Yikes! I think it's bad that the words good and bad cannot be used here without inciting a moralistic argument.
Read up the thread and you'll see bad weather isn't as helpful as saying "the weather here today is rainy and I don't care for it," because while you might say that is bad weather, Shirley Manson would say your bad weather is the only time she's happy.
What!? That's garbage!
I hope you're just being sarcastic. i think there are so many different perceptions of 'bad' and 'good'. You asked about if someone's child died saving other children in an orphanage... my personal perception would not be that my child's death was 'bad' in that instance. Every single person on earth dies, and that would be a brave, selfless death. A good death. Not a bad death.
As far as hurting a toe, there are far worse hurts a person could suffer, so again, it's a matter of perception. A stubbed toe can hurt for a while, but a Tylenol can ease the pain. A broken toe is quite a bit worse, but heals over time. What about other things worse than toes? Cancer for instance? I'd rather hurt my toe than get cancer. The toe seems pretty 'good' in that comparison.
There are no black and whites in most situations, and we need to be so careful when it comes to discussions about things like food.
Being nice to each other should always be tantamount. We don't need to be 'right', being kind is more important.
I'd like to help people lose weight, and understand that food is not the enemy, but if feelings are going to be hurt, I'll back out of the fight rather than keep going - it's why I dropped off of MFP for a while.
Food is never 'bad', we just need to work on our own perceptions of food and how we feel about our ability to control our consumption of it.
Shirley Manson's band name is "Garbage"0 -
"Everyone who disagrees with my position is calling me a bad person"
Is this seriously the mindset people approach internet forums with? That.. ain't healthy.0 -
Soooo... We can't talk about good and bad weather any longer? Yikes! I think it's bad that the words good and bad cannot be used here without inciting a moralistic argument.
Personally, I don't consider good and bad inherently problematic as descriptors (although others are often better -- if I said "weather's bad here today" you would only know I don't like it, and it might be weather you love).
But in any case, my concern is how often using "bad" for foods leads people to or reflects a moralistic judgment, and again feelings of guilt and shame. I also think it tends to make people stupider about nutrition, since thinking that certain foods are good, no matter what, and others are bad, no matter what, often results in an overall diet that is pretty lacking or not that healthful or unlikely to help them meet their goals, because extremely unbalanced. That's also why I have no real problem with thinking of overall diets as good or bad (although I'd try to use a more specific term like nutrient-rich or healthful, I suppose). I haven't really run into people who say "oh, I'm terrible, I eat a bad diet"--it seems to be more focused on the specific foods.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »1. They are so stupid that when presented with the statement "there are no bad foods" they accept this without question and uncritically and therefore run off to construct their diets entirely out of poptarts and dust and / or
2. They are so emotionally fragile that when presented with a viewpoint that goes against what they believe or may be construed an insensitive to their struggles that it causes a complete collapse in their motivation and they stop their efforts altogether
Would the opposite also be true? Must we say that there are no bad foods because of an assumption that someone is so stupid or emotionally fragile they will assume calling a food bad means they should never ever consume that food, and that doing so in any amount will cause them harm?
Once again, I personally don't object to someone saying a food is a bad food for them. I do think there is enough moralistic and disordered thinking about foods that the message that foods are bad or good (or what you eat makes you bad or good) should be countered. There was just another new thread yesterday from someone feeling guilt and shame when she eats bread.
What frustrates me is people twisting the statement "there are no bad foods" into a claim that nutrition doesn't matter. No one is saying that nutrition does not matter.
I don't know if I will ever get used to what seems to be common thinking on MFP that good and bad always have some moral connotation. If I stub my toe or stain my shirt, that's bad. It’s not morally wrong, but still not good.
I do agree with your last paragraph, though I get just as frustrated when calling foods bad = never eating them and eventually failing or binge eating.
Actually, having a toe stubbed or shirt stained could be morally bad if the ethics system doesn't regard intent and blame. In such ethics, the world where your toe is stubbed is morally worse compared to an identical world where it isn't. Saying you believe morals requires intent doesn't even fix the comparison because almost all adults eating involves the intent of the adults.
For me personally, my biggest problem is that categorical statements are usually wrong (though to avoid the trap myself, I won't say they are always wrong!). A Twinkie is a bad food - well unless you're starving to death, or you're about to go into hypoglycemic shock, or you've been eating some odd diet that has left you thiamine deficient and now that oh-so-unclean food's B vitamin enrichment will fill in the deficiency - suddenly it is a good food because the food can't be judged outside of the context of use. It is like saying a tool like a hammer is bad - well sure, if you try to recreate the 3 Stooges with it, it is very bad, but most people use it for something good like building birdhouses or whatnot.
For someone that is starving would you say that a Twinkie, while maybe lifesaving, is not the best food for that person? That there would a better food if it were available?
Well now you're not discussing if a food is good, you're discussing if it is the best. So are good foods ones that meet a context and nothing could meet that context better? Does food being good depend on what is available to you, or are there foods that are always good, not just waiting for what's better to displace them? This seems another time I'm forced to use the phrase making the perfect the enemy of the good.
How can we have better or best without having good/bad?
How can we have any without context?
So if I hurt my toe do I need context for that to be bad?
Yes. If you did it saving an orphanage, is it as bad as hurting it in the context of you picked a lousy place for your nightstand?
Yes, I would think so. Saving the orphanage would be good, but hurting my toe would still be bad. If your child died saving an orphanage, would you not think their death was bad?
I'm not sure I could unqualified say it was bad because it would require me to say it is bad that there is an orphanage full of orphans that are alive. I'd find it better if both could have lived.
In your opinion can something not be good and bad, or have good and bad components?
Depends on what something is. If a something includes context, I can say things are bad or good, better or worse, in that context, and that parts of it are those in that context. I avoid saying a thing or situation is categorically bad or good, better or worse.0 -
This weather example seems to me a perfect example of how just calling weather bad without context is as silly as calling food bad without context.
Is there really bad weather? (well tsunamis and hurricanes I suppose but thats not what people usually mean when they say today's weather is bad) or is it just bad weather fir that person and that context- eg rain is bad if you were hosting an outdoor garden event, but is very good if you are in a drought. Rain itself is not bad, it is only bad for you in your context.
So, sure people can say foods are bad for them if they have allergies etc but that doesn't make the food itself inherently bad or bad for everyone in all amounts and all contexts.
Just like, as I said before, cats are not bad pets for everyone because my husband is allergic to them.
And, as always, dosage and context matters - just because Twinkies are not bad doesn't mean eat 200 of them per day. Or 200 carrots for that matter.
Just like cats not being bad doesn't mean have 200 of them as pets or rain not being bad doesn't mean we want you to be washed away in a flood.0 -
BecomingBane wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Soooo... We can't talk about good and bad weather any longer? Yikes! I think it's bad that the words good and bad cannot be used here without inciting a moralistic argument.
Read up the thread and you'll see bad weather isn't as helpful as saying "the weather here today is rainy and I don't care for it," because while you might say that is bad weather, Shirley Manson would say your bad weather is the only time she's happy.
What!? That's garbage!
I hope you're just being sarcastic. i think there are so many different perceptions of 'bad' and 'good'. You asked about if someone's child died saving other children in an orphanage... my personal perception would not be that my child's death was 'bad' in that instance. Every single person on earth dies, and that would be a brave, selfless death. A good death. Not a bad death.
As far as hurting a toe, there are far worse hurts a person could suffer, so again, it's a matter of perception. A stubbed toe can hurt for a while, but a Tylenol can ease the pain. A broken toe is quite a bit worse, but heals over time. What about other things worse than toes? Cancer for instance? I'd rather hurt my toe than get cancer. The toe seems pretty 'good' in that comparison.
There are no black and whites in most situations, and we need to be so careful when it comes to discussions about things like food.
Being nice to each other should always be tantamount. We don't need to be 'right', being kind is more important.
I'd like to help people lose weight, and understand that food is not the enemy, but if feelings are going to be hurt, I'll back out of the fight rather than keep going - it's why I dropped off of MFP for a while.
Food is never 'bad', we just need to work on our own perceptions of food and how we feel about our ability to control our consumption of it.
Shirley Manson's band name is "Garbage"
There was a lot more to my post than just the question about her response.0 -
paperpudding wrote: »This weather example seems to me a perfect example of how just calling weather bad without context is as silly as calling food bad without context.
Is there really bad weather? (well tsunamis and hurricanes I suppose but thats not what people usually mean when they say today's weather is bad) or is it just bad weather fir that person and that context- eg rain is bad if you were hosting an outdoor garden event, but is very good if you are in a drought. Rain itself is not bad, it is only bad for you in your context.
So, sure people can say foods are bad for them if they have allergies etc but that doesn't make the food itself inherently bad or bad for everyone in all amounts and all contexts.
Just like, as I said before, cats are not bad pets for everyone because my husband is allergic to them.
And, as always, dosage and context matters - just because Twinkies are not bad doesn't mean eat 200 of them per day. Or 200 carrots for that matter.
Just like cats not being bad doesn't mean have 200 of them as pets or rain not being bad doesn't mean we want you to be washed away in a flood.
How about for those of us who love "bad" weather? I love it with it rains. Today, it hailed! I was outside, and that was less than ideal, but it was still really awesome.
Thunder and lightening? Yes, please!
See how complicated this quickly becomes when we don't use context or are lazy in language?0 -
paperpudding wrote: »This weather example seems to me a perfect example of how just calling weather bad without context is as silly as calling food bad without context.
Is there really bad weather? (well tsunamis and hurricanes I suppose but thats not what people usually mean when they say today's weather is bad) or is it just bad weather fir that person and that context- eg rain is bad if you were hosting an outdoor garden event, but is very good if you are in a drought. Rain itself is not bad, it is only bad for you in your context.
So, sure people can say foods are bad for them if they have allergies etc but that doesn't make the food itself inherently bad or bad for everyone in all amounts and all contexts.
Just like, as I said before, cats are not bad pets for everyone because my husband is allergic to them.
And, as always, dosage and context matters - just because Twinkies are not bad doesn't mean eat 200 of them per day. Or 200 carrots for that matter.
Just like cats not being bad doesn't mean have 200 of them as pets or rain not being bad doesn't mean we want you to be washed away in a flood.
How about for those of us who love "bad" weather? I love it with it rains. Today, it hailed! I was outside, and that was less than ideal, but it was still really awesome.
Thunder and lightening? Yes, please!
See how complicated this quickly becomes when we don't use context or are lazy in language?
@snikkins Nailed it! Especially in your last sentence. Congrats on your 1,000th post!0 -
paperpudding wrote: »This weather example seems to me a perfect example of how just calling weather bad without context is as silly as calling food bad without context.
Is there really bad weather? (well tsunamis and hurricanes I suppose but thats not what people usually mean when they say today's weather is bad) or is it just bad weather fir that person and that context- eg rain is bad if you were hosting an outdoor garden event, but is very good if you are in a drought. Rain itself is not bad, it is only bad for you in your context.
So, sure people can say foods are bad for them if they have allergies etc but that doesn't make the food itself inherently bad or bad for everyone in all amounts and all contexts.
Just like, as I said before, cats are not bad pets for everyone because my husband is allergic to them.
And, as always, dosage and context matters - just because Twinkies are not bad doesn't mean eat 200 of them per day. Or 200 carrots for that matter.
Just like cats not being bad doesn't mean have 200 of them as pets or rain not being bad doesn't mean we want you to be washed away in a flood.
How about for those of us who love "bad" weather? I love it with it rains. Today, it hailed! I was outside, and that was less than ideal, but it was still really awesome.
Thunder and lightening? Yes, please!
See how complicated this quickly becomes when we don't use context or are lazy in language?
Yes! I live in the southern USA and there's something so calming about sitting on the porch with a beer watching and listening to a summertime thunderstorm roll in. The smell of the incoming rain is intoxicating.0 -
-
How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
No butter, whole eggs cooked in fat or bacon either.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »How about this. What some would call bad foods are now termed Whoa foods, from this article:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/eat-right/
Just my opinion, but I'd guess the good people at National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute don't consider once in a while everyday like some people do. From the article:
You should replace daily croissants with at least a pain au chocolat every once it a while.
This list make absolute no sense to someone primarily calorie counting.
It's still about mislabeling food and putting it in the "wrong groups".
I guess I'd better give up on my two croissant breakfast this morning, oh noes.
Actually it makes plenty of sense to someone calorie counting. Of course a calorie is a calorie as far as weight loss goes, but someone on a lower calorie diet needs to emphasize a diet of nutrient dense foods while reducing calories while meeting nutritional needs.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K 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
- 394 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 949 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions