Eat whatever you want AND Lose Weight!!
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.
We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.
The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.6 -
Your wings sound really delicious! I'm weak for boneless wings. That sounds like a great replacement.
0 -
going to the theatre this evening straight after work, so won't eat till afterwards. Most likely choice will be mcdonalds (only place still serving food at that time), so i've pre logged my usual order. Happily (thanks to the fact I went for a run today) it fits into my daily allowance!3
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.
We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.
The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)
To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.
0 -
@Wheelhouse15
Until I got pregnant I kept what one poster refereed to as "fast carbs" out of my diet for 7 years. Rice, potatos, bread, chips, burgers and other junk.
I got my nutrients from micro dense food. Sweet potatoes, colorful vegetables, nuts, legumes. I shopped "On the outside of the grocery store" only. Pregnancy was an evil *kitten* for me that resulted in me drinking full sugar coca-colas to try to stay awake working 60 hours a week while limiting my caffeine consumption. Even while pregnant I kept my junk food at bare minimum (Vinegar and Salt potato chips + a concoction of water, coconut water, and blue gatorade were all that kept my nausea away)
I was also put on bed rest for 6weeks while my husband was in another country at the time. The family member that came and stayed with me was not what you would call a picture of good health and prepared tons of pasta and pizza and similar junk while I layed in bed. In the hospital the fair was fairly limited to the same as well. The result... I gained 80lbs in pregnancy. I tried to get it off while I was nursing but I was one of those lucky souls who's milk supply would dip fairly drastically when I reduced my calorie intake. Follow that up with the fact that after coming off of Maternity Leave I worked 80 hours a week for 3 months. It was grueling and work would provide us Pizza, hamburgers and other crappy catered meals in that time. I monitored my portions through all of this and I am very proud that the only weight I gained (albeit way excessive) was just my pregnancy/baby weight.
I am now *Trying* to get back to my old eating habits. At that time I had awesome cholesterol numbers, my heart rate always blew people's minds.
I might add that this summer I had 3 TIAs in a period of 6 weeks that was due to a hole in my heart and a clotting condition that I have developed that is exacerbated with high cholesterol. I have all the motivation in the world to get this right. I *NEED* to get off of the meds. My diet pre-baby provided me plenty of low glycemic load carbs. While many here might scoff at this, for some of us it works. In fact for many it works.
Furthermore, for you to state "You cant go without carbs blah blah blah" Very FEW diets actually eliminate carbohydrates completely it just redirects where you are getting your carbohydrates from. Those diets are no different for some people than eating vegan or vegetarian. I mean, beef (and most meat) is a wonderful source of B-12, chromium and highly bio available iron. But I see plenty of people cut beef and all meat out of their diet for Moral or spiritual reasons. So why can't i cut out foods from my diet that make me *feel like crap* and through observation and introspection I have discovered derail my efforts at living a healthier life? So the F* what if I get my carbs from beans or nuts and consume more protein than carbohydrates? If my health is fine and it works for ME then no one should judge. And to be clear, 6 years on the same "Diet" is a lifestyle choice. My friends understood and knew my dietary restrictions (which usually required them to provide a salad and some meat...)
Here is some evolutionary science for you. (from my College Anthro class. Not internet junk)
1) Once we evolve to have certain traits those traits are with us forever. (remember this one it's important)
2) During the Pliocene or Pleistocene early humans hung out in trees and at the leftovers of carnivores.
3) Farming didn't begin until the Neolithic era. (around 9000 bc) And even then the plants and grains were very limited.
4) Skeletons show that evidence of human cavities coincides with farming.
5) Leavened Bread was not really created until 4000 BC. And while very important in making calories available to humans was and is not a primary source of micro nutrients. Bread had a short shelf life and still was not as readily available as it is today.
Lets be honest with our selves, we have access to LOTS of food. Way more than our ancestors and the effort we have to put into getting by comparison is pretty low. So bread after the Bronze era up until the 1980s was incredibly important in providing a population that was far mobile than we are now with enough calories to carry out it's day to day functions. Bread help forward the intelligence of humans that's for sure. BUT the fact remains that while bread has been a major part of human progression over the last 6,000 years it is important to recognize that our lives have changed. and there is about 46,000 or more years of dietary evolution that has humans humans programmed to get their BASE nutrition from nuts, wild grains, fruits vegetables, and animal products.
SO in an environment where the foods, that were once so scarce to people effectively forcing them to develop bread, are readily available why not eat a diet that your body is biologically pre-programmed for (if you so choose). That would be a diet that is full of healthy fats, lean meats, and unadulterated plant material ( fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts) and as a result falls into society's definition of "low carb" . If this is a diet that is *EASY* for you to adhere to on a regular basis then why in the world not follow that methodology for eating. (Funny people in the Bronze Age likely did not argue the merits of eating bread over nuts and legumes. Rather they likely enjoyed the extra energy it provided)
Something else to consider. Bread was helpful in the human condition because we moved A LOT and needed more calories to carry out our daily activities. It was a great way that got us a quick injection of calories. We don't move as much. So we don't need the extra calories. White carbs (Bread, sugar, rice) elevate blood sugar much more quickly than fat and protein because the process to convert them to sugar is a little more complex.
Finally the reason why it is so difficult to eliminate "whole food groups" has nothing to do with your nutritional needs. It has more to do with your cultural influences and your emotional association with those foods. Don't you think that a person part of a whole society that believes in reincarnation as a whole will have no problem avoiding eating animal products? (This can be seen india)
Where as a society who has no access to grains or fresh vegetables for large parts of the year will likely get their calories from the available animals (early Scandinavian people, Inuits, Native Americans). Their bodies adapt and they never really miss the food that food group.
Here, half way down this article you can read how the "Traditional Inuit diet is nutrient dense" and what the western diet has done to them. http://www.feedingnunavut.com/beyond-hunger-malnutrition-and-inuit-children/
I would not be surprised if we some day discovered that people's genetics (mine is heavily native American and Scandanavian influenced) dictate their dietary needs. I am going to bet money that a European would likely go a little crazy on an inuit diet because 6,000 years of their ancestry relied on bread and grains for their primary nutrition.
Furthermore, our obesity epidemic is likely more linked to our lack of movement, increase in calorie dense but nutritionally empty foods (Sodas, potato chips) and you falsely assume that everyone who is obese has made the strides and efforts to change their diet. You also assume that their food relationship and knowledge is sufficient to make good diet choices. Also your post assumes that the financial limitations of the impoverished does not limit their access to good food choices or even the time to prepare those foods. Those foods that would be satiating and make calorie reduction easier. The simple fact our modern life facilitates poor eating choices (See the paragraph where I talk about working 80 hour weeks and in survival mode) It used to be that survival mode meant suffering through a time of famine. Today survival mode means dealing with poor food choices that result in excess weight gain and poor heart health.
0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.
We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.
The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)
To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.
Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.
Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.
Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »You can eat whatever you want within your calories and still lose weight.
But I don't *want* to eat candy!
That's fine. You can eat whatever you want within your calories still lose weight.
But I don't *want* a big burger!
Okay. You can eat whatever you want within your calories and still lose weight.
But I don't *want* fast food, or sugar, or french fries, or any of that stuff!!
You can eat whatever you want within your calories and still lose weight. If you don't want certain foods, don't find them tasty, don't find them worth the calories, or find they don't work for you, then don't eat them. You can eat whatever you want and still lose weight doesn't mean that you have to eat foods you don't want to eat.
Heh, so true as to how these threads go. And absolutely right on the last paragraph.4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Nice except it's not entirely true. Not everyone has a huge calorie allowance. Some people can have one of those 800+ calories in a double cheeseburger meal and be left trying to manage the rest of the day with not many calories to work with and end up hungry. So yeah. It's true, more true for people with larger allowances. But it just is not worth it to spend half of my daily allowance on a single meal.
Your last sentence is the only one that matters. If it is not worth it to you to use 800 calories on a double cheese burger, then don't. If a cheeseburger is something you desire and you want to work it in, I'm sure you can find a way to do that: extra exercise, banking calories in days leading up to it or ending a little under on days after, eating at maintenance calories for one day, cutting the burger in half, making a lower calorie version of the burger (a single instead of a double) , etc.
The point is that by having an understanding of CICO and your own individual calorie needs, there's no reason, other than personal preference, that someone can't eat the foods they want. If you can't figure out a way to fit that cheeseburger in, then you don't want it that much to begin with and it's a moot point.
Worth quoting in full.3 -
-
You mean you haven't tried the Shake Weight?3
-
tmoneyag99 wrote: »@Wheelhouse15
Until I got pregnant I kept what one poster refereed to as "fast carbs" out of my diet for 7 years. Rice, potatos, bread, chips, burgers and other junk.
I got my nutrients from micro dense food. Sweet potatoes, colorful vegetables, nuts, legumes. I shopped "On the outside of the grocery store" only. Pregnancy was an evil *kitten* for me that resulted in me drinking full sugar coca-colas to try to stay awake working 60 hours a week while limiting my caffeine consumption. Even while pregnant I kept my junk food at bare minimum (Vinegar and Salt potato chips + a concoction of water, coconut water, and blue gatorade were all that kept my nausea away)
I was also put on bed rest for 6weeks while my husband was in another country at the time. The family member that came and stayed with me was not what you would call a picture of good health and prepared tons of pasta and pizza and similar junk while I layed in bed. In the hospital the fair was fairly limited to the same as well. The result... I gained 80lbs in pregnancy. I tried to get it off while I was nursing but I was one of those lucky souls who's milk supply would dip fairly drastically when I reduced my calorie intake. Follow that up with the fact that after coming off of Maternity Leave I worked 80 hours a week for 3 months. It was grueling and work would provide us Pizza, hamburgers and other crappy catered meals in that time. I monitored my portions through all of this and I am very proud that the only weight I gained (albeit way excessive) was just my pregnancy/baby weight.
I am now *Trying* to get back to my old eating habits. At that time I had awesome cholesterol numbers, my heart rate always blew people's minds.
I might add that this summer I had 3 TIAs in a period of 6 weeks that was due to a hole in my heart and a clotting condition that I have developed that is exacerbated with high cholesterol. I have all the motivation in the world to get this right. I *NEED* to get off of the meds. My diet pre-baby provided me plenty of low glycemic load carbs. While many here might scoff at this, for some of us it works. In fact for many it works.
Furthermore, for you to state "You cant go without carbs blah blah blah" Very FEW diets actually eliminate carbohydrates completely it just redirects where you are getting your carbohydrates from. Those diets are no different for some people than eating vegan or vegetarian. I mean, beef (and most meat) is a wonderful source of B-12, chromium and highly bio available iron. But I see plenty of people cut beef and all meat out of their diet for Moral or spiritual reasons. So why can't i cut out foods from my diet that make me *feel like crap* and through observation and introspection I have discovered derail my efforts at living a healthier life? So the F* what if I get my carbs from beans or nuts and consume more protein than carbohydrates? If my health is fine and it works for ME then no one should judge. And to be clear, 6 years on the same "Diet" is a lifestyle choice. My friends understood and knew my dietary restrictions (which usually required them to provide a salad and some meat...)
Here is some evolutionary science for you. (from my College Anthro class. Not internet junk)
1) Once we evolve to have certain traits those traits are with us forever. (remember this one it's important)
2) During the Pliocene or Pleistocene early humans hung out in trees and at the leftovers of carnivores.
3) Farming didn't begin until the Neolithic era. (around 9000 bc) And even then the plants and grains were very limited.
4) Skeletons show that evidence of human cavities coincides with farming.
5) Leavened Bread was not really created until 4000 BC. And while very important in making calories available to humans was and is not a primary source of micro nutrients. Bread had a short shelf life and still was not as readily available as it is today.
Lets be honest with our selves, we have access to LOTS of food. Way more than our ancestors and the effort we have to put into getting by comparison is pretty low. So bread after the Bronze era up until the 1980s was incredibly important in providing a population that was far mobile than we are now with enough calories to carry out it's day to day functions. Bread help forward the intelligence of humans that's for sure. BUT the fact remains that while bread has been a major part of human progression over the last 6,000 years it is important to recognize that our lives have changed. and there is about 46,000 or more years of dietary evolution that has humans humans programmed to get their BASE nutrition from nuts, wild grains, fruits vegetables, and animal products.
SO in an environment where the foods, that were once so scarce to people effectively forcing them to develop bread, are readily available why not eat a diet that your body is biologically pre-programmed for (if you so choose). That would be a diet that is full of healthy fats, lean meats, and unadulterated plant material ( fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts) and as a result falls into society's definition of "low carb" . If this is a diet that is *EASY* for you to adhere to on a regular basis then why in the world not follow that methodology for eating. (Funny people in the Bronze Age likely did not argue the merits of eating bread over nuts and legumes. Rather they likely enjoyed the extra energy it provided)
Something else to consider. Bread was helpful in the human condition because we moved A LOT and needed more calories to carry out our daily activities. It was a great way that got us a quick injection of calories. We don't move as much. So we don't need the extra calories. White carbs (Bread, sugar, rice) elevate blood sugar much more quickly than fat and protein because the process to convert them to sugar is a little more complex.
Finally the reason why it is so difficult to eliminate "whole food groups" has nothing to do with your nutritional needs. It has more to do with your cultural influences and your emotional association with those foods. Don't you think that a person part of a whole society that believes in reincarnation as a whole will have no problem avoiding eating animal products? (This can be seen india)
Where as a society who has no access to grains or fresh vegetables for large parts of the year will likely get their calories from the available animals (early Scandinavian people, Inuits, Native Americans). Their bodies adapt and they never really miss the food that food group.
Here, half way down this article you can read how the "Traditional Inuit diet is nutrient dense" and what the western diet has done to them. http://www.feedingnunavut.com/beyond-hunger-malnutrition-and-inuit-children/
I would not be surprised if we some day discovered that people's genetics (mine is heavily native American and Scandanavian influenced) dictate their dietary needs. I am going to bet money that a European would likely go a little crazy on an inuit diet because 6,000 years of their ancestry relied on bread and grains for their primary nutrition.
Furthermore, our obesity epidemic is likely more linked to our lack of movement, increase in calorie dense but nutritionally empty foods (Sodas, potato chips) and you falsely assume that everyone who is obese has made the strides and efforts to change their diet. You also assume that their food relationship and knowledge is sufficient to make good diet choices. Also your post assumes that the financial limitations of the impoverished limits their access to good food choices or even the time to prepare those foods. Those foods that would be satiating and make calorie reduction easier. The simple fact our modern life facilitates poor eating choices (See the paragraph where I talk about working 80 hour weeks and in survival mode) It used to be that survival mode meant suffering through a time of famine. Today survival mode means dealing with poor food choices that result in excess weight gain and poor heart health.
What does this have to do with what I posted?
1 -
ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »oliverneedsyou wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Nice except it's not entirely true. Not everyone has a huge calorie allowance. Some people can have one of those 800+ calories in a double cheeseburger meal and be left trying to manage the rest of the day with not many calories to work with and end up hungry. So yeah. It's true, more true for people with larger allowances. But it just is not worth it to spend half of my daily allowance on a single meal.
But that's your preference. I'm on 1200 a day for like 17 more pounds and I have been known to save all of my calories for some olive garden at dinner.
It's my preference to not walk around starving half the day. Exactly. And for a great many people spending hours each day feeling seriously hungry leads up to hunger fueled binging. I think that is a ridiculous thing for you to say in regards to preference. The general sentiment is for people to eat in a way that prevents out of control binging because you won't have success if you continue that pattern. Not everyone wants to starve all day just for a single meal. So if starving all day just for one meal at night works for you then go for it. But the point here is that this is not going to help a lot of people in their efforts to lose weight.
That's why it's important for each individual to find what works best and is sustainable for them. Saving my calories for a bomb dinner works for me because even if I had lunch and my husband offers to go to Olive Garden I'm going to want to go eat it! Instead I plan for it. And as someone else said, it's not as if that is what every day looks like for me. All though if it were that wouldn't be a problem because it's basic CICO since I don't have a medical condition requiring me to eat 3 square meals a day or anything.
Lots of things can set people up to fail. That's the beauty of getting to chose how we spend our calories and when we eat them.2 -
CooCooPuff wrote: »
Many people recommend viewing your calorie goal on a weekly basis. Personally, I do 5:2 and eat under 590 calories on Mondays and Wednesdays. This allows me to lose weight while eating at maintenance the rest of the week and makes fitting in an 800 calorie meal a lot easier.ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Nice except it's not entirely true. Not everyone has a huge calorie allowance. Some people can have one of those 800+ calories in a double cheeseburger meal and be left trying to manage the rest of the day with not many calories to work with and end up hungry. So yeah. It's true, more true for people with larger allowances. But it just is not worth it to spend half of my daily allowance on a single meal.
But see thats the beauty of it. You CAN have it you just choose not to because you don't want to use 1/2 your allotment. If you are overly restrictive and tell yourself you CAN'T have it then it becomes bigger than just a calorie planning issue.
I NEVER said I COULDN'T. I am pointing out the flaw in this one size fits all idea. This exact idea has set a lot of people up for disaster. Thinking they should try to cram in some insanely high calorie meal and still be able to eat the rest of the day. For people who have the calories to spare I'm sure it works great. This is like telling poor people they "can" afford the new iPhone. Sure, you won't be able to pay the rent but who cares! Have it because you can! SMH.....
It doesn't even need to be that much. You can save 100 calories throughout the week and have an extra 500 calories for whatever meal you'd want.
I also did a form of IF for my weight loss phase and also rotated between higher/lower calorie days. It made things much easier for me to stick with because I still had plenty of room for higher calorie meals, while still losing weight Now in maintenance I typically eat less calories during the week and then have higher calorie weekends. Looking at this whole thing in terms of weekly instead of daily has really helped me stick with it, long term. 3 -
Of course CICO dictates weight loss.
But do people simply want to lose weight? Or are they interested in body composition and getting in all the essential nutrition for healthy bodily function and hormone regulation?
ding ding ding.
In another post I pointed out that someone cutting for muscle versus trying to achieve thigh gap have different goals.
Also someone's physical requirements requires different nutritional input. Someone that is running mega marathons needs a completely different macro and caloric make up than Von Miller (A linebacker for the Broncos)2 -
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
This whole post is based horrible assumptions. I was giving you an example (myself) of how it works also giving you examples of whole societies that "cut out a whole food group" and thrive. I even linked an article discussing that exact phenomenon.
I backed up my argument with scientific and historical data to show you how your thought process and position was flawed.
While not succinct my post is wholly in response to yours.0 -
I maintain that if nutrition were as simple as so many on here thinks it is then we would not require registered dieticians to help guide Athletes, students, doctors and patients based on their needs.0
-
oliverneedsyou wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »oliverneedsyou wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Nice except it's not entirely true. Not everyone has a huge calorie allowance. Some people can have one of those 800+ calories in a double cheeseburger meal and be left trying to manage the rest of the day with not many calories to work with and end up hungry. So yeah. It's true, more true for people with larger allowances. But it just is not worth it to spend half of my daily allowance on a single meal.
But that's your preference. I'm on 1200 a day for like 17 more pounds and I have been known to save all of my calories for some olive garden at dinner.
It's my preference to not walk around starving half the day. Exactly. And for a great many people spending hours each day feeling seriously hungry leads up to hunger fueled binging. I think that is a ridiculous thing for you to say in regards to preference. The general sentiment is for people to eat in a way that prevents out of control binging because you won't have success if you continue that pattern. Not everyone wants to starve all day just for a single meal. So if starving all day just for one meal at night works for you then go for it. But the point here is that this is not going to help a lot of people in their efforts to lose weight.
That's why it's important for each individual to find what works best and is sustainable for them. Saving my calories for a bomb dinner works for me because even if I had lunch and my husband offers to go to Olive Garden I'm going to want to go eat it! Instead I plan for it. And as someone else said, it's not as if that is what every day looks like for me. All though if it were that wouldn't be a problem because it's basic CICO since I don't have a medical condition requiring me to eat 3 square meals a day or anything.
Lots of things can set people up to fail. That's the beauty of getting to chose how we spend our calories and when we eat them.
See this doesn't work for me. I get hungry and it is raging. I become a jerk, emotional, and tired. I am not the best me. So for *ME* I would rather just keep it even keel and enjoy the other parts of my life.
This is a perfect example of how two different personalities and bodies handle CICO. And it's okay.1 -
We DON'T require RDs to guide most in those categories. Athletes might benefit from specific nutrition advise to maximize their performance (something most of us here don't have to worry about, although I was in a tri group for a while that included some informational sessions with a dietitian specializing in fueling for endurance training and for the race, so I wouldn't deny that it can be helpful even at my low level). Patients/doctors normally use them when someone has specific dietary needs or other particular issues (or could use help/support with weight loss).
Nutrition itself is really not complicated as to the basics and I think most of us, if honest with ourselves, know what a healthful diet would look like -- the argument that the media keeps us so confused that we have no idea how to eat healthfully is bunk, IMO -- and most of what people argue about is on the margins or else really more about what works psychologically to keep calories in check given the environment (which is going to be somewhat individual).9 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm glad you've found what works for you, however I wouldn't extrapolate that to everyone. Many people struggle with moderation, or have issues with counting calories, so sometimes people do need to eliminate or seriously limit certain foods in order to be able to get into a calorie deficit. And depending on your TDEE, a reward meal or two during the week can completely derail your progress, so it's important to pay attention to what you are choosing for a cheat meal. A burger and fries in all their greasy awesomeness could easily take up someone's entire calorie allotment for the day, or even push them over their maintenance calories.
Yet the fact remains that when someone asks, "Can I eat X and still lose weight as long as I stay under my calories for the day or lower my intake the rest of the week to make it up?" the answer is always "Yes." Always.@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
No one said it was easy. Simple =\= easy.
Marathons are simple.
Therein lies the rub!
A lot of time when something is NOT easy, so not easy that it becomes impractical. So impractical that it renders the thing moot, inapplicable.
If you want simple, why even go to CICO. Why not just eat less, move more?
Your marathon analogy is apt. How many morbidly obese people see marathon as an applicable approach to lose weight?0 -
I hate when people see me eating something and say should you be eating that? I then explain the CICO and they don't get it. I gave up pop because why waste the calories, but sometimes I still have one, and my parents or boyfriend etc. give me the look. It's my journey I'll do what is best for me, and that is not deprivation.3
-
tmoneyag99 wrote: »Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
This whole post is based horrible assumptions. I was giving you an example (myself) of how it works also giving you examples of whole societies that "cut out a whole food group" and thrive. I even linked an article discussing that exact phenomenon.
I backed up my argument with scientific and historical data to show you how your thought process and position was flawed.
While not succinct my post is wholly in response to yours.
No, your entire post was very scattered and Inuit are an extreme example but they still eat berries and other sugary/starchy foods during the warmer months; why didn't you include the Okinawans who eat very little fat? You proved nothing but the fact that you can throw a bunch of things together and then create a straw man, somehow, and then think you have something. My point had nothing to do with how certain cultures are forced to adapt to their food environments, but how it's not necessary to cut out whole groups in order to lose weight. Seriously, you didn't even comprehend a thing I said.4 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm glad you've found what works for you, however I wouldn't extrapolate that to everyone. Many people struggle with moderation, or have issues with counting calories, so sometimes people do need to eliminate or seriously limit certain foods in order to be able to get into a calorie deficit. And depending on your TDEE, a reward meal or two during the week can completely derail your progress, so it's important to pay attention to what you are choosing for a cheat meal. A burger and fries in all their greasy awesomeness could easily take up someone's entire calorie allotment for the day, or even push them over their maintenance calories.
Yet the fact remains that when someone asks, "Can I eat X and still lose weight as long as I stay under my calories for the day or lower my intake the rest of the week to make it up?" the answer is always "Yes." Always.@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
No one said it was easy. Simple =\= easy.
Marathons are simple.
Therein lies the rub!
A lot of time when something is NOT easy, so not easy that it becomes impractical. So impractical that it renders the thing moot, inapplicable.
If you want simple, why even go to CICO. Why not just eat less, move more?
Your marathon analogy is apt. How many morbidly obese people see marathon as an applicable approach to lose weight?
It sounds like you misunderstand what CICO actually is.8 -
tmoneyag99 wrote: »oliverneedsyou wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »oliverneedsyou wrote: »ThatUserNameIsAllReadyTaken wrote: »Nice except it's not entirely true. Not everyone has a huge calorie allowance. Some people can have one of those 800+ calories in a double cheeseburger meal and be left trying to manage the rest of the day with not many calories to work with and end up hungry. So yeah. It's true, more true for people with larger allowances. But it just is not worth it to spend half of my daily allowance on a single meal.
But that's your preference. I'm on 1200 a day for like 17 more pounds and I have been known to save all of my calories for some olive garden at dinner.
It's my preference to not walk around starving half the day. Exactly. And for a great many people spending hours each day feeling seriously hungry leads up to hunger fueled binging. I think that is a ridiculous thing for you to say in regards to preference. The general sentiment is for people to eat in a way that prevents out of control binging because you won't have success if you continue that pattern. Not everyone wants to starve all day just for a single meal. So if starving all day just for one meal at night works for you then go for it. But the point here is that this is not going to help a lot of people in their efforts to lose weight.
That's why it's important for each individual to find what works best and is sustainable for them. Saving my calories for a bomb dinner works for me because even if I had lunch and my husband offers to go to Olive Garden I'm going to want to go eat it! Instead I plan for it. And as someone else said, it's not as if that is what every day looks like for me. All though if it were that wouldn't be a problem because it's basic CICO since I don't have a medical condition requiring me to eat 3 square meals a day or anything.
Lots of things can set people up to fail. That's the beauty of getting to chose how we spend our calories and when we eat them.
See this doesn't work for me. I get hungry and it is raging. I become a jerk, emotional, and tired. I am not the best me. So for *ME* I would rather just keep it even keel and enjoy the other parts of my life.
This is a perfect example of how two different personalities and bodies handle CICO. And it's okay.
Yes exactly! Most of my days are focused more on macros and lower calorie foods so high volume spread out during the day But I sure do enjoy my rarely planned splurge dinners1 -
@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.6
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm glad you've found what works for you, however I wouldn't extrapolate that to everyone. Many people struggle with moderation, or have issues with counting calories, so sometimes people do need to eliminate or seriously limit certain foods in order to be able to get into a calorie deficit. And depending on your TDEE, a reward meal or two during the week can completely derail your progress, so it's important to pay attention to what you are choosing for a cheat meal. A burger and fries in all their greasy awesomeness could easily take up someone's entire calorie allotment for the day, or even push them over their maintenance calories.
Yet the fact remains that when someone asks, "Can I eat X and still lose weight as long as I stay under my calories for the day or lower my intake the rest of the week to make it up?" the answer is always "Yes." Always.@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
No one said it was easy. Simple =\= easy.
Marathons are simple.
Therein lies the rub!
A lot of time when something is NOT easy, so not easy that it becomes impractical. So impractical that it renders the thing moot, inapplicable.
If you want simple, why even go to CICO. Why not just eat less, move more?
Eat less, move more is one reasonable application of CICO that leads to weight loss.Your marathon analogy is apt. How many morbidly obese people see marathon as an applicable approach to lose weight?
A surprising number but it usually doesn't work.
2 -
@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.
We can't blame tmoneyag99 !
The OP wrote a novel, followed by several pages of responses.
Are you saying much ado about nothing? Which I agree btw. 0 -
-
endlessfall16 wrote: »@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.
We can't blame tmoneyag99 !
The OP wrote a novel, followed by several pages of responses.
Are you saying much ado about nothing? Which I agree btw.
Yes I'm saying much ado about nothing. The OP coming to terms that weight loss comes down to a simple principle and providing examples of how she integrated that into her life does not merit that level of outrage.
The only poster I saw writing a novel was the one i mentioned.
4 -
endlessfall16 wrote: »@tmoneyag99 You are reading so much into the OP's post that is not there its crazy.
We can't blame tmoneyag99 !
The OP wrote a novel, followed by several pages of responses.
Are you saying much ado about nothing? Which I agree btw.
Yes I'm saying much ado about nothing. The OP coming to terms that weight loss comes down to a simple principle and providing examples of how she integrated that into her life does not merit that level of outrage.
The only poster I saw writing a novel was the one i mentioned.
A huge rant to be more specific. Much over nothing is right just eat whichever way works because in the end is all the same.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »tlflag1620 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »@Kgeyser Unless someone has a health reason, CICO is a simple general rule. However, I absolutely see what you are saying. Though, something to think about, and the reason for my post, is to explain a simple principle.
Losing weight has become exhausting. People have turned to trying diets and buying every new “weightloss pill” and every new “ab cruncher” because they are trying to figure out how to lose the weight.
Yes, moderation is extremely important. But, you CAN eat whatever you want, COUNT your calories, and lose weight. Again, as long as there are no underlying health reasons, CICO works for everyone. It’s not complicated. You don’t have to give up your favorite foods either. If it fits in your calories for the day, eat it.
But, it is without a doubt true, that healthy food choices will keep you fuller longer, give you energy, and everything else I mentioned before.
The problem with the "simple principle" is that it becomes oversimplified. Yes, a calorie deficit is needed to lose weight. But beyond that, there is no one size fits all approach to weight loss. For some people, it does end up being a little more complicated than "eat whatever and lose weight," and not just for medical reasons.
While it is nice to break down the concept of a calorie deficit, I find most of the struggles people have are with behavioral/ physiological issues related to weight loss, not the inability to understand a calorie deficit. People learn in different ways and often have individual ways of doing things to achieve the same goal, and weight loss isn't any different.
Again, not knocking your success, I'm glad you've found a way that works, but I think it's important to clarify that it isn't necessarily going to be that easy for everyone else, and I don't want people to feel discouraged if the "eat whatever and lose weight" approach isn't the approach for them.
For some people, moderation is something they would have to learn while for others it comes naturally with being confronted by what they're eating. Some of those some people don't want to do that, fine, let them, there's other approaches that work. But really, if everyone was deterred by "but it isn't easy", we would still be in the stone age.
We had a thread about this a while back and the conclusion was that 'moderation' really varies from one person to another too... For some it's a little bit of something regularly, for others it's the whole slice/box once in a while.
The bottom line is to find the right balance for a diet that will keep us satisfied physically and emotionally... and in the end it's really different for everyone. Some people just cut out some foods and don't feel deprived at all, but for others it just leads to binging down the road... So it's a lot of trial and error for people to find what works for them, but I think that OP's message is that you don't have to eat rabbit food or bland food to lose weight (and maintain the weight loss).
Agree, the problem is with these diets that cut out whole food groups is that only a tiny percentage actually keep off the weight for any substantial amount of time. Most people can't keep carbs or fat out of their diet for more than a short period of time where they have a specific goal. This is why we are over 30 years into low fat, 25 years into low carb and about 10 years into paleo and keto and the obesity rate is still on the rise. The only thing that works long term is a life style change and one that deprives you of foods you like won't do that for long for the vast majority of people despite the extremely biased echo chamber you see here.
Only a tiny percentage of people who lose weight, regardless of method, keep it off for any substantial amount of time. Period. (Oh, and by the by, low carb has been around well over 100 years, longer than calorie counting, in fact, but I digress.)
To me it ends up as a 'which would you rather' question - would you rather eat whatever you want, just not as much as you might want, or eat as much as you want, but have to limit your options as far as what you get to eat? We all have to limit something. What, how much, or both. Pick your restriction. There is no right answer, there is only what is right for you.
Yes, high carb has been around lot longer too, what's your point? I was talking about weight loss diet prominence since 100 years ago not too many people were all that worried about obesity and low fat, low protein, and low carb were often used for medical reasons not weight loss.
Your second point is just a myth that is pushed by diet gurus. You cannot eat everything you want just because you restrict one macro or another. You will always need to be in a caloric deficit but by going low carb or low fat you and up with pretty much the same restrictions in different ways. The high calorie foods that humans tend to overeat are all high in fat, carbs and also salt. What you really mean is HOW you get into a caloric deficit is what's best for you.
Oh, and btw, if you do some research people who change lifestyle and learn proper eating, rather than guru prescriptions, do far better in the long run.
The fact is, simply, that low carb has been around longer than the 25 years that was postulated. Try not to read too much into that
. My point was that ALL attempts at weight loss, regardless of method, have abysmal long term success rates. IOW no one method is superior on a population level, which is why it is stupid to pooh pooh what other people are doing, especially if it is working for them. There is no "one true way".
The second point is true for me. If I eliminate/strictly limit certain foods, I can eat as much as I want of others. I can't eat "everything" I want, no. But I can eat as much of certain foods as I want because those foods are self limiting for me. I would have to deliberately stuff myself to the point of discomfort every day in order for me to get fat on a LCHF diet. I would find that unpleasant, to say the least, so I don't *want* to do that. I eat to satiety (IOW "as much as I want") and maintain a healthy weight. I lost 50 lbs and have kept it off for three years eating as much as I want (never going hungry). The catch? I couldn't eat whatever I wanted; I did have to give up certain foods. For me (and bear in mind I'm only speaking for myself here, YMMV), it is easier and more pleasant to give up certain foods, but never go hungry, than it would be to eat whatever I want, but have to either go hungry to keep from going over calories for the day/week, or do tons of additional exercise to try to burn off those foods. For me, going LC has been a "lifestyle change". I would never want to go back to my hangry high carb days.
What is "proper eating"? Please define that for me.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 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