One meal a day.
Replies
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »jennabeauchesne wrote: »I eat one meal a day. Its not ideal, but what needs to be done to keep me on track. I work overnights so generally I wake up at 8pm, work at 11pm, eat my meal (a tuna/hummus/lettuce wrap, a rice cake, a baby bell cheese, 1 cup of red grapes, a sugar free pudding, and one of those special K 100 cal pastry crisps) around 12:30am. But I'm finding it hard to make it to 8am without snacking so I might push it to around 3am/4am and add in a Greek yogurt and clementine later on in the morning. Without the later day adds I just mentioned, it runs about 665 cals. Of course, I tend to nibble at things at work later on to keep me awake which could make it higher. Then I get out of work at 8am, chill for a little bit until 10am and knock out. The one meal a day thing really works for me, but for those with a day job, I can't see it being satisfying. When I did it with a day job, I had no energy.
Please tell me that's a typo or I'm missing something. Are you saying that you eat just one meal a day (which is fine) and that meal is only 665 calories (seriously not fine)???
I think it's the "nibbling on things at work" that would mean 655 calories is not all she's eating. There's also no mention of whether she's drinking any calories.
Well, her "nibbling on things at work" would need to be at least 545 calories worth to be healthy unless she's extremely short.0 -
Wynterbourne wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »jennabeauchesne wrote: »I eat one meal a day. Its not ideal, but what needs to be done to keep me on track. I work overnights so generally I wake up at 8pm, work at 11pm, eat my meal (a tuna/hummus/lettuce wrap, a rice cake, a baby bell cheese, 1 cup of red grapes, a sugar free pudding, and one of those special K 100 cal pastry crisps) around 12:30am. But I'm finding it hard to make it to 8am without snacking so I might push it to around 3am/4am and add in a Greek yogurt and clementine later on in the morning. Without the later day adds I just mentioned, it runs about 665 cals. Of course, I tend to nibble at things at work later on to keep me awake which could make it higher. Then I get out of work at 8am, chill for a little bit until 10am and knock out. The one meal a day thing really works for me, but for those with a day job, I can't see it being satisfying. When I did it with a day job, I had no energy.
Please tell me that's a typo or I'm missing something. Are you saying that you eat just one meal a day (which is fine) and that meal is only 665 calories (seriously not fine)???
I think it's the "nibbling on things at work" that would mean 655 calories is not all she's eating. There's also no mention of whether she's drinking any calories.
Well, her "nibbling on things at work" would need to be at least 545 calories worth to be healthy unless she's extremely short.
Have you seen Secret Eaters?
People literally nibbling and drinking 1000-2000 kcal and not even being aware of it is kind of common.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »Wynterbourne wrote: »jennabeauchesne wrote: »I eat one meal a day. Its not ideal, but what needs to be done to keep me on track. I work overnights so generally I wake up at 8pm, work at 11pm, eat my meal (a tuna/hummus/lettuce wrap, a rice cake, a baby bell cheese, 1 cup of red grapes, a sugar free pudding, and one of those special K 100 cal pastry crisps) around 12:30am. But I'm finding it hard to make it to 8am without snacking so I might push it to around 3am/4am and add in a Greek yogurt and clementine later on in the morning. Without the later day adds I just mentioned, it runs about 665 cals. Of course, I tend to nibble at things at work later on to keep me awake which could make it higher. Then I get out of work at 8am, chill for a little bit until 10am and knock out. The one meal a day thing really works for me, but for those with a day job, I can't see it being satisfying. When I did it with a day job, I had no energy.
Please tell me that's a typo or I'm missing something. Are you saying that you eat just one meal a day (which is fine) and that meal is only 665 calories (seriously not fine)???
I think it's the "nibbling on things at work" that would mean 655 calories is not all she's eating. There's also no mention of whether she's drinking any calories.
Well, her "nibbling on things at work" would need to be at least 545 calories worth to be healthy unless she's extremely short.
Have you seen Secret Eaters?
People literally nibbling and drinking 1000-2000 kcal and not even being aware of it is kind of common.
So unintentionally eating 1655 due to possible nibbling a 1000 calories worth of food makes it okay to think you are only intentionally eating 655 calories plus a little bit (that you think is only a couple hundred)? Do you not understand where I'm going with this?2 -
My lunch was 1400 calories today.1
-
From this research about meal timming meal frecuency doesn't have any special effect in metabolism The conclusion is that "it appears from the existing (albeit limited) body of research that increased meal frequency may not play a significant role in weight loss/gain when under-reporting, restrained eating, and exercise are accounted for in the statistical analyses. Furthermore, most, but not all of the existing research, fails to support the effectiveness of increased meal frequency on the thermic effect of food, resting metabolic rate, and total energy expenditure. However, when energy intake is limited, increased meal frequency may likely decrease hunger, decrease nitrogen loss, improve lipid oxidation, and improve blood markers such as total and LDL cholesterol, and insulin."
In other words meal frecuency (less or more meals) might play a role in diminishing the apetite thus reducing food intake but doesn't change the metabolism and it can help improving health markers and muscle loss when limited energy intake. There are cases of guys building muscle on one meal a day, the kind of activity, energy balance and nutrition are the main factors of muscle catabolism/anabolism.
In my experince you should eat according to your activity levels and preferences. I do an hour of running at 80-90% of my FR for the first 20 min and not less than 70% the rest, an intense excercise. When I do it with an empty stomach (+8hrs fast) I end up pretty worn out, even after eating I feel tired all day. Today I didn't ate at deficit and ran after eating 3hrs before, I feel with energy to run another hour, maybe following people and laughing hysterically, it's midnight... I'll be right back in an hour.1 -
For years my natural tendency was to eat the majority of my calories in the evening and around that one meal. On average I might eat/drink 300-400 calories during the day, then easily wipe out 2000-3000 at or after dinner.
Usually this only changes a little depending on workouts. Naturally if I do hit a long hard cardio session early in the morning then I'm too hangry to wait and eat in the evening. But even if I go on a 1000 calorie session, I generally just refuel and still eat more later in the day.0 -
If your goal is to gain weight, then 1 meal a day is gonna be a bad idea (given the daily caloric requirements and various metabolic reasons associated).
If you aim to lose weight then there are tons of dieting protocols out there which you could select from like Intermittent fasting, Keto diet etc. in the end its all about restricting calories. so during weight loss having one meal a day is no harm unless or until you are getting the right stuff inside your stomach!0 -
I tried it. I'd think about food ALL DAY... then I'd go home and have a glorious, glorious feast.
But it was too difficult to stick to. So now I do 2 meals a day: lunch and dinner. Much easier to stick to.
A real problem with 1 Meal A Day is getting all those nutrients into your feast. I'd be so ravenous that I'd just stop by a burger joint and eat a burger, fries and a shake for my 1400 calorie meal. But there's not much there in the way of vitamins and minerals. Basically no "green stuff".
Trying to eat 3-4 servings of veggies for one meal is damned near impossible. It's much easier to stretch that out over several meals.1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.0 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/13 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
You're using government websites to try to show me the food industry lobbyists aren't dictating what the government guidelines for nutritional needs are. I think you made my point.
There's science to support climate change is real, but the US government websites don't say that.0 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
You're using government websites to try to show me the food industry lobbyists aren't dictating what the government guidelines for nutritional needs are. I think you made my point.
There's science to support climate change is real, but the US government websites don't say that.
That would be conspiracy theory. But if you can show me independent studies to validate your claim, I'd be willing to take a look.
ETA for some non government websites: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/recommended-caloric-intake-children-6446.html
http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/childrens-health/in-depth/nutrition-for-kids/art-200493359 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
since when is a fact something made up? what people around the world eat has nothing to do with low calories. do you know how much everyone in other countries eat? what about 3rd world countries where they dont eat enough? are they fine?0 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
You're using government websites to try to show me the food industry lobbyists aren't dictating what the government guidelines for nutritional needs are. I think you made my point.
There's science to support climate change is real, but the US government websites don't say that.
Let me re-ask lemon's question. Do you think eating less than a toddler is totally fine for a grown person?8 -
zainabanwer wrote: »What are your views on the one meal a day diet, is it effective?
Very effective but difficult for me!! Cant stay hungry0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
since when is a fact something made up? what people around the world eat has nothing to do with low calories. do you know how much everyone in other countries eat? what about 3rd world countries where they dont eat enough? are they fine?
I found this chronometer really cool: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/1 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
since when is a fact something made up? what people around the world eat has nothing to do with low calories. do you know how much everyone in other countries eat? what about 3rd world countries where they dont eat enough? are they fine?
I found this chronometer really cool: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/what-the-world-eats/
it is interesting.0 -
It definitely works depending on your energy needs and the like. I only eat about 300 calories during the day and then have a HUGE dinner because I like going to bed full. It's what works best for me.0
-
only If the meal lasted all day and had at least 6 courses
I get to hangry if I cant eat0 -
I've done this before! Usually when I am hungover AF and can only eat dinner.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
You're using government websites to try to show me the food industry lobbyists aren't dictating what the government guidelines for nutritional needs are. I think you made my point.
There's science to support climate change is real, but the US government websites don't say that.
Let me re-ask lemon's question. Do you think eating less than a toddler is totally fine for a grown person?
First
Yes. A toddler is growing a body at a rapid speed. An extremely overweight/obese person - at whom the One Meal a Day plan is aimed - is trying to shrink his/her body, and it has plenty of stored fuel in it already. I personally have a toddler's worth of excess fat on my body. Fasting for 20-23 hours or a few days won't harm me.
Second thing someone mentioned:
I would have thought Big Ag dictating nutritional guidelines was a conspiracy, too, if I weren't a farmer in Iowa.
That Nat Geo display is great - you can see the slow down/reverse during the farming crisis of the '80s followed by the steady increase once the large consolidated farms were subsidized by the federal government. Maybe you hear about The Farm Bill coming up in Congress ... it includes things like your taxes covering about 80% of a large farms crop insurance premiums. Not a small, diverse, sustainable family farm. A multi-thousand acre corn/soybean rotation farm.
Right this moment we have EPA reversing its own decision on the endocrine disrupting chlorpyrifos. Europe bans glyphosate, but we still use it. Monsanto is trying to merge with Bayer. Please go research the consolidation of Ag, Chemical, Pharmaceutical companies happening. It's all available information in media as boring and non-conspiratorial as Fortune and Bloomberg and The Farm Journal.1 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
You're using government websites to try to show me the food industry lobbyists aren't dictating what the government guidelines for nutritional needs are. I think you made my point.
There's science to support climate change is real, but the US government websites don't say that.
Let me re-ask lemon's question. Do you think eating less than a toddler is totally fine for a grown person?
First
Yes. A toddler is growing a body at a rapid speed. An extremely overweight/obese person - at whom the One Meal a Day plan is aimed - is trying to shrink his/her body, and it has plenty of stored fuel in it already. I personally have a toddler's worth of excess fat on my body. Fasting for 20-23 hours or a few days won't harm me.
Second thing someone mentioned:
I would have thought Big Ag dictating nutritional guidelines was a conspiracy, too, if I weren't a farmer in Iowa.
That Nat Geo display is great - you can see the slow down/reverse during the farming crisis of the '80s followed by the steady increase once the large consolidated farms were subsidized by the federal government. Maybe you hear about The Farm Bill coming up in Congress ... it includes things like your taxes covering about 80% of a large farms crop insurance premiums. Not a small, diverse, sustainable family farm. A multi-thousand acre corn/soybean rotation farm.
Right this moment we have EPA reversing its own decision on the endocrine disrupting chlorpyrifos. Europe bans glyphosate, but we still use it. Monsanto is trying to merge with Bayer. Please go research the consolidation of Ag, Chemical, Pharmaceutical companies happening. It's all available information in media as boring and non-conspiratorial as Fortune and Bloomberg and The Farm Journal.
Fine to have an opinion, but do you have support data/science to counter the argument I previously provided? Short term, it's ok for obese individuals to utilize LCD if they are under care as they can run frequent blood test to validate/address any deficiencies. And I am not saying that OMAD is necessarily a VLCD, but it would be interesting to see what people actually eat. I suspect the majority don't hit protein needs in isocaloric conditions.
Also, it seems you have a very myopic view of the government based on their actions rather than insights into how those decisions are actually made. It might be worthwhile to understand the reasoning behind their decisions. It should also be noted that various governments will make decisions based on their on values. Often those decisions don't have to be based on pure science, but rather a result of their public interest. It's similar to why companies will remove ingredients from their products or provide alternatives even if there isn't science to back it (i.e. Pepsi with cane sugar instead of HFCS).4 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
You're using government websites to try to show me the food industry lobbyists aren't dictating what the government guidelines for nutritional needs are. I think you made my point.
There's science to support climate change is real, but the US government websites don't say that.
Let me re-ask lemon's question. Do you think eating less than a toddler is totally fine for a grown person?
First
Yes. A toddler is growing a body at a rapid speed. An extremely overweight/obese person - at whom the One Meal a Day plan is aimed - is trying to shrink his/her body, and it has plenty of stored fuel in it already. I personally have a toddler's worth of excess fat on my body. Fasting for 20-23 hours or a few days won't harm me.
I happen to agree that fasting for 20-23 hours or a few days (well, depending on what you mean by a few, certainly one or two) won't hurt you.
That wasn't actually the point being debated, though. What was being discussed was consistently eating below 1000. (I will stipulate that it depends on size and activity level.)I would have thought Big Ag dictating nutritional guidelines was a conspiracy, too, if I weren't a farmer in Iowa.
What does this have to do with 1000 calories? In what way has Big Ag been involved in calorie determinations?4 -
Also, it seems you have a very myopic view of the government based on their actions rather than insights into how those decisions are actually made
I am a farmer. I have actual insights. Believe what you want. And don't insult me. It's in the directions for participation in this forum.0 -
What does this have to do with 1000 calories? In what way has Big Ag been involved in calorie determinations
If you'd like to believe that powerful, wealthy corporations don't influence the government, that is your right. If you aren't curious about the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto, that is your right.0 -
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »What does this have to do with 1000 calories? In what way has Big Ag been involved in calorie determinations
If you'd like to believe that powerful, wealthy corporations don't influence the government, that is your right. If you aren't curious about the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto, that is your right.
Again, what does this have to do with calories?
What do you think would happen to me--I'm 5'3, 125 and quite active--if I ate 900 calories per day over time? I think that I would lose weight rapidly and not be able to keep up the activity, and that it would be unhealthy. You seem to be claiming that that's misinformation fed to me by the government, so what is the correct information and what is the gov't allegedly telling me that is incorrect?5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »What does this have to do with 1000 calories? In what way has Big Ag been involved in calorie determinations
If you'd like to believe that powerful, wealthy corporations don't influence the government, that is your right. If you aren't curious about the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto, that is your right.
Again, what does this have to do with calories?
What do you think would happen to me--I'm 5'3, 125 and quite active--if I ate 900 calories per day over time? I think that I would lose weight rapidly and not be able to keep up the activity, and that it would be unhealthy. You seem to be claiming that that's misinformation fed to me by the government, so what is the correct information and what is the gov't allegedly telling me that is incorrect?
I'm sorry you so widely misunderstood what I am saying.
Here: You don't need the government to tell you what you need to eat. Eat what you need to live.
Ok? That's it.0 -
Also, it was not "consistently" eating below 1000 calories. That was not the comment.0
-
When I eat below 1200 MFP won't even let me get that little reward of the (grossly optimistic) estimate of what I'd weigh in 5 weeks. As if 1200 is automatically perfect for every single woman. That's my point. These nutritional guidelines are pushed by an agenda. Look at it this way: How did humans survive for so long before the government told us exactly how much of what we needed to eat everyday?0
-
HestiaMoon1 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »HestiaMoon1 wrote: »What does this have to do with 1000 calories? In what way has Big Ag been involved in calorie determinations
If you'd like to believe that powerful, wealthy corporations don't influence the government, that is your right. If you aren't curious about the revolving door between the FDA and Monsanto, that is your right.
Again, what does this have to do with calories?
What do you think would happen to me--I'm 5'3, 125 and quite active--if I ate 900 calories per day over time? I think that I would lose weight rapidly and not be able to keep up the activity, and that it would be unhealthy. You seem to be claiming that that's misinformation fed to me by the government, so what is the correct information and what is the gov't allegedly telling me that is incorrect?
I'm sorry you so widely misunderstood what I am saying.
Hmm, maybe you could help me. Seems like this digression started with the following exchange:HestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine.
Then psulemon jumped inHestiaMoon1 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »
you know for most people less than 1000 calories is not healthy right?
That's a "fact" made up by the American food industry. Around the world people eat differently and are fine. The US food industry is a consolidation of seed companies/chemical companies/packaged food companies focused on profit not health. Very powerful lobbiests pushing their agenda.
There is science to support caloric requirements. So do you believe that you need less calories than a toddler?
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/educational/wecan/downloads/calreqtips.pdf
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/
You responded, off topic:HestiaMoon1 wrote: »You're using government websites to try to show me the food industry lobbyists aren't dictating what the government guidelines for nutritional needs are.
Note: no one had said anything about nutritional needs, although if you want to attack the current Dietary Guidelines I'm up for a discussion (I eat somewhat differently from them but think they are reasonable enough in current form). (Also, not sure why BigPoultry and BigBeef and BigPork don't get to be part of BigAg.)
Anyway, back to the discussion, after you were prompted to answer lemon's actual question, you wrote:HestiaMoon1 wrote: »An extremely overweight/obese person - at whom the One Meal a Day plan is aimed - is trying to shrink his/her body, and it has plenty of stored fuel in it already. I personally have a toddler's worth of excess fat on my body. Fasting for 20-23 hours or a few days won't harm me.
Obviously no one was talking about fasting or saying anything bad about OMAD. The issue was about eating below 1000 routinely being fine and anything to the contrary being just made up by BigAg and totally fine for people around the world.
Also, I don't believe OMAD is aimed at an extremely overweight/obese person only. It's a perfectly fine way to eat in maintenance too, if you eat maintenance calories, of course. And a fine way for someone like me to lose weight too, if I wanted to.
You then went on about BigAg and the Farm Bill, which I don't think has anything to do with the question you were asked.
So to get back to that, since you are the one claiming that eating less than 1000 regularly is nothing to be concerned about and normal and totally healthy outside of the US (where things are dictated by BigAg), what's the basis to say that?
(I am not claiming that eating 1000 can never be a reasonable choice.)3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions