Dieting vs. exercising?
Replies
-
CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
how is explaining energy balance "dangerous"???????
that is like saying explaining gravity is dangerous...5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
Well, my problem with "eat what you want within your calorie limit" is that these foods don't satiate me.
This makes no sense to me. When I decide what I WANT to eat, of course whether I will be hungry or satiated (and satisfied) will play a role. Thus, I would never WANT to use my 1500 calories on just a pint of ice cream (although I like ice cream a lot).
I don't know why people assume others would WANT to eat food that would not result in a healthful diet and would leave them hungry (especially the latter, since clearly lots of people do choose to eat less nutritious diets).
I suspect that to some extent people are talking past each other, but assuming that others WANT to eat something like only a pint of ice cream (because that's what overweight people want?) always rubs me the wrong way -- not from you, since I know you from the forums pretty well and don't think you make such assumptions, but more generally.
Thoughts?5 -
Yes and no. Your metabolism slows down, but you don't gain weight and if you did it would takes years for that to occur which by then youd probably be dead of starvation or something... so we will go with no you don't need exercise to lose weight, technically, but you should make sure you eat enough to remain healthy and you *may* want exercise if you're impatient because you will lose weight faster and your body will look and feel better.0
-
The problem I have with that is it rarely works.....I was obese. Not morbidly obese, but obese by definition. And telling an obese person to just keep eating whatever they want, "but just eat less" is a recipe for disaster. Until I actually made healthy changes to my diet, I'd drop a few lbs, then gain it back and a few more. I'm sorry if I offended everyone, but I stand by my statement.....not all foods are equal. Have a good evening!
so you ate more than you burned in "healthy food" and still lose weight???
and please tell me the MFP user that is running around telling people to eat big macs all day and disregard nutrition? I have been searching for this mystery user for years now...5 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
Trying to get back to the OP
"Starvation mode" is a very extreme situation, even anorexic people don't even get closer to REAL starvation mode. There is a broscience "Starvation mode" that should realy be defined as "stupid excuse for eating more and not to recognize it".
Strictly speaking, exercise is not needed, but always recommended for two main reasons:
- Calories burned and properly counted can be eaten back. This helps a lot in a deficit
- When losing weight, you loose fat AND muscle. Exercise helps in reducing muscle loss.
If you eat 1500 calories and have a 500 calorie deficit and do no exercise at all, are you saying that you will be hungrier than if you exercise to burn 300 calories and then eat 1800 thus having the same deficit?
Yes, even if that sound weird. It's more psychological and has to do with portion size.
Interesting. I have not found this to be the case for myself. I wonder if it is because I tend to eat one small meal and one large one.
At the end of the day, it's a personal decision how to make the journey, I can't do that "one small meal and one large", I preferred three meals and small snacking, and if possible to "save" some calories for a small ice-cream before going to bed.0 -
So unhealthy, potentially dangerous advice is ok, as long as the end result is weight loss?
If they say they don't care about how healthy the food is, yes. Like I honestly don't care right now. I'm here for superficial reasons mainly and I'm not worrying about the rest until I get closer to goal. So yeah, if I don't ask, it's not your place to tell me what I should and shouldn't eat - I should eat whatever the *kitten* I want.
P.S. I totally just typed *kitten* because we all know I can't say that word anyway...2 -
OP - Personally, what I have found that *works for me* is the old 80/20 formula.
Diet is 80% and exercise is 20%. Sure, I have lost on 100% diet only, but I found that adding in the exercise gave me more energy, provided me some extra calories to play with on hungrier days/weekends/special occasions and helped me in other areas of life (sleeping better, less stress and increased stamina/strength).
Can you lose weight with zero exercise? Yes, but you will also have to be super committed your tracking and keeping an eye on your deficit in order to lose. Exercise will just give you a little more flexibility with your diet and will also improve other areas of life.
Also, I am the type that believes 100% in CICO, and yes, I do eat whatever I want. If I want a cupcake, I eat a cupcake. If I want a burger or pizza, I eat it. I have found the exercise helps me fit these things into my life more than when I didn't exercise.
So, for me, it is all about balance and choices. I find I have a better balance and more choices when I exercise.
ETA - Starvation mode is crap. If it were true, my body would have revolted a long time ago.0 -
CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
how is explaining energy balance "dangerous"???????
that is like saying explaining gravity is dangerous...
Gravity can be very dangerous ... depending on the height of the cliff
Sorry for the off-topic5 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
1. Your body only goes into starvation mode if you are in a pro-longed, extreme calorie deficit. Think starving people in Africa.
2. No, you don't need exercise to lose weight. For weight loss you only need a calorie deficit, and you should make sure that you are keeping protein high and getting adequate nutrition.
3. If you have more advanced body composition goals then you are going to want to pair your calorie deficit with some kind of structured fitness routine.2 -
The problem I have with that is it rarely works.....I was obese. Not morbidly obese, but obese by definition. And telling an obese person to just keep eating whatever they want, "but just eat less" is a recipe for disaster. Until I actually made healthy changes to my diet, I'd drop a few lbs, then gain it back and a few more. I'm sorry if I offended everyone, but I stand by my statement.....not all foods are equal. Have a good evening!
Well, "clean eating" doesn't work for me! I gained weight when I tried to do that because I was MISERABLE and I never felt satisfied or happy because I was missing out on things I loved. So now I eat whatever the hell I want and I've lost 45lbs. Everyone is different and even if I live on junk I am definitely healthier than I was 45lbs ago.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
Well, my problem with "eat what you want within your calorie limit" is that these foods don't satiate me.
This makes no sense to me. When I decide what I WANT to eat, of course whether I will be hungry or satiated (and satisfied) will play a role. Thus, I would never WANT to use my 1500 calories on just a pint of ice cream (although I like ice cream a lot).
I don't know why people assume others would WANT to eat food that would not result in a healthful diet and would leave them hungry (especially the latter, since clearly lots of people do choose to eat less nutritious diets).
I suspect that to some extent people are talking past each other, but assuming that others WANT to eat something like only a pint of ice cream (because that's what overweight people want?) always rubs me the wrong way -- not from you, since I know you from the forums pretty well and don't think you make such assumptions, but more generally.
Thoughts?
There are occasionally days I use all of my calories on wings and beer. The key word there is "occasionally", though. If someone does something like that two or three times a year, it's not really the end of the world.
If someone else wants to do that with ice cream or chocolates or cheesecake, like have their semi-annual single day "junk food" feast, so what? On the longer timeline, 1/365 of your diet won't be what makes or breaks you.2 -
OP - Personally, what I have found that *works for me* is the old 80/20 formula.
Diet is 80% and exercise is 20%. Sure, I have lost on 100% diet only, but I found that adding in the exercise gave me more energy, provided me some extra calories to play with on hungrier days/weekends/special occasions and helped me in other areas of life (sleeping better, less stress and increased stamina/strength).
Can you lose weight with zero exercise? Yes, but you will also have to be super committed your tracking and keeping an eye on your deficit in order to lose. Exercise will just give you a little more flexibility with your diet and will also improve other areas of life.
Also, I am the type that believes 100% in CICO, and yes, I do eat whatever I want. If I want a cupcake, I eat a cupcake. If I want a burger or pizza, I eat it. I have found the exercise helps me fit these things into my life more than when I didn't exercise.
So, for me, it is all about balance and choices. I find I have a better balance and more choices when I exercise.
ETA - Starvation mode is crap. If it were true, my body would have revolted a long time ago.
This is the best way I've ever seen it stated -
I eat clean enough to hit my macros and "dirty" enough to retain my sanity and enjoy life.
(Shamelessly stolen from @joemac1988)6 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »OP - Personally, what I have found that *works for me* is the old 80/20 formula.
Diet is 80% and exercise is 20%. Sure, I have lost on 100% diet only, but I found that adding in the exercise gave me more energy, provided me some extra calories to play with on hungrier days/weekends/special occasions and helped me in other areas of life (sleeping better, less stress and increased stamina/strength).
Can you lose weight with zero exercise? Yes, but you will also have to be super committed your tracking and keeping an eye on your deficit in order to lose. Exercise will just give you a little more flexibility with your diet and will also improve other areas of life.
Also, I am the type that believes 100% in CICO, and yes, I do eat whatever I want. If I want a cupcake, I eat a cupcake. If I want a burger or pizza, I eat it. I have found the exercise helps me fit these things into my life more than when I didn't exercise.
So, for me, it is all about balance and choices. I find I have a better balance and more choices when I exercise.
ETA - Starvation mode is crap. If it were true, my body would have revolted a long time ago.
This is the best way I've ever seen it stated -
I eat clean enough to hit my macros and "dirty" enough to retain my sanity and enjoy life.
(Shamelessly stolen from @joemac1988)
I LOVE that quote!0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
Well, my problem with "eat what you want within your calorie limit" is that these foods don't satiate me.
This makes no sense to me. When I decide what I WANT to eat, of course whether I will be hungry or satiated (and satisfied) will play a role. Thus, I would never WANT to use my 1500 calories on just a pint of ice cream (although I like ice cream a lot).
I don't know why people assume others would WANT to eat food that would not result in a healthful diet and would leave them hungry (especially the latter, since clearly lots of people do choose to eat less nutritious diets).
I suspect that to some extent people are talking past each other, but assuming that others WANT to eat something like only a pint of ice cream (because that's what overweight people want?) always rubs me the wrong way -- not from you, since I know you from the forums pretty well and don't think you make such assumptions, but more generally.
Thoughts?
A lot of my excess weight was from eating whole pints of premium ice cream on top of a balanced diet, especially premenstrually or as an emotional coping strategy. I do indeed want a whole pint at a time. It's like something gets switched in my brain and I find it very difficult to stop. I was just saying in another thread that although I don't like Halo Top as much, it's liberating to know I could eat a whole pint if I wanted. But I don't, because it doesn't light me up like some flavors of premium ice cream does.
If I could have the satisfaction of eating a whole pint of ice cream yet not be hungry the rest of the day, I'd probably do it once per month. Premenstrually.0 -
kittycatboss wrote: »I've heard that if you reduce your caloric intake, your body goes into starvation mode (something like that) so you end up gaining weight instead of losing weight. Does anyone know if this is true? Do you have to exercise in order to lose weight?
As exercise has a number of benefits, I believe everyone who can exercise should, but the key to losing weight is really what you are eating.
I find a regular exercise program to be very helpful - not only do I get to enjoy the exercise calories, but I feel better, sleep better, and am less prone to seeking comfort from food.1 -
My exercise consists of walking, yoga and playing softball. I do all of those things bc I enjoy them. The extra calories burned are really only an added benefit for days when I go over my deficit.0
-
Verity1111 wrote: »The problem I have with that is it rarely works.....I was obese. Not morbidly obese, but obese by definition. And telling an obese person to just keep eating whatever they want, "but just eat less" is a recipe for disaster. Until I actually made healthy changes to my diet, I'd drop a few lbs, then gain it back and a few more. I'm sorry if I offended everyone, but I stand by my statement.....not all foods are equal. Have a good evening!
Well, "clean eating" doesn't work for me! I gained weight when I tried to do that because I was MISERABLE and I never felt satisfied or happy because I was missing out on things I loved. So now I eat whatever the hell I want and I've lost 45lbs. Everyone is different and even if I live on junk I am definitely healthier than I was 45lbs ago.
Yes because less junk food is inherently better than a lot of junk food....
1 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.
Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?
0 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.
Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?
Protein is protein, carbs are carbs, fat is fat. vitamin C is vitamin C whether it comes from an organic tomato or a heritage tomato. Vitamin K is vitamin K whether it comes from kale or Burger king Lettuce.
4 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.
Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?
Please explain how you think it's nutritionally worse.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.
Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?
Protein is protein, carbs are carbs, fat is fat. vitamin C is vitamin C whether it comes from an organic tomato or a heritage tomato. Vitamin K is vitamin K whether it comes from kale or Burger king Lettuce.
Exactly. You can indeed eat a steak salad that has the same fundamental nutrition as a Whopper with cheese.4 -
It's "true" but not applicable in the way that people reference it. I'll have to find the link but I read up on the actual study that prompted the starvation mode thing..in a nutshell, the starvation mode only kicked in once the participants reached the most extreme state of starvation (we're talking skin and bones, after MONTHS and months of being starved) and even then, it only slightly lessened the rate at which they lost weight, hardly at all. You definitely won't gain because of starving, that part is a total myth. So for anyone with any sort of excess on their body, you can be assured that your body hasn't kicked into this mode yet (otherwise, you'd have zero visible excess).0
-
heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.
Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?
Protein is protein, carbs are carbs, fat is fat. vitamin C is vitamin C whether it comes from an organic tomato or a heritage tomato. Vitamin K is vitamin K whether it comes from kale or Burger king Lettuce.
Exactly. You can indeed eat a steak salad that has the same fundamental nutrition as a Whopper with cheese.
IF the sodium is an issue, drink an extra diet coke, if the vitamin/mineral balance is an issue, take a multivitamin. at 1.25 for a Mcdouble you can afford a multivitamin.
4 -
It's "true" but not applicable in the way that people reference it. I'll have to find the link but I read up on the actual study that prompted the starvation mode thing..in a nutshell, the starvation mode only kicked in once the participants reached the most extreme state of starvation (we're talking skin and bones, after MONTHS and months of being starved) and even then, it only slightly lessened the rate at which they lost weight, hardly at all. You definitely won't gain because of starving, that part is a total myth. So for anyone with any sort of excess on their body, you can be assured that your body hasn't kicked into this mode yet (otherwise, you'd have zero visible excess).
you are referring to the Minnesota starvation experiment..I believe.2 -
heiliskrimsli wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »heiliskrimsli wrote: »CICO is not everything, and it's dangerous to tell people that. I said it in other posts, if that were the case, I'd just eat three big macs a day and everything would be wonderful. What you put into your body does matter.
You'd need more fiber, some calcium and a multivitamin to live on that for any length of time, but a Big Mac in and of itself isn't exactly evil. Three of them a a day would be 1620 calories, 75g of protein, 29g of fat. 45g carbohydrate and 3g dietary fiber.
Vitamin wise, you'd do better on the Quarter Pounder with Cheese than the Big Mac.
Obviously eating only one thing repeatedly rather than a varied diet is not the best plan for anyone's health, but McDonald's can exist in a nutritionally complete diet if that's what someone wants.
Honestly vitamin wise, you'd do best with a Whopper w/ cheese. But yeah, certainly not the worst thing to eat... as long as you're not overeating.
That's down to the Whopper having tomatoes and lettuce, though. Makes it more comparable to the Big N Tasty.
Either way, there's no inherent reason that a Burger King or McDonald's burger is nutritionally worse than the same ingredients prepared another way: as in a steak salad with cheese and a roll.
Wow.... Couldn't be farther from the truth. Is this a joke?
Please explain how you think it's nutritionally worse.
because BK = processed which always = bad ..not matter what2 -
ndj1979 yes that was it!! thank you! 0
-
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.0 -
ndj1979 yes that was it!! thank you!
The Minnesota Starvation Experiment is referenced and discussed fairly extensively in the last 10 paragraphs of one of the links I provided upthread:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/another-look-at-metabolic-damage.html/1 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
So you're telling me that if I get two steaks at the butcher shop, take them home, run one through the meat grinder thereby "processing" it, and then throw both of them on the grill and cook them both mid rare, the one I didn't grind is healthy, and the one I did is not?11 -
Yes processed meat is worse than organic grass fed meat, always. If someone is down for it try it. Cause I can guarantee you that you will not see the same effect on your body.
Count the calories the EXACT SAME and eat only clean/bro/healthy/whatever you wanna call them foods, and then eat a similar diet with processed foods, not saying just junk food but even packaged meats, snacks foods etc. and I will guarantee you, do it for 6 weeks of each, if you do the processed foods first, you will either gain weight if you had been eating cleaner, or maintain your weight if you've already been doing that. When you switch over to the clean/healthy/bro foods, you will lose weight and fat.
And add an equal amount of salt, even salt it more if you want, and match the calories and macro's EXACT. I have done this and have seen this effect. A carb is not a carb and even a vegetable is not a vegetable. I am not saying that I only eat clean, organic, whole foods or anything, I am just saying that there is a MASSIVE difference. Anyone who thinks differently, I invite you to try it.
Someone already did!
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p18
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