Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
If McDonalds sells it... It's fast food... that's the definition of fast food..
lol exactly.
salads imo are "fast food" anyway...doesn't take much to throw one together.3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
If McDonalds sells it... It's fast food... that's the definition of fast food..
Well, even if we go by whatever definition they prefer, I'll just leave this out there (not what I would call nutritionally devoid):
7 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
If McDonalds sells it... It's fast food... that's the definition of fast food..
exactly and some of their salads are outrageous as far as calories etc.
Some of their salads have more FAT than their burgers.
And Replace McDonald's with BK, Wendy's Hardee's, Jack, Sonic, Chic-Fil-A, etc.
DQ falls into a sort of gap.... franchise/chain diner Like Waffle House/IHOP0 -
The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
The best football coaches tend to not have been the best players in their active time. Go figure.5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
Well because it has no scientific proof that it is. It's an opinion of yours and that's not proof.I believe fast food is toxic and should only be eaten if last/only food on the planet. Very unpopular view here on MFP.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Since the thread is asking for "unpopular opinions" nothing wrong with me expressing one of my "unpopular opinions." As for scientific proof, there is a lot of proof out there that fast food is "not good." So makes you go hmmmm.if it's not good, then what is it? What is the opposite of good, Elmo? Let's watch some Sesame Street and learn what "not good" means together.
it's also been proved that by eating just fast food you can do the following:
1. Lose weight
2. lower blood pressure
3. lower cholesterol numbers
4. meet required macros even surpass RDA Min.
All this from eating just fast food...sounds "good" to me.
The "not good" is the excess fast food...large sized this...large sized that.
No those things have not been proven at all. In fact the opposite has been proven. You're just pulling my leg. If you really believe that, well then, I guess ignorance is truly bliss. Enjoy your deep fried cancer sticks.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/teacher-who-ate-mcdonalds-90-6654329
Ahhhh the Mirror...best peer reviewed scientific journal on the planet. Wasn't this the issue that had Kate Middleton topless?
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-lose-weight-eating-only-mcdonalds-2015-10
Guess you didn't read the article.
Here's a more respectable journal
It's a business rag, not even a scientific journal. Besides, even if it us true this one man lost weight (#1 only) eating only McDonalds doesn't mean he did it eating only fast food as McDonalds sells non fast food ( i.e. Salads, carrot sticks, etc) as well as fast food. Secondly, a sample size of one is too small to be statistically significant. No actual scientific study can publish with n=1.
If McDonalds sells it... It's fast food... that's the definition of fast food..
Well, even if we go by whatever definition they prefer, I'll just leave this out there (not what I would call nutritionally devoid):
eh...McDonalds double has different stats than this
370 calories 21g protein 860 sodium.
I would eat it and I never eat there.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
Many people who claim we should be able to "intuitively eat" mean we should be able to just eat and not have to every think about it and we just won't want to eat too much. That's what I think is unrealistic.
I can maintain or lose without counting, but I do other things, like watch portion sizes, avoid snacking (or actively pay attention and compensate), make sure I am reasonably active. But that's something more than just going by "instinct." It's mindful.
I guess it's just semantics but I think mindful eating and intuitive eating are the same thing. Intuition is something that must be mindfully adhered to. It's usually by ignoring our intuition that we run into problems.
I think some people use intuitive eating to mean the same thing as mindful eating, although I prefer the latter term.
However, as GottaBurnEm noted, there have been people lately claiming that it's some sign that humans are messed up that we have to think about it at all, and that means that only sick people (or mentally ill) get fat or some such nonsense. In accordance with that some use the term "intuitive eating" to mean "don't have to think about it."
Well 'some people' pretty much kidnap and ruin every single term that relates to diet, don't they? I would say intuitive eating is 'not having to think about it much'. It's not mindless eating, it's just listening to your intuition when it comes to eating. Which may be a learning process if you are used to mindlessly eating everything that your taste buds might desire.
I'm not slamming the term intuitive eating. The point I was agreeing with (and how this started) was that there's no reason to think that humans would normally, without thinking, be able to just eat whatever we want in a situation of surplus and not gain. That was the point being made, the person called it "intuitive eating." You think that's not really intuitive eating? Great, that isn't the bit that interests me. (For once I don't have strong opinions about semantics.) ;-)
I would say that what works for me (mindful eating) isn't about listening to my "intuition" at all, my intuition has nothing to do with it. It's using judgment and reason when it comes to how much I should be eating in a day, which I find is easy when I mostly eat to a usual schedule, am reasonably active, and don't snack much, pay attention to the amounts I eat, understand what is more calorie dense, stuff like that. I don't think of that as "intuitive" (although I don't eat identically every day, of course), but more mindful, like I said, being aware both of what works for me and of what I'm eating (which also includes focusing on enjoyment).
I don't have a problem with "intuitive eating" as I know it's a term that means a lot of different things. I have a problem (again) with the idea that if only we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. That strikes me as bunk for many or most people.6 -
The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
If creating a stronger mind muscle connection isn't part of your goals when you lift then I don't really know what to say to you, regardless, isolation exercises will achieve just that. Note how I don't say omit compounds.
Why do you mention a carb? Could be anything that causes the water retention. My point is 500 calories of McDonalds will have a more detrimental effect on the appearance of my physique than 500 calories of chicken and rice, regardless if the macro's are the same. IDC that they will both have the same effect on fat levels, I care about water retention too.
The point I'm making about PED's has gone completely over your head. Yes I realise they can be just as dangerous as almost any drug, it's the fact there is a huge social stigma attached to taking them that I take issue with.
It isn't about someone looking how 'I think' they should look. People can look however they want but if you're going to be doling out lifting advice AND telling other people they're wrong then yes, look the part. I'm interested in someone who's put the practical work in and actually lived it rather than geeked out on the theory but not actually gone and put the work in. This forum is a meme at this point for that one. Also again...note how I said I nearly always, not always because of course there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think I need to put that so clearly...
eh, I don't lift to improve mind muscle connection. I lift to increase functional strength, and use isolation exercises only to correct imbalances impacting my running.
So, yeah, ignoring isolation exercises for the most part fits right into my goals: Make me a better runner and cyclist.10 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
Many people who claim we should be able to "intuitively eat" mean we should be able to just eat and not have to every think about it and we just won't want to eat too much. That's what I think is unrealistic.
I can maintain or lose without counting, but I do other things, like watch portion sizes, avoid snacking (or actively pay attention and compensate), make sure I am reasonably active. But that's something more than just going by "instinct." It's mindful.
I guess it's just semantics but I think mindful eating and intuitive eating are the same thing. Intuition is something that must be mindfully adhered to. It's usually by ignoring our intuition that we run into problems.
I think some people use intuitive eating to mean the same thing as mindful eating, although I prefer the latter term.
However, as GottaBurnEm noted, there have been people lately claiming that it's some sign that humans are messed up that we have to think about it at all, and that means that only sick people (or mentally ill) get fat or some such nonsense. In accordance with that some use the term "intuitive eating" to mean "don't have to think about it."
Well 'some people' pretty much kidnap and ruin every single term that relates to diet, don't they? I would say intuitive eating is 'not having to think about it much'. It's not mindless eating, it's just listening to your intuition when it comes to eating. Which may be a learning process if you are used to mindlessly eating everything that your taste buds might desire.
I'm not slamming the term intuitive eating. The point I was agreeing with (and how this started) was that there's no reason to think that humans would normally, without thinking, be able to just eat whatever we want in a situation of surplus and not gain. That was the point being made, the person called it "intuitive eating." You think that's not really intuitive eating? Great, that isn't the bit that interests me. (For once I don't have strong opinions about semantics.) ;-)
I would say that what works for me (mindful eating) isn't about listening to my "intuition" at all, my intuition has nothing to do with it. It's using judgment and reason when it comes to how much I should be eating in a day, which I find is easy when I mostly eat to a usual schedule, am reasonably active, and don't snack much, pay attention to the amounts I eat, understand what is more calorie dense, stuff like that. I don't think of that as "intuitive" (although I don't eat identically every day, of course), but more mindful, like I said, being aware both of what works for me and of what I'm eating (which also includes focusing on enjoyment).
I don't have a problem with "intuitive eating" as I know it's a term that means a lot of different things. I have a problem (again) with the idea that if only we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. That strikes me as bunk for many or most people.
I've never seen anyone use the term "intuitive eating" to mean that if we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. I would agree that's so ridiculous that's it's funny.
But your second paragraph makes some good points on the differences between mindful eating and intuitive eating. I tend to think of them as the same, but I guess intuitive eating is eating a diet you know to be healthy without a lot of thought, though certainly not without a lot of knowledge. At some point you would have to learn what a healthy diet is for it to become intuitive.0 -
This thread is cracking me up -- I think we've condensed every MFP debate into one thread.66
-
stevencloser wrote: »Also, proof or "proof". Cause there's "proof" the earth is flat but no proof.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17536194
To be fair, there's no proof the sun will rise tomorrow, and there's no proof that if I drop a glass if water it will fall downward. But there's proof that there is an infinite set of prime numbers.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »This thread is cracking me up -- I think we've condensed every MFP debate into one thread.
But the real questions is: Would you date the person above you?
60 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
Many people who claim we should be able to "intuitively eat" mean we should be able to just eat and not have to every think about it and we just won't want to eat too much. That's what I think is unrealistic.
I can maintain or lose without counting, but I do other things, like watch portion sizes, avoid snacking (or actively pay attention and compensate), make sure I am reasonably active. But that's something more than just going by "instinct." It's mindful.
I guess it's just semantics but I think mindful eating and intuitive eating are the same thing. Intuition is something that must be mindfully adhered to. It's usually by ignoring our intuition that we run into problems.
I think some people use intuitive eating to mean the same thing as mindful eating, although I prefer the latter term.
However, as GottaBurnEm noted, there have been people lately claiming that it's some sign that humans are messed up that we have to think about it at all, and that means that only sick people (or mentally ill) get fat or some such nonsense. In accordance with that some use the term "intuitive eating" to mean "don't have to think about it."
Well 'some people' pretty much kidnap and ruin every single term that relates to diet, don't they? I would say intuitive eating is 'not having to think about it much'. It's not mindless eating, it's just listening to your intuition when it comes to eating. Which may be a learning process if you are used to mindlessly eating everything that your taste buds might desire.
I'm not slamming the term intuitive eating. The point I was agreeing with (and how this started) was that there's no reason to think that humans would normally, without thinking, be able to just eat whatever we want in a situation of surplus and not gain. That was the point being made, the person called it "intuitive eating." You think that's not really intuitive eating? Great, that isn't the bit that interests me. (For once I don't have strong opinions about semantics.) ;-)
I would say that what works for me (mindful eating) isn't about listening to my "intuition" at all, my intuition has nothing to do with it. It's using judgment and reason when it comes to how much I should be eating in a day, which I find is easy when I mostly eat to a usual schedule, am reasonably active, and don't snack much, pay attention to the amounts I eat, understand what is more calorie dense, stuff like that. I don't think of that as "intuitive" (although I don't eat identically every day, of course), but more mindful, like I said, being aware both of what works for me and of what I'm eating (which also includes focusing on enjoyment).
I don't have a problem with "intuitive eating" as I know it's a term that means a lot of different things. I have a problem (again) with the idea that if only we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. That strikes me as bunk for many or most people.
I've never seen anyone use the term "intuitive eating" to mean that if we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. I would agree that's so ridiculous that's it's funny.
But your second paragraph makes some good points on the differences between mindful eating and intuitive eating. I tend to think of them as the same, but I guess intuitive eating is eating a diet you know to be healthy without a lot of thought, though certainly not without a lot of knowledge. At some point you would have to learn what a healthy diet is for it to become intuitive.
My mindful eating doesn't really require a lot of thought either, mostly it's just habit. I like the idea of mindful eating, because I think being actively mindful about it in a broad array of ways -- including appreciating the food when eating it, being aware of what you are eating, enjoying the cooking process -- are things that are helpful to me. It really has nothing to do with needing a lot of thought to know what's healthy (I don't think most people need much thought to know what's generally a healthy diet vs. not).
Intuitive eating to me goes along more with the idea that one can just listen to hunger feelings and eat to hunger. I don't think that's a matter of practice or learning to or knowledge. I think maybe some people are just better at it than others. For me, hunger never seems to be the issue, and I don't believe that eating to hunger would ever be the answer (not saying it can't be for others). I do find that when I routinely eat to a schedule I adapt easily to that schedule. If I graze, it's disaster -- I overeat without being really really (uncomfortably) mindful, and so it's better for me to eat to schedule or eat set meals. It's generally been this way for me; I don't think it's that I don't understand what's healthy well enough or that I haven't learned something that is learnable (or that I should for some reason aspire to learn).1 -
WayTooHonest wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »This thread is cracking me up -- I think we've condensed every MFP debate into one thread.
But the real questions is: Would you date the person above you?
Peak MFP achieved!14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
Many people who claim we should be able to "intuitively eat" mean we should be able to just eat and not have to every think about it and we just won't want to eat too much. That's what I think is unrealistic.
I can maintain or lose without counting, but I do other things, like watch portion sizes, avoid snacking (or actively pay attention and compensate), make sure I am reasonably active. But that's something more than just going by "instinct." It's mindful.
I guess it's just semantics but I think mindful eating and intuitive eating are the same thing. Intuition is something that must be mindfully adhered to. It's usually by ignoring our intuition that we run into problems.
I think some people use intuitive eating to mean the same thing as mindful eating, although I prefer the latter term.
However, as GottaBurnEm noted, there have been people lately claiming that it's some sign that humans are messed up that we have to think about it at all, and that means that only sick people (or mentally ill) get fat or some such nonsense. In accordance with that some use the term "intuitive eating" to mean "don't have to think about it."
Well 'some people' pretty much kidnap and ruin every single term that relates to diet, don't they? I would say intuitive eating is 'not having to think about it much'. It's not mindless eating, it's just listening to your intuition when it comes to eating. Which may be a learning process if you are used to mindlessly eating everything that your taste buds might desire.
I'm not slamming the term intuitive eating. The point I was agreeing with (and how this started) was that there's no reason to think that humans would normally, without thinking, be able to just eat whatever we want in a situation of surplus and not gain. That was the point being made, the person called it "intuitive eating." You think that's not really intuitive eating? Great, that isn't the bit that interests me. (For once I don't have strong opinions about semantics.) ;-)
I would say that what works for me (mindful eating) isn't about listening to my "intuition" at all, my intuition has nothing to do with it. It's using judgment and reason when it comes to how much I should be eating in a day, which I find is easy when I mostly eat to a usual schedule, am reasonably active, and don't snack much, pay attention to the amounts I eat, understand what is more calorie dense, stuff like that. I don't think of that as "intuitive" (although I don't eat identically every day, of course), but more mindful, like I said, being aware both of what works for me and of what I'm eating (which also includes focusing on enjoyment).
I don't have a problem with "intuitive eating" as I know it's a term that means a lot of different things. I have a problem (again) with the idea that if only we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. That strikes me as bunk for many or most people.
I've never seen anyone use the term "intuitive eating" to mean that if we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. I would agree that's so ridiculous that's it's funny.
But your second paragraph makes some good points on the differences between mindful eating and intuitive eating. I tend to think of them as the same, but I guess intuitive eating is eating a diet you know to be healthy without a lot of thought, though certainly not without a lot of knowledge. At some point you would have to learn what a healthy diet is for it to become intuitive.
My mindful eating doesn't really require a lot of thought either, mostly it's just habit. I like the idea of mindful eating, because I think being actively mindful about it in a broad array of ways -- including appreciating the food when eating it, being aware of what you are eating, enjoying the cooking process -- are things that are helpful to me. It really has nothing to do with needing a lot of thought to know what's healthy (I don't think most people need much thought to know what's generally a healthy diet vs. not).
Intuitive eating to me goes along more with the idea that one can just listen to hunger feelings and eat to hunger. I don't think that's a matter of practice or learning to or knowledge. I think maybe some people are just better at it than others. For me, hunger never seems to be the issue, and I don't believe that eating to hunger would ever be the answer (not saying it can't be for others). I do find that when I routinely eat to a schedule I adapt easily to that schedule. If I graze, it's disaster -- I overeat without being really really (uncomfortably) mindful, and so it's better for me to eat to schedule or eat set meals. It's generally been this way for me; I don't think it's that I don't understand what's healthy well enough or that I haven't learned something that is learnable (or that I should for some reason aspire to learn).
I guess this is why I shy away from dieting terms in general. None seem to have a universal definition. *shrug*0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The concept of intuitive eating. The idea that we are somehow supposed to know when to start or stop eating to maintain a subjective weight is entirely absurd. The endless threads of people leaving MFP and starting up again give a small degree of insight into this.
Expecting people to manage a checkbook without balancing is a little more plausible because once your expenses overtake your income, the consequences are immediate and direct. There are no such immediate consequences in weight management.
I love this. I do think there are alternatives to calorie counting that work, but they aren't intuitive eating and require some kind of monitoring.
Sure, some people don't have to think about it, perhaps, but they didn't get fat.
Why would intuitive eating mean not thinking about it?? It's quite the opposite really.
Many people who claim we should be able to "intuitively eat" mean we should be able to just eat and not have to every think about it and we just won't want to eat too much. That's what I think is unrealistic.
I can maintain or lose without counting, but I do other things, like watch portion sizes, avoid snacking (or actively pay attention and compensate), make sure I am reasonably active. But that's something more than just going by "instinct." It's mindful.
I guess it's just semantics but I think mindful eating and intuitive eating are the same thing. Intuition is something that must be mindfully adhered to. It's usually by ignoring our intuition that we run into problems.
I think some people use intuitive eating to mean the same thing as mindful eating, although I prefer the latter term.
However, as GottaBurnEm noted, there have been people lately claiming that it's some sign that humans are messed up that we have to think about it at all, and that means that only sick people (or mentally ill) get fat or some such nonsense. In accordance with that some use the term "intuitive eating" to mean "don't have to think about it."
Well 'some people' pretty much kidnap and ruin every single term that relates to diet, don't they? I would say intuitive eating is 'not having to think about it much'. It's not mindless eating, it's just listening to your intuition when it comes to eating. Which may be a learning process if you are used to mindlessly eating everything that your taste buds might desire.
I'm not slamming the term intuitive eating. The point I was agreeing with (and how this started) was that there's no reason to think that humans would normally, without thinking, be able to just eat whatever we want in a situation of surplus and not gain. That was the point being made, the person called it "intuitive eating." You think that's not really intuitive eating? Great, that isn't the bit that interests me. (For once I don't have strong opinions about semantics.) ;-)
I would say that what works for me (mindful eating) isn't about listening to my "intuition" at all, my intuition has nothing to do with it. It's using judgment and reason when it comes to how much I should be eating in a day, which I find is easy when I mostly eat to a usual schedule, am reasonably active, and don't snack much, pay attention to the amounts I eat, understand what is more calorie dense, stuff like that. I don't think of that as "intuitive" (although I don't eat identically every day, of course), but more mindful, like I said, being aware both of what works for me and of what I'm eating (which also includes focusing on enjoyment).
I don't have a problem with "intuitive eating" as I know it's a term that means a lot of different things. I have a problem (again) with the idea that if only we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. That strikes me as bunk for many or most people.
I've never seen anyone use the term "intuitive eating" to mean that if we were healthy we could never get fat since we'd never overeat. I would agree that's so ridiculous that's it's funny.
But your second paragraph makes some good points on the differences between mindful eating and intuitive eating. I tend to think of them as the same, but I guess intuitive eating is eating a diet you know to be healthy without a lot of thought, though certainly not without a lot of knowledge. At some point you would have to learn what a healthy diet is for it to become intuitive.
My mindful eating doesn't really require a lot of thought either, mostly it's just habit. I like the idea of mindful eating, because I think being actively mindful about it in a broad array of ways -- including appreciating the food when eating it, being aware of what you are eating, enjoying the cooking process -- are things that are helpful to me. It really has nothing to do with needing a lot of thought to know what's healthy (I don't think most people need much thought to know what's generally a healthy diet vs. not).
Intuitive eating to me goes along more with the idea that one can just listen to hunger feelings and eat to hunger. I don't think that's a matter of practice or learning to or knowledge. I think maybe some people are just better at it than others. For me, hunger never seems to be the issue, and I don't believe that eating to hunger would ever be the answer (not saying it can't be for others). I do find that when I routinely eat to a schedule I adapt easily to that schedule. If I graze, it's disaster -- I overeat without being really really (uncomfortably) mindful, and so it's better for me to eat to schedule or eat set meals. It's generally been this way for me; I don't think it's that I don't understand what's healthy well enough or that I haven't learned something that is learnable (or that I should for some reason aspire to learn).
I guess this is why I shy away from dieting terms in general. None seem to have a universal definition. *shrug*
I agree. Food terms too.4 -
But not all people lift to make the mind/muscle connection a part of the goal. Some do it just to be active and keep basic strength up. Not all people are looking to increase mass nor have prominent body parts.The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
If creating a stronger mind muscle connection isn't part of your goals when you lift then I don't really know what to say to you, regardless, isolation exercises will achieve just that. Note how I don't say omit compounds.
But that doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a calorie. A liter of gas is different than a liter of water, but they are both still a liter. WHAT they do for someone is entirely different.Why do you mention a carb? Could be anything that causes the water retention. My point is 500 calories of McDonalds will have a more detrimental effect on the appearance of my physique than 500 calories of chicken and rice, regardless if the macro's are the same. IDC that they will both have the same effect on fat levels, I care about water retention too.
I won't disagree here. The REAL issue with them is when KIDS are illegally taking them just to enhance their sports performance with no actual medical advice.The point I'm making about PED's has gone completely over your head. Yes I realise they can be just as dangerous as almost any drug, it's the fact there is a huge social stigma attached to taking them that I take issue with.
Well there are lots and lots of coaches out there who may not have played at a high level in a sport, but intricately know how to coach it. Look at coaching specialists like Hany Rambod. NEVER competed on the professional stage and I would hardly thought he was nothing more than a bro gym lifter based on his physique. You can actually figure out if someone really knows what they are talking about or not on here though.It isn't about someone looking how 'I think' they should look. People can look however they want but if you're going to be doling out lifting advice AND telling other people they're wrong then yes, look the part. I'm interested in someone who's put the practical work in and actually lived it rather than geeked out on the theory but not actually gone and put the work in. This forum is a meme at this point for that one. Also again...note how I said I nearly always, not always because of course there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think I need to put that so clearly...
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm saying though...if you lift, if you do yoga, if you run, basically if you do anything physical with the need to control your body then mind muscle connection SHOULD be an aim. Isolation work will help you achieve that and I feel like on this forum it's seen as the devil and a waste of time...which is entirely wrong.
Yes I take your point about Hany, hence why I said in nearly all cases plus I'm not talking about coaches because let's face it Hany HAS walked the walk. His yardstick is champions he's produced, not his own physique. It's the general forum member with limited experience, telling a seasoned gym goer they're wrong using parroted information, that's what i have a problem with.4 -
But not all people lift to make the mind/muscle connection a part of the goal. Some do it just to be active and keep basic strength up. Not all people are looking to increase mass nor have prominent body parts.The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
If creating a stronger mind muscle connection isn't part of your goals when you lift then I don't really know what to say to you, regardless, isolation exercises will achieve just that. Note how I don't say omit compounds.
But that doesn't change the fact that a calorie is a calorie. A liter of gas is different than a liter of water, but they are both still a liter. WHAT they do for someone is entirely different.Why do you mention a carb? Could be anything that causes the water retention. My point is 500 calories of McDonalds will have a more detrimental effect on the appearance of my physique than 500 calories of chicken and rice, regardless if the macro's are the same. IDC that they will both have the same effect on fat levels, I care about water retention too.
I won't disagree here. The REAL issue with them is when KIDS are illegally taking them just to enhance their sports performance with no actual medical advice.The point I'm making about PED's has gone completely over your head. Yes I realise they can be just as dangerous as almost any drug, it's the fact there is a huge social stigma attached to taking them that I take issue with.
Well there are lots and lots of coaches out there who may not have played at a high level in a sport, but intricately know how to coach it. Look at coaching specialists like Hany Rambod. NEVER competed on the professional stage and I would hardly thought he was nothing more than a bro gym lifter based on his physique. You can actually figure out if someone really knows what they are talking about or not on here though.It isn't about someone looking how 'I think' they should look. People can look however they want but if you're going to be doling out lifting advice AND telling other people they're wrong then yes, look the part. I'm interested in someone who's put the practical work in and actually lived it rather than geeked out on the theory but not actually gone and put the work in. This forum is a meme at this point for that one. Also again...note how I said I nearly always, not always because of course there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think I need to put that so clearly...
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I'm saying though...if you lift, if you do yoga, if you run, basically if you do anything physical with the need to control your body then mind muscle connection SHOULD be an aim. Isolation work will help you achieve that and I feel like on this forum it's seen as the devil and a waste of time...which is entirely wrong.
Yes I take your point about Hany, hence why I said in nearly all cases plus I'm not talking about coaches because let's face it Hany HAS walked the walk. His yardstick is champions he's produced, not his own physique. It's the general forum member with limited experience, telling a seasoned gym goer they're wrong using parroted information, that's what i have a problem with.
Lots of "seasoned gym goers" don't have a clue about nutrition/physiology/etc/etc, though. There are many "regulars" at my gym from whom I would not take any kind of advice, including the "trainer." Attending a gym regularly =/= knowledgeable.12 -
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.3 -
The whole notion of 'functional strength' and that compound lifts are the be all and end all.
Newb's concentrating on only compound lifts and not doing enough to build whats most important...mind muscle connection.
Dedicating whole workouts to just abs....fkn LOL.
The notion that a calorie is a calorie, no if one causes me to hold more water then they're not equal when it comes to my goals...which leads me to another...
Water has just as much as a detrimental effect on the appearance of a physique than fat.
The stigma attached to PED's...yet it's socially acceptable to take something that literally disables you (alcohol). People wasting time chasing ever dwindling results when they could transform their life, yet they're too scared of the social stigma to do what should be seen as normal.
People being too reliant on what hey read rather than walking the walk. I will nearly always put more value on the advice of someone who's actually where I want to be, than some skinny fat MFPer clutching a science paper.
I don't do "accessory" lifts...waste of time IMO...what's the point they don't help me achieve my goals...notice how that can be turned around using your logic
Calories are a unit of measure and if a carb impacts "YOUR" goal that's one thing but for the majority of people it is a fact...and a calorie is just that...a calorie...but not sure that this is "unpopular" just debated a lot...
PED's are a personal choice IMO...if you want to pump your body full of those things go ahead...but they are just as dangerous when abused as any other drug...including alcohol...again not that unpopular just those who want to use them vs those who don't are sure they are right.
As for your last statement...are you saying that you wouldn't heed the advice of someone like oh..Arnold? he's not where you want to be...but probably was at some point...
regardless of if someone now doesn't "look" how you think they should be doesn't mean they don't have good advice...
I mean I know people who look good...and I wouldn't listen to their drivel ever...
If creating a stronger mind muscle connection isn't part of your goals when you lift then I don't really know what to say to you, regardless, isolation exercises will achieve just that. Note how I don't say omit compounds.
Why do you mention a carb? Could be anything that causes the water retention. My point is 500 calories of McDonalds will have a more detrimental effect on the appearance of my physique than 500 calories of chicken and rice, regardless if the macro's are the same. IDC that they will both have the same effect on fat levels, I care about water retention too.
The point I'm making about PED's has gone completely over your head. Yes I realise they can be just as dangerous as almost any drug, it's the fact there is a huge social stigma attached to taking them that I take issue with.
It isn't about someone looking how 'I think' they should look. People can look however they want but if you're going to be doling out lifting advice AND telling other people they're wrong then yes, look the part. I'm interested in someone who's put the practical work in and actually lived it rather than geeked out on the theory but not actually gone and put the work in. This forum is a meme at this point for that one. Also again...note how I said I nearly always, not always because of course there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think I need to put that so clearly...
No it didn't...
I get what you mean...stigma attached to one thing that is "potential dangerous" vs another thing...aka PED vs Beer I think is dependent on where you are...there isn't a stigma where I live really except for those who want to compete in natural comps.
I did say it's not as unpopular as you think just those who use vs those who don't are so sure that their side is correct that it seems unpopular.
Good to know it's more accepted where you live. I still have a lot of stigma to contend with, comically a lot of it from my own parents...who are both alcoholics in denial. To be fair it's much more of a Joe Public thing, I haven't really experienced any negativity from those involved in fitness.
Funny though...if you ask these people if they're Arnold fans they always are, how do they think he got to that size?0 -
People who post about how they have cookies, candy, cake,ice cream, booze, etc on a daily basis and it fits their calories/macros. When you look at an open diary to see how they do it, you see 30-40% of their calories coming from nutritionally less dense food and MAYBE they're including one or 2 servings of fruits and vegatables (not involving a deep fat fryer) a day if lucky.
Sorry, this isn't healthy.10 -
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.8 -
My "unpopular" opinions:
1. I can eat whatever I want, and lose weight as long as I maintain a caloric deficit. Even Freddy's Steakburgers and fries.
2. Sugar substitutes don't scare me.
3. Sugar doesn't scare me.
4. Heavy lifting will get most people to their goal perception.
5. 1200 calories for most females is ridiculous.
6. Most supplements are stupid (which is a bit hypocritical, because I use creatine and protein powder).
7. I, personally, cannot work alcohol into a deficit diet.
8. Whatever exercise makes you happy and you will stick to, do that (Even after #4).
9. HIIT is a fad.
10. Don't blindly hire a trainer. Just because they work at a gym doesn't mean they know anything.18 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
@AnnPT77 for one2 -
deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
@AnnPT77 for one
how fat did she lose during this "recomp"?0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
@AnnPT77 for one
how fat did she lose during this "recomp"?
I believe she went from obese to profile pics flexing her back and arm muscles.0 -
deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
@AnnPT77 for one
how fat did she lose during this "recomp"?
From her profile:
"I've been quite active for a decade or so, but remained overweight (BMI just over the border into obese territory). I'm a stage III breast cancer survivor (since 2000), a widow (since 1998), hypothyroid (since 2001), a retiree (since 2006), and a vegetarian (since 1974). I'm an on-water rower (rowing machine in the off season), rowing several times a week (since 2002); regular spin class attendee; and do yoga/stretching frequently (daily when my best self gets the upper hand!). Realistic portion control, and avoiding useless calories, have been my traditional problems. Over 3 months, before joining MFP, I lost 28 pounds. That was fairly easy with better portions & food choices. The rest would be harder, so I needed to start logging."4 -
French_Peasant wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
@AnnPT77 for one
how fat did she lose during this "recomp"?
I believe she went from obese to profile pics flexing her back and arm muscles.
That wouldn't be a recomp, just awesome fat loss.1 -
Opinions only. I'm not justifying or arguing about anything:
- Those who ask for support are proactively looking to share the blame and diminish their own culpability for failure.
- Many people know nothing about fitness and weight loss except what they have heard from those who are selling them something.
- Accurate calorie counting is too difficult for some nontrivial number of people. These people will be better off with a structured plan. Corollary: Most people who "can't lose weight" aren't counting correctly.
- Frequent weigh-ins, ideally daily, are best.
- BMI is an appropriate metric for most people, and those for whom it isn't appropriate already know it and know why.
- New users should be forced to lurk for a week or two and read the stickies before being allowed to post. Corollary: New users who pepper the forums with many frequently-asked questions are not likely to be successful.
- "Junk Food" is an ungood newspeak term, was invented in order to obscure rather than enlighten, and is based on a political agenda promulgated by extremists.
34 -
French_Peasant wrote: »deannalfisher wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »
A menopausal women who cannot lose weight, will not successfully recomp.
And yet, there are menopausal women on MFP who have successfully recomped.
Where?
@AnnPT77 for one
how fat did she lose during this "recomp"?
I believe she went from obese to profile pics flexing her back and arm muscles.
That wouldn't be a recomp, just awesome fat loss.
Well, she became a competitive rower traveling around the country, so I suspect that she has also been able to add some muscle; not as much as a 20 year old kid obviously, but still, every little fiber is valuable. I have not quizzed her as to DEXA scans and such; she will have to weigh in herself.9
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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