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?
Options
Replies
-
JaydedMiss wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was not around to know.
If we are talking about little kids (not teens), we had sweet foods around usually when I was a kid, but I never just grabbed food, and neither did my sister. We weren't allowed to just eat stuff without asking. My mom would often say "have an apple if you are hungry," and I don't particular recall us begging for sweets in general.
When I was a teen we'd maybe grab something sweet after school (and maybe a non sweet snack -- I recall having cheese and crackers). That sweet stuff was there didn't mean we went crazy.
I don't really keep sweets around the house now, since I'm not that interested in them, although I enjoy baking and homebaked foods on occasion (like a holiday). My sister has no sweet tooth at all (and she totally did as a kid, loved sugary cereal).
My mom didn't buy soda, though, and I was never interested in soda as forbidden fruit (but it wasn't, we weren't a family where we weren't allowed to eat unhealthy foods, it just wasn't something kids drank in our house).
I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
(I have no opinion on whether others with kids should have treats in their house. Their deal. But having sweets does not mean the kids are taught to eat them indiscriminately. I find it more shocking how many people claim they never ate vegetables growing up.)
Was in response to people saying on a common occurnce their kids are asking for those things so they buy it for them, And argueing that not buying for them is somehow unreasonable and forcing "dieting" on them.
That's not how I read the prior posts, but that aside, what I disagree with is that having some treats in the house means that the kids will eat them indiscriminately or not learn healthy eating habits.
Back in the '70s and '80s when I was a kid most kids had treats in the home, I am sure, but I also remember us not eating them indiscriminately or getting whatever we wanted (begging usually meant NOT getting something) or not learning healthy eating -- and again I find all the people saying they never eat vegetables (never got them as a kid, grew up not having a clue what a sensible, healthy diet consists of, etc.) much more shocking than kids having a daily Oreo.
I think the idea that one has treats and eats poorly and doesn't learn about healthy eating or has a "healthy lifestyle" with no treats available to be a false dichotomy.
I also think this whole discussion is mostly people who don't disagree much talking past each other. ;-)3 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).
Bolded the important part.
So basically you are saying that you believe that children are gorging themselves when there's no chance their parents will know about it, and since we can't know about it, then there's no way for us to prove that they aren't? That's some seriously circular logic...
IDK if I'd go as far as gorge. But yes. I think if children are in a situation where they think there won't be consequences that they will behave differently than when they believe they are.
I believe this is true with a number of behaviors in children.
I trust that my children will use good judgement any time they have a choice - whether it be about the foods they eat, the way they treat others, the way they react when they see others being mistreated... etc. I think always assuming that kids are not going to make a good choice really shows a lack of trust and confidence in the values you've instilled in them.
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was not around to know.
If we are talking about little kids (not teens), we had sweet foods around usually when I was a kid, but I never just grabbed food, and neither did my sister. We weren't allowed to just eat stuff without asking. My mom would often say "have an apple if you are hungry," and I don't particular recall us begging for sweets in general.
When I was a teen we'd maybe grab something sweet after school (and maybe a non sweet snack -- I recall having cheese and crackers). That sweet stuff was there didn't mean we went crazy.
I don't really keep sweets around the house now, since I'm not that interested in them, although I enjoy baking and homebaked foods on occasion (like a holiday). My sister has no sweet tooth at all (and she totally did as a kid, loved sugary cereal).
My mom didn't buy soda, though, and I was never interested in soda as forbidden fruit (but it wasn't, we weren't a family where we weren't allowed to eat unhealthy foods, it just wasn't something kids drank in our house).
I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
(I have no opinion on whether others with kids should have treats in their house. Their deal. But having sweets does not mean the kids are taught to eat them indiscriminately. I find it more shocking how many people claim they never ate vegetables growing up.)
Was in response to people saying on a common occurnce their kids are asking for those things so they buy it for them, And argueing that not buying for them is somehow unreasonable and forcing "dieting" on them.
That's not how I read the prior posts, but that aside, what I disagree with is that having some treats in the house means that the kids will eat them indiscriminately or not learn healthy eating habits.
Back in the '70s and '80s when I was a kid most kids had treats in the home, I am sure, but I also remember us not eating them indiscriminately or getting whatever we wanted (begging usually meant NOT getting something) or not learning healthy eating -- and again I find all the people saying they never eat vegetables (never got them as a kid, grew up not having a clue what a sensible, healthy diet consists of, etc.) much more shocking than kids having a daily Oreo.
I think the idea that one has treats and eats poorly and doesn't learn about healthy eating or has a "healthy lifestyle" with no treats available to be a false dichotomy.
I also think this whole discussion is mostly people who don't disagree much talking past each other. ;-)
The bolded pretty much sums up every MFP discussion on every thread since the beginning of time...
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »JaydedMiss wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
I dunno i want whats easy and in my house. Thats the world we live in. Easy and fast is what we reach for. If kids have all the "bad" foods within easy reach thats what they learn to grab for. Like really what kid is going to pick an apple over a chocolate bar unless thats what they get taught to reach for.
If its not there to grab they wont grab it. Seems pretty simple to me. No ones saying to tell them its bad or they cant have it just not agreeing with having it so easily within reach constantly just because kids like it. Of course they like it, Doesnt mean i HAVE to buy it for them whenever i shop. Id be the adult itd be my job to make good choices.
Again not saying to never have it around but seems like kids would have way less obesity problems if parents would stop buying them everything they want and teach them to reach for healthy snacks.
Can argue both extremes it should be all about middle ground i guess. Not smacking chocolate bars our of kids hands and shoving an orange in it. But teaching kids to reach for the healthier versions and to consider the lesser healthy options either a special occasion or something to work for i cant see how that can be argued against- Seeing how most of us on here have struggled with weight issues why would we teach our kids to be the same way?
Kids have parents there when they are reaching for food.
We raised our kids in a way to not interfere with their hunger signals, so we weren't very strict with making them wait for meal times or forcing them to eat if they weren't hungry.
We had both healthy and "unhealthy" foods available to grab, but they were available to them with context.
They were taught that cookies and such were sometimes foods and came after the healthy foods which were always foods.
My kids are the only kids I know who will refuse candy, cookies, or cake. They've been known to eat half a cookie and stop because they're full.
So no, your whole idea if "it's not there, they won't grab it" didn't play out in our house. My kids were allowed to grab, within reason. Removing the allure of something being forbidden fruit made it not overly appealing to them.
I would bet that is not the norm. I would be curious if they refused this stuff when mom was not around to know.
If we are talking about little kids (not teens), we had sweet foods around usually when I was a kid, but I never just grabbed food, and neither did my sister. We weren't allowed to just eat stuff without asking. My mom would often say "have an apple if you are hungry," and I don't particular recall us begging for sweets in general.
When I was a teen we'd maybe grab something sweet after school (and maybe a non sweet snack -- I recall having cheese and crackers). That sweet stuff was there didn't mean we went crazy.
I don't really keep sweets around the house now, since I'm not that interested in them, although I enjoy baking and homebaked foods on occasion (like a holiday). My sister has no sweet tooth at all (and she totally did as a kid, loved sugary cereal).
My mom didn't buy soda, though, and I was never interested in soda as forbidden fruit (but it wasn't, we weren't a family where we weren't allowed to eat unhealthy foods, it just wasn't something kids drank in our house).
I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
(I have no opinion on whether others with kids should have treats in their house. Their deal. But having sweets does not mean the kids are taught to eat them indiscriminately. I find it more shocking how many people claim they never ate vegetables growing up.)
Was in response to people saying on a common occurnce their kids are asking for those things so they buy it for them, And argueing that not buying for them is somehow unreasonable and forcing "dieting" on them.
That's not how I read the prior posts, but that aside, what I disagree with is that having some treats in the house means that the kids will eat them indiscriminately or not learn healthy eating habits.
Back in the '70s and '80s when I was a kid most kids had treats in the home, I am sure, but I also remember us not eating them indiscriminately or getting whatever we wanted (begging usually meant NOT getting something) or not learning healthy eating -- and again I find all the people saying they never eat vegetables (never got them as a kid, grew up not having a clue what a sensible, healthy diet consists of, etc.) much more shocking than kids having a daily Oreo.
I think the idea that one has treats and eats poorly and doesn't learn about healthy eating or has a "healthy lifestyle" with no treats available to be a false dichotomy.
I also think this whole discussion is mostly people who don't disagree much talking past each other. ;-)
I agree with this SO SO SO much. When and how did this happen?
When I was kid a large part of our vegetables were frozen and canned but we had them at every meal (except maybe breakfast) and didn't get dessert if they weren't eaten.1 -
Haha well on the note of kids not growing up on vegetables, My "parents" werent parents i was on my own by the time i was 13 and i never grew up on vegetables, Or treats or much of anything really lol. Or had much of a place to be i could afford to stash vegetables even if i wanted to lol. It happens alot more thn people like to think. Im glad to hear of some good parents who feed their families healthy stuff. Makes me happy1
-
For the record incase anyone still reads my original post, My issue with calling people either i believe i said bad parents or lieing to self to make excuses was solely aimed towards people claiming they CANT eat healthy because their kids refuse or they couldnt possible make their children eat vegetables, Thats unheard of!
Those people i simply do believe are not good parents. I dotn think any of the arguements here have started off what i said but i do think the pick and choose going on its possible it may have been the point behind someone elses response...who knows.
But i never meant towards people who allow their kids snacks or junk food, Just the ones who straight up say their kids WONT eat good for them food and thats their excuse for not getting healthier.1 -
magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »magster4isu wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Your family should not be forced to diet with you- it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished.
No but if a family has a shred of compassion for the one dieting they would support them and not blame them...
I didn't see mention of blame.
Support <>giving up the stuff they want/love
"it's no one's fault but your own if you sit there and eat an entire bag of chips or sleeve of cookies. Just because you have no self control doesn't mean your partner/kids should get punished..."
Really?
When people don't understand that removing junk food from a diet is a huge benefit and not a punishment it always makes me raise a concerned look.
If a person or family eats a primarily nutrient dense diet, but has things like oreos or cheezits in the pantry available for consumption in moderation, what benefits would that family or person see if they no longer consume an oreo or two after dinner? Telling the family that those things will no longer be in the house, because one person has difficulty moderating them or has chosen to cut them out in favor of other food choices, you don't think that would be seen as a negative and unnecessary consequence for other family members?
While I agree that having an occasional treat of not-so-healthy food is not detrimental to health, I don't think I'd go so far as to say it's a negative consequence to not have it. Unless they live in a bubble or some type of commune away from general society, kids are going to eat junk food. Not having it in the house isn't going to stop that.
But, not having it in the house might make them see that as the norm. Then again, it might not. Hard to judge something like that but every parent should do what they feel is right, even if it differs from what I feel is right.
well my mom chose nutrient dense foods for 1 reason and 1 only...we were poor.
After a while when we weren't...there was a diabetic in the house so that made her choose differently as well so as to not impact him too much...
however we were allowed ice cream in the house, chips ahoy and the odd envelope of tang...but rarely my fav of fruitloops...or anything like that...anythign people would consider "unhealthy"
what impact did it have on us...we meaning all 7 of the kids (save the diabetic) got overweight...some obese..some are getting gastic bypass...why because yup we were told you want it you go buy it..and we did and we ate it all...we ate lots of nutrient dense foods as well...
food is fuel it is not healthy vs unhealthy...it's the amount that is eaten that is unhealthy...allowing for treats in the house can allow for people to learn to moderate..
for example my son at 14 I let him drink reasonable amounts under my supervision...as he grew he learned to moderate and hardly drinks at all now...where as a lot of my family are daily drinkers...even some alcoholics...so yes not allowing for this can have adverse effects.
Okay. There are just as many examples of the opposite reactions.
could be but human nature says you want what you are denied or as kids told is bad...esp if you never get it...or so rarely that it can be counted on 1 hand....
Human nature also says that if you are continually fed those calorie dense foods it becomes a habit. The point I think most people are trying to make is that these foods do not need to be in the house all the time. It is okay to have them occasionally and in moderation.
so is it calorie dense or is it unhealthy that you don't like? because it was about healthy not weight at first.
I have nothing against calorie dense foods...in moderation. I think it's safe to say that most people don't like to be unhealthy. I also think it depends on your definition of "unhealthy". In my opinion eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. Having those calorie dense foods in moderation can be a part of a healthy lifestyle. When I made my first comment I stated that I was not dieting but changing to a healthy lifestyle, therefore I am not forcing my family to diet.
so the following foods are only in moderation at your house then? Yes
butter
peanut butter
oils
seeds/nuts
dark chocolate
dried fruits
pasta
avocado
beef
duck
pizza
granola
hummus
fruit juice
and regardless eating calorie dense food everyday is not unhealthy... I eat calorie dense foods everyday...in moderation.
healthy <> low calorie
healthy lifestyle = balance.
okay so what is defined as "too many" or "too much" then? as you said eating "too many" is unhealthy?
because daily could be seen as continually which in your opinion means a habit will be formed for calorie dense foods. And if you eat them daily how is it that you said they don't need to be in the house all the time????
I see a progression with you from unhealthy food not being in your house to calorie dense not being in your house to I eat calorie dense foods everyday....
What is an unhealthy food? I have never called anything an unhealthy food.
you said too many calorie dense foods was unhealthy...
This is true. Eating too many calorie dense foods is unhealthy. That doesn't mean that calorie dense foods are "unhealthy".
right and that was my point...but you went from "unhealthy food" (you never gave an example of what was unheathy just that if your family wanted something not deemed healthy you were not buying it) not being in your house to "calories dense" not being in your house to eating them everyday in moderation...so I asked what do you define at too many or too much??? another question left unanswered...
and you did say that eating calorie dense foods continually will cause habits to form...but you eat them everyday...so yah confused as to the rules you follow except you don't diet...that is loud and clear.
eating too much of anything is unhealthy....
When did I ever say that I do not let calorie dense foods in my house?
wow okay phrases like "eating calorie dense foods continually forms habits" therefore they do not need to be in the house all the time....need to be spelled out okay.
So again let me see if I can get this typed out correctly.....
you went from not having calorie dense food in your house "continually" and available as it can form habits...to eating calorie dense foods everyday.
You are not seeing the forest for the trees here you are too busy only reading parts of what I am saying and focusing in on a few words/sentences that you deem invalid.
So be it.
I have asked a couple questions more than once and you choose not to answer or even go back and read them when I reference them again so your the confusion created by the things you have said can't get clarification so whatever...
I said eating calorie dense foods continually can make it a habit as a rebuttal to you saying they will automatically eat it if it denied to you. It was meant to show the opposite extreme of what you were stating. Because both those extremes CAN be bad.
Again, I never said that I don't have calorie dense foods in my house.
As soon as you ask a question that isn't based on a mis-quote of mine, I will happily answer it. Otherwise I don't trust that you won't continue to twist my words to fit your narrative.
No you didn't say "can" here is your quote
"Human nature also says that if you are continually fed those calorie dense foods it becomes a habit. " in rebuttal to something not even within our conversation but whatever you can "rebutt" anything you want...but see funny how you can say things that I didn't say and it's okay...it happens easy enough but I am not going to dwell on it.
and what you said is spelled out up there which is in contradiction of each other with no clarification on what you meant.
Okay so here were a few questions asked to clear up possible miscommunication early in
oh and how is food like oh moon pies aka carmel cakes, joe louis etc unhealthy????
so is it calorie dense or is it unhealthy that you don't like? because it was about healthy not weight at first.
(note you half answered this with "I have nothing against calorie dense in moderation..."
but never did define what to you meant "healthy" or "unhealthy" or "moderation" only to previously having said "continually fed" which to me is everyday....
and this is where I asked "okay so what is defined as "too many" or "too much" then? as you said eating "too many" is unhealthy?" pg 266
"if your husband asks you to pick up a bag of chips at the store while you are out are you really going to say No?
If your child asks you for you to pick up some cookies as a treat or donuts are you going to look at them and say go get it yourself?" pg 265
note* if the 2nd question had been answered back when I asked it I would have known you were into moderation instead of a page later...I even referenced that you didn't answer the question and you wanted them repeated....so that led me to believe you really weren't interested in answering them anyway...
so yah there it is...me misquoting you...you misquoting me....me asking for clarification and none being forth coming early in...yup par for the course...
*one of these days Imma gonna learn.5 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).
Bolded the important part.
So basically you are saying that you believe that children are gorging themselves when there's no chance their parents will know about it, and since we can't know about it, then there's no way for us to prove that they aren't? That's some seriously circular logic...
IDK if I'd go as far as gorge. But yes. I think if children are in a situation where they think there won't be consequences that they will behave differently than when they believe they are.
I believe this is true with a number of behaviors in children.
I trust that my children will use good judgement any time they have a choice - whether it be about the foods they eat, the way they treat others, the way they react when they see others being mistreated... etc. I think always assuming that kids are not going to make a good choice really shows a lack of trust and confidence in the values you've instilled in them.
I was trying to figure out how to respond to this post. You've summed up my feelings perfectly.
3 -
SeriousCat wrote: »I'm against any position that encourages victim status - HAES, slow metabolism, FA...certainly not a popular opinion as the world has rejected any notion of personal responsibility and accountability and solely devoted to casting blame on something or someone else.
Really unpopular opinion, but also alcohol. No, you do not have a disease. No, you are not powerless over your problem. You are personally responsible for the CHOICES you make, so choosing to stop making bad ones.
So are you totally in control of everything you do? I mean you don't have anything in your life where you'd like to be different but for some reason you just can't get control no matter how much you try? If you are more power to you because you are better than I am. And AA and similar programs are not about victim status. It is a spiritual means to achieve sanity and overcome a problem you can't get control of with support from other people who have struggled with the same thing.1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »CommonBiped wrote: »I abhor being told that losing weight is easy. That finding time, energy, money, which workouts won't kill your knees/feet/chest, is just a snap and anyone who can't immediately do these things is just lazy. That healthy food is cheap or that cooking food at home is quick. The reality is, these are true if you're making your health your part-time job/hobby.
Reality is, working out even for 20 minutes is more than 20 minutes. You have find and get into gear, go where you're working out, work out, shower, redo your hair, redo your makeup, pack up your stuff etc. Adds at least a load of laundry a week and will likely cost you money in either equipment, membership or gear/clothing. Where can you find workout gear that isn't for a size 2, you know something you can actually try on and know that it fits instead of playing internet size roulette. What exercises do you do? In what amount? Are you doing them correctly? Are they effective? How effective? Shouldn't you be seeing some results by now? How boring is working out really? I hear there's a runners high, but they must've been high before it started because running is the most boring activity on the face of the planet.
Cooking at home includes the finding of recipes, the dithering of whether or not it is something you can/will eat, finding food at between 1-3 stores because 3 out 4 times 1 store won't have all the ingredients, the money that all this good for you food costs, food prep (which doesn't actually go fast, it is hard work, there's a reason chefs get paid), the actual cooking, the dishes from initially eating it, the tupperware you ended up storing the extras in that you never end up eating because it is horrible reheated, the pots, the pans, the measuring devices, you can destroy a kitchen and walk away with enough food for two meals. Even with all that, is it something you can eat in 5 minutes before you have to be out the door for work? Is it something you can bring to work that doesn't require ridiculous number of containers or at work kitchen prep? Will it taste god frickin awful once microwaved? Will it stink up the office and make you a pariah? Do you count calories or carbs, or sugar grams, or fat grams? Is the apple in my hand considered a medium apple? How many freakin calories are actually in this apple?
Most people aren't lazy and they care about their health. But come on, the healthier than thou attitudes thrown at people and the condescension is frickin brutal. If you are the kind of people that inhabit a gym, why on earth would anyone want to go there? I know people who work their buts off in life, they just don't work it off at the gym. Who are you to judge these people? My grandmother was easily between 250 and 300 her whole adult life. She worked on her feet every day and cooked dinner for everyone at night. You would rarely see her sit. But apparently according to this thread she was simply lazy. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Perhaps instead of working on your looks while claiming your'e working on your health, you should be working on your compassion and attitudes towards others. You may be getting prettier on the outside, but apparently your insides have a long ways to go.
Yes, I work out, yes I watch what I eat and generally go for healthy. But I would never be foolish or arrogant enough to claim that it is easy because the truth is it is hard work and time consuming, or that everyones metabolism or body works the same way, or that today's lifestyle doesn't play a huge roll in everyone's weight increase. If everyones bodies worked exactly the same way then the same dosage of meds would work for everyone. So running marathons or whatever is your hobby, good for you, that does not make you a better persone than someone who finds that mind numbingly boring and prefers to create something or spend their time elsewhere.
Weight loss isn't easy, but it is simple. In order to lose weight, you need to be in a calorie deficit. None of those things you described - going to the gym, exercising at all, cooking all meals at home, tracking macros - are required for weight loss.
Your post sounds like you feel weight loss is overly complicated and you are potentially overthinking some aspects of what will help you achieve your goals. Eat a little less, move a little more. That really is it. Over time, then the small changes start to become lasting habits and then you build more and more of them.
I don't judge others who aren't making those changes, or who aren't going to extremes - but I do tell people that it is possible to lose weight without running marathons, without eating clean, without meticulously tracking every morsel you consume with a food scale. Because I think that believing that those things are required, can often become a barrier from people starting to lose weight.
Which ties in nicely to one of my (probably) unpopular opinions: Weight loss is not only simple, it's also a lot easier than many people make it. One only needs to read through the threads here on MFP to see there are plenty of people who make it a lot more difficult, convoluted and miserable than it has to be.14 -
WinoGelato wrote: »CommonBiped wrote: »I abhor being told that losing weight is easy. That finding time, energy, money, which workouts won't kill your knees/feet/chest, is just a snap and anyone who can't immediately do these things is just lazy. That healthy food is cheap or that cooking food at home is quick. The reality is, these are true if you're making your health your part-time job/hobby.
Reality is, working out even for 20 minutes is more than 20 minutes. You have find and get into gear, go where you're working out, work out, shower, redo your hair, redo your makeup, pack up your stuff etc. Adds at least a load of laundry a week and will likely cost you money in either equipment, membership or gear/clothing. Where can you find workout gear that isn't for a size 2, you know something you can actually try on and know that it fits instead of playing internet size roulette. What exercises do you do? In what amount? Are you doing them correctly? Are they effective? How effective? Shouldn't you be seeing some results by now? How boring is working out really? I hear there's a runners high, but they must've been high before it started because running is the most boring activity on the face of the planet.
Cooking at home includes the finding of recipes, the dithering of whether or not it is something you can/will eat, finding food at between 1-3 stores because 3 out 4 times 1 store won't have all the ingredients, the money that all this good for you food costs, food prep (which doesn't actually go fast, it is hard work, there's a reason chefs get paid), the actual cooking, the dishes from initially eating it, the tupperware you ended up storing the extras in that you never end up eating because it is horrible reheated, the pots, the pans, the measuring devices, you can destroy a kitchen and walk away with enough food for two meals. Even with all that, is it something you can eat in 5 minutes before you have to be out the door for work? Is it something you can bring to work that doesn't require ridiculous number of containers or at work kitchen prep? Will it taste god frickin awful once microwaved? Will it stink up the office and make you a pariah? Do you count calories or carbs, or sugar grams, or fat grams? Is the apple in my hand considered a medium apple? How many freakin calories are actually in this apple?
Most people aren't lazy and they care about their health. But come on, the healthier than thou attitudes thrown at people and the condescension is frickin brutal. If you are the kind of people that inhabit a gym, why on earth would anyone want to go there? I know people who work their buts off in life, they just don't work it off at the gym. Who are you to judge these people? My grandmother was easily between 250 and 300 her whole adult life. She worked on her feet every day and cooked dinner for everyone at night. You would rarely see her sit. But apparently according to this thread she was simply lazy. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Perhaps instead of working on your looks while claiming your'e working on your health, you should be working on your compassion and attitudes towards others. You may be getting prettier on the outside, but apparently your insides have a long ways to go.
Yes, I work out, yes I watch what I eat and generally go for healthy. But I would never be foolish or arrogant enough to claim that it is easy because the truth is it is hard work and time consuming, or that everyones metabolism or body works the same way, or that today's lifestyle doesn't play a huge roll in everyone's weight increase. If everyones bodies worked exactly the same way then the same dosage of meds would work for everyone. So running marathons or whatever is your hobby, good for you, that does not make you a better persone than someone who finds that mind numbingly boring and prefers to create something or spend their time elsewhere.
Weight loss isn't easy, but it is simple. In order to lose weight, you need to be in a calorie deficit. None of those things you described - going to the gym, exercising at all, cooking all meals at home, tracking macros - are required for weight loss.
Your post sounds like you feel weight loss is overly complicated and you are potentially overthinking some aspects of what will help you achieve your goals. Eat a little less, move a little more. That really is it. Over time, then the small changes start to become lasting habits and then you build more and more of them.
I don't judge others who aren't making those changes, or who aren't going to extremes - but I do tell people that it is possible to lose weight without running marathons, without eating clean, without meticulously tracking every morsel you consume with a food scale. Because I think that believing that those things are required, can often become a barrier from people starting to lose weight.
Which ties in nicely to one of my (probably) unpopular opinions: Weight loss is not only simple, it's also a lot easier than many people make it. One only needs to read through the threads here on MFP to see there are plenty of people who make it a lot more difficult, convoluted and miserable than it has to be.
Yeah i dont think thats an unpopular opinion at all lol.0 -
I love this thread. I have a LOT of unpopular opinions, but the most unpopular of them all is:
Dieting means you will be hungry, there's no way around it.
.... You won't starve, and it should be to a point it is manageable. But if you're eating at a deficit, your body will start using its own energy and it will complain. And this means you will be hungry (at least a little).
So true! I love this.2 -
Being hungry means I'm doing it right. Shut up stomach, you've run this show for 30 years, time to take a back seat and stfu.4
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).
Bolded the important part.
So basically you are saying that you believe that children are gorging themselves when there's no chance their parents will know about it, and since we can't know about it, then there's no way for us to prove that they aren't? That's some seriously circular logic...
IDK if I'd go as far as gorge. But yes. I think if children are in a situation where they think there won't be consequences that they will behave differently than when they believe they are.
I believe this is true with a number of behaviors in children.
I trust that my children will use good judgement any time they have a choice - whether it be about the foods they eat, the way they treat others, the way they react when they see others being mistreated... etc. I think always assuming that kids are not going to make a good choice really shows a lack of trust and confidence in the values you've instilled in them.
I was trying to figure out how to respond to this post. You've summed up my feelings perfectly.
Thanks. I do want to elaborate on my first post to clarify that in no way do I think my children always use perfect judgement, or make the BEST choice, when they have choices to make. But neither do I.... what I try to teach them is that they need to consider choices and weigh options carefully. If my kids eat a little extra candy when they are playing with their cousins watching video games, that's ok, they are humans. Striving for perfection and assuming that they would choose raw vegetables when their cousins are eating pixie sticks is unrealistic. If they eat pixie sticks and then come home starving later, we can talk about how that didn't really fill them up and maybe a piece of string cheese or some carrots would have done that, and they could have still had a pixie stick too.
We were at Toys R Us recently and my 6 year old had a gift card burning a hole in his pocket. He desperately wanted a giant nerf gun, which the gift card wouldn't have covered, and he would have had to dip into birthday money too. We talked about the timing of such a purchase, relative to the upcoming holidays, and that maybe he should look at something that he had enough to spend the gift card on and not have to use other funds for. After a lot of agonizing, he decided to go with a different item, within his card limit, and as we were walking to the car he said, "mom, I think I made a good choice, don't you"? That's all I ask of my kids, that they use their brains and consider the options and the consequences before making a decision. If he had really pushed for the giant nerf gun, I would have let him do it, but I'm happy he made the choice he did (lord knows we don't need more nerf guns!).7 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »In Germany, P.E. class is called Sports class. So everything you do in P.E. is sport.
I recall participating in juggling, hula hooping, and duck-duck-goose in gym, activities that are clearly sports
. I’m hoping the Olympics include duck-duck-goose as a sport in 2024, I’m thinking I will certainly medal.
Well it is a physical competition which allows for defending against the opposing players so it does fit your own definition of a sport...7 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »In Germany, P.E. class is called Sports class. So everything you do in P.E. is sport.
I recall participating in juggling, hula hooping, and duck-duck-goose in gym, activities that are clearly sports . I’m hoping the Olympics include duck-duck-goose as a sport in 2024, I’m thinking I will certainly medal.
Well it is a physical competition which allows for defending against the opposing players so it does fit your own definition of a sport...
If the juggling and hula-hooping were done in competition then of course all 3 meet your definition, right? Hello Olympic Committee, can we get these all in place for Tokyo in 2020?4 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »In Germany, P.E. class is called Sports class. So everything you do in P.E. is sport.
I recall participating in juggling, hula hooping, and duck-duck-goose in gym, activities that are clearly sports . I’m hoping the Olympics include duck-duck-goose as a sport in 2024, I’m thinking I will certainly medal.
Well it is a physical competition which allows for defending against the opposing players so it does fit your own definition of a sport...
If the juggling and hula-hooping were done in competition then of course all 3 meet your definition, right? Hello Olympic Committee, can we get these all in place for Tokyo in 2020?
Rhythmic gymnastics, which includes hula hoops, is already in the olympics.9 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »In Germany, P.E. class is called Sports class. So everything you do in P.E. is sport.
I recall participating in juggling, hula hooping, and duck-duck-goose in gym, activities that are clearly sports . I’m hoping the Olympics include duck-duck-goose as a sport in 2024, I’m thinking I will certainly medal.
Well it is a physical competition which allows for defending against the opposing players so it does fit your own definition of a sport...
If the juggling and hula-hooping were done in competition then of course all 3 meet your definition, right? Hello Olympic Committee, can we get these all in place for Tokyo in 2020?
I would watch the *kitten* out of competitive juggling or hula hooping.....or juggling AND hula hooping
Also, hula hooping is really freakin hard3 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »In Germany, P.E. class is called Sports class. So everything you do in P.E. is sport.
I recall participating in juggling, hula hooping, and duck-duck-goose in gym, activities that are clearly sports . I’m hoping the Olympics include duck-duck-goose as a sport in 2024, I’m thinking I will certainly medal.
Well it is a physical competition which allows for defending against the opposing players so it does fit your own definition of a sport...
If the juggling and hula-hooping were done in competition then of course all 3 meet your definition, right? Hello Olympic Committee, can we get these all in place for Tokyo in 2020?
We all just wait for your judgments to decide how to live.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm sure it's all individual, but I don't buy the idea that if you have high cal treats in the home that the kids will be grabbing and eating them, let alone that they will be eating lots of them (as jayed miss seemed to be saying). That was not my experience.
I don't buy that either. Well, I do with some as I know kids who will do this at home (because they are not taught not to, which does back up my theory). I thought I made it pretty clear that I was not talking about what children do when under the watchful eye of parents who have taught them good food rules. But maybe I did not.
We were latchkey kids (that term, how 80s!) and were home alone a lot, me from the time I was around 9 or 10. We did not get into the sweets and go nuts (and my parents probably would have known if we had). We also did not buy sweets, at least not often or in significant amounts (it was probably harder back then, however).
Bolded the important part.
So basically you are saying that you believe that children are gorging themselves when there's no chance their parents will know about it, and since we can't know about it, then there's no way for us to prove that they aren't? That's some seriously circular logic...
IDK if I'd go as far as gorge. But yes. I think if children are in a situation where they think there won't be consequences that they will behave differently than when they believe they are.
I believe this is true with a number of behaviors in children.
I trust that my children will use good judgement any time they have a choice - whether it be about the foods they eat, the way they treat others, the way they react when they see others being mistreated... etc. I think always assuming that kids are not going to make a good choice really shows a lack of trust and confidence in the values you've instilled in them.
I was trying to figure out how to respond to this post. You've summed up my feelings perfectly.
Thanks. I do want to elaborate on my first post to clarify that in no way do I think my children always use perfect judgement, or make the BEST choice, when they have choices to make. But neither do I.... what I try to teach them is that they need to consider choices and weigh options carefully. If my kids eat a little extra candy when they are playing with their cousins watching video games, that's ok, they are humans. Striving for perfection and assuming that they would choose raw vegetables when their cousins are eating pixie sticks is unrealistic. If they eat pixie sticks and then come home starving later, we can talk about how that didn't really fill them up and maybe a piece of string cheese or some carrots would have done that, and they could have still had a pixie stick too.
We were at Toys R Us recently and my 6 year old had a gift card burning a hole in his pocket. He desperately wanted a giant nerf gun, which the gift card wouldn't have covered, and he would have had to dip into birthday money too. We talked about the timing of such a purchase, relative to the upcoming holidays, and that maybe he should look at something that he had enough to spend the gift card on and not have to use other funds for. After a lot of agonizing, he decided to go with a different item, within his card limit, and as we were walking to the car he said, "mom, I think I made a good choice, don't you"? That's all I ask of my kids, that they use their brains and consider the options and the consequences before making a decision. If he had really pushed for the giant nerf gun, I would have let him do it, but I'm happy he made the choice he did (lord knows we don't need more nerf guns!).
You know, it was by allowing my kids to make the mistake of eating some extra candy one Halloween that they learned that the really didn't like it all that much and that they didn't feel that great when they overate it.
So yeah, I'm not trying to give the impression I have some perfect little automatons here.
We have also done the decision making process like you did withe the gift card scenario. Our daughter isn't impulsive, so she's always been wise with such matters. Our son? Sometimes he chooses well (most of the time) and other times, impulse wins out. Regret has taught him well and his decision making processes have gotten better with time.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 959 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions