FACEPALM. People who don't know what they're talking about AT ALL. I'm really just venting...
Replies
-
Getting on the scale is just a tool.
For some people it works. For some people it doesn't. I have done both successfully. Just like calorie counting. I'm a nerd person- so numbers work for me- measurements and daily tracking. but It's certainly not the be all end all.
At least that's a discussable topic. I was strolling around in WallyWorld grabbing some essentials and had to pass a these women chatting in the way- and the one was talking about how she was alkaline and had to reduce the alkalinity and if you wake up in the morning and your breath tastes sweet is the toxins leaving your body.
I wanted to punch her in the face.
8oz of H2SO4 will clear that right up!2 -
Getting on the scale is just a tool.
For some people it works. For some people it doesn't. I have done both successfully. Just like calorie counting. I'm a nerd person- so numbers work for me- measurements and daily tracking. but It's certainly not the be all end all.
At least that's a discussable topic. I was strolling around in WallyWorld grabbing some essentials and had to pass a these women chatting in the way- and the one was talking about how she was alkaline and had to reduce the alkalinity and if you wake up in the morning and your breath tastes sweet is the toxins leaving your body.
I wanted to punch her in the face.
8oz of H2SO4 will clear that right up!
11 -
Getting on the scale is just a tool.
For some people it works. For some people it doesn't. I have done both successfully. Just like calorie counting. I'm a nerd person- so numbers work for me- measurements and daily tracking. but It's certainly not the be all end all.
At least that's a discussable topic. I was strolling around in WallyWorld grabbing some essentials and had to pass a these women chatting in the way- and the one was talking about how she was alkaline and had to reduce the alkalinity and if you wake up in the morning and your breath tastes sweet is the toxins leaving your body.
I wanted to punch her in the face.
8oz of H2SO4 will clear that right up!
BUT THE TOXINS LEAVING YOUR BREATH!!!5 -
GlorianasTears wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »Wow I hate that you had to hear such terrible advice no one should get on the scale everyday like that makes you obsessive. Also I personally don't believe excercising a lot and eating a little leads to healthy weight loss from my experience your muscles just shrink and your metabolism slows down and then you gain ALL the weight back again
and you start to look jiggly
Um, happily non-obsessive daily weigher here. I like seeing the trends precisely so I *don't* freak out when I get a random high day (or two or three). To each their own :ohwell:
Good for you darling but it's not healthy for most people especially people trying to lose a lot of fat.
It is because I weighed daily that I was able to notice trends and understand how my body reacts to certain things. For instance, my weight always tends to increase the day after a heavy lifting session probably because my muscles are retaining water to repair themselves. Because I weigh daily I don't freak out when I see this increase, I simply keep doing what I am doing without panicking. You hear a lot on here that weight loss is not linear which is absolutely true, and weighing and logging that weight daily allowed me to see that.
This.
3 -
Packerjohn wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »This is why I avoid diet/fitness/nutrition small talk with 99% of the people in my life. People don't know what they don't know and it's easier to talk about more pleasant topics.
I'm going to disagree on principle. The absence of discussing sticky topics is one of the large contributing factors to the polarization of society. It is very necessary to purge that release valve periodically. Like any muscle or skill what we neglect atrophies and dies.
We are quickly losing the skill of conversation and the ability to agree to disagree.
Common ground is easily sought and of much more importance than uncommon ground.
I agree with what you're saying, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I do discuss other "sticky topics" (politics, culture, religion) with people in my life, I've just found that diet/fitness/nutrition tends (with the people I know) to go round and round without it feeling very constructive. Unlike, say, politics, where I feel like I can better understand where someone is coming from after a conversation (even if we still disagree).
I guess it's more interesting for me to have IRL debates that center on values and perceptions rather than "Well, Dr Oz swears that raspberry ketones work" or "my cousin lost 40 pounds after she detoxed" (not that all workplace diet conversations are like this, but all the ones in *my workplace* tend to be).
I thought you were very clear, but I'm attempting to find common ground with you. This is key.
With all things it is all about how you say it, and very little about the topic. Comedians and salesmen and masters of this craft.
No, when I looked back at what I wrote in the context of your comments, I realized I didn't exactly *mean* what I wrote and I wanted to clarify. I don't think "pleasant topics" are the highest value (in the work place or generally) and if I read what I wrote, I would have concluded that is what I thought (I don't know if that is what you concluded, but I wanted to make sure).
It may be that it has more to do with me than the topic, but I *feel* like when I discuss things like politics and religion with people I disagree with (or to explore whether we agree), it feels like there is more potential for understanding someone's value system and how they seem the world. There is more opportunity for potential closeness, for me to learn new things, or for me to be challenged.
Now that I'm writing all this out, I'm willing to accept this has more to do with how I approach these different topics and conversations than something that is inherent to conversations about diet/weight loss.
I think in all things it is more critical to understand why people think what they do. So in diet/nutrition it's "Ok you're doing low carb...Why?" The response you get is an indicator if people actually understand the information or simply parroting what they've heard. You only get an emotional rise in those who don't understand and now feel threatened as the potential of ignorance is exposed. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, yet the vast majority is terrified of not knowing - to the point most will openly lie rather than risk being outed from the masses.
Yep, asking "why" is a good way to get to the root of a a problem determine someone's understanding. In your example if someone can come up with 4/5 reasons why, they most likely have a good understanding.
The 5 Whys is a technique used in the Analyze phase of the Six Sigma DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control) methodology. ... By repeatedly asking the question “Why” (five is a good rule of thumb), you can peel away the layers of symptoms which can lead to the root cause of a problem.
https://www.isixsigma.com/tools-templates/cause-effect/determine-root-cause-5-whys/
Aargh. I thought I'd retired from that lecture!
Sorry, off topic.0 -
clicketykeys wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »This is why I avoid diet/fitness/nutrition small talk with 99% of the people in my life. People don't know what they don't know and it's easier to talk about more pleasant topics.
I'm going to disagree on principle. The absence of discussing sticky topics is one of the large contributing factors to the polarization of society. It is very necessary to purge that release valve periodically. Like any muscle or skill what we neglect atrophies and dies.
We are quickly losing the skill of conversation and the ability to agree to disagree.
Common ground is easily sought and of much more importance than uncommon ground.
I agree with what you're saying, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I do discuss other "sticky topics" (politics, culture, religion) with people in my life, I've just found that diet/fitness/nutrition tends (with the people I know) to go round and round without it feeling very constructive. Unlike, say, politics, where I feel like I can better understand where someone is coming from after a conversation (even if we still disagree).
I guess it's more interesting for me to have IRL debates that center on values and perceptions rather than "Well, Dr Oz swears that raspberry ketones work" or "my cousin lost 40 pounds after she detoxed" (not that all workplace diet conversations are like this, but all the ones in *my workplace* tend to be).
I thought you were very clear, but I'm attempting to find common ground with you. This is key.
With all things it is all about how you say it, and very little about the topic. Comedians and salesmen and masters of this craft.
No, when I looked back at what I wrote in the context of your comments, I realized I didn't exactly *mean* what I wrote and I wanted to clarify. I don't think "pleasant topics" are the highest value (in the work place or generally) and if I read what I wrote, I would have concluded that is what I thought (I don't know if that is what you concluded, but I wanted to make sure).
It may be that it has more to do with me than the topic, but I *feel* like when I discuss things like politics and religion with people I disagree with (or to explore whether we agree), it feels like there is more potential for understanding someone's value system and how they seem the world. There is more opportunity for potential closeness, for me to learn new things, or for me to be challenged.
Now that I'm writing all this out, I'm willing to accept this has more to do with how I approach these different topics and conversations than something that is inherent to conversations about diet/weight loss.
I think in all things it is more critical to understand why people think what they do. So in diet/nutrition it's "Ok you're doing low carb...Why?" The response you get is an indicator if people actually understand the information or simply parroting what they've heard. You only get an emotional rise in those who don't understand and now feel threatened as the potential of ignorance is exposed. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, yet the vast majority is terrified of not knowing - to the point most will openly lie rather than risk being outed from the masses.
I'm going to split a hair that I think is a significant hair. People don't mind being ignorant; they mind having others think less of them. And being (or seeming to be) ignorant can provoke that response.vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Or egg whites!
I would agree with this hair split, but I find is fascinating why anyone would ever be concerned with ignorance. With the volume of data out there ignorance is simply an absolute. It is absurd to believe that we aren't ignorant of something. Even more absurd to be thought lesser because of this.
Ignorance is a spectrum, though. And our current levels of access to all kinds of information is unparalleled in history. Historically, information was often difficult to come by - the more specialized, the more difficult. "Knowledge is power" didn't just mean that having knowledge made you powerful (although that's part of it). It also means that being powerful gives you more access to information. The counterpoint is that ignorance is weakness.
In a similar way, being misinformed (rather than simply uninformed) means that either someone duped us, or that the information was accurate but we misunderstood it. Both of these imply mental weakness.
That perception of weakness is (IMO) why people are concerned about someone saying their information is wrong.6 -
I need a beer
7 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »This is why I avoid diet/fitness/nutrition small talk with 99% of the people in my life. People don't know what they don't know and it's easier to talk about more pleasant topics.
I'm going to disagree on principle. The absence of discussing sticky topics is one of the large contributing factors to the polarization of society. It is very necessary to purge that release valve periodically. Like any muscle or skill what we neglect atrophies and dies.
We are quickly losing the skill of conversation and the ability to agree to disagree.
Common ground is easily sought and of much more importance than uncommon ground.
I agree with what you're saying, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I do discuss other "sticky topics" (politics, culture, religion) with people in my life, I've just found that diet/fitness/nutrition tends (with the people I know) to go round and round without it feeling very constructive. Unlike, say, politics, where I feel like I can better understand where someone is coming from after a conversation (even if we still disagree).
I guess it's more interesting for me to have IRL debates that center on values and perceptions rather than "Well, Dr Oz swears that raspberry ketones work" or "my cousin lost 40 pounds after she detoxed" (not that all workplace diet conversations are like this, but all the ones in *my workplace* tend to be).
I thought you were very clear, but I'm attempting to find common ground with you. This is key.
With all things it is all about how you say it, and very little about the topic. Comedians and salesmen and masters of this craft.
No, when I looked back at what I wrote in the context of your comments, I realized I didn't exactly *mean* what I wrote and I wanted to clarify. I don't think "pleasant topics" are the highest value (in the work place or generally) and if I read what I wrote, I would have concluded that is what I thought (I don't know if that is what you concluded, but I wanted to make sure).
It may be that it has more to do with me than the topic, but I *feel* like when I discuss things like politics and religion with people I disagree with (or to explore whether we agree), it feels like there is more potential for understanding someone's value system and how they seem the world. There is more opportunity for potential closeness, for me to learn new things, or for me to be challenged.
Now that I'm writing all this out, I'm willing to accept this has more to do with how I approach these different topics and conversations than something that is inherent to conversations about diet/weight loss.
I think in all things it is more critical to understand why people think what they do. So in diet/nutrition it's "Ok you're doing low carb...Why?" The response you get is an indicator if people actually understand the information or simply parroting what they've heard. You only get an emotional rise in those who don't understand and now feel threatened as the potential of ignorance is exposed. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, yet the vast majority is terrified of not knowing - to the point most will openly lie rather than risk being outed from the masses.
I'm going to split a hair that I think is a significant hair. People don't mind being ignorant; they mind having others think less of them. And being (or seeming to be) ignorant can provoke that response.vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Or egg whites!
I would agree with this hair split, but I find is fascinating why anyone would ever be concerned with ignorance. With the volume of data out there ignorance is simply an absolute. It is absurd to believe that we aren't ignorant of something. Even more absurd to be thought lesser because of this.
Ignorance is a spectrum, though. And our current levels of access to all kinds of information is unparalleled in history. Historically, information was often difficult to come by - the more specialized, the more difficult. "Knowledge is power" didn't just mean that having knowledge made you powerful (although that's part of it). It also means that being powerful gives you more access to information. The counterpoint is that ignorance is weakness.
In a similar way, being misinformed (rather than simply uninformed) means that either someone duped us, or that the information was accurate but we misunderstood it. Both of these imply mental weakness.
That perception of weakness is (IMO) why people are concerned about someone saying their information is wrong.
But, at the same time, devouring good information, including information in the form of substantiated corrections, increases knowledge power. Listening skills, reading comprehension, humility, and more: These are tools that help build mental strength.
We all have egos, and most of us don't like having them bruised. But hostility to incoming better information is counter-productive. It makes one weaker. (Not only that, defensiveness in the face of accurate corrections makes one look worse to the actual cool kids. .)
I think this post has good insights, but I also think there's something deeper about defensive vs. more open orientations to the world in generral, how ingrained suspicion of authority contributes (in some people) , etc.
I'm no psychologist (career in IT & management), but I'd observed among colleagues that the most effective were voracious learners who parked their egos and would listen and learn from nearly everyone who had even useful scraps. At the next tier lower in effectiveness were people of similar (sometimes greater ) raw intelligence who reached a point where they considered themselves expert, and would mostly invest in and defend that self-perceived status. They stopped learning in lots of scenarios, and by doing so, self-limited.
My reflex is to be defensive. But I try to work on that, because a critical openness is a more effective strategy, IMO.9 -
southrnchic479 wrote: »I too have been weighing myself frequently but the reason I said I should stop is because my body is starting to retain water for muscle repair. I am eating under my calorie goal of 1200, or meeting it, so I know that whatever is showing on the scale has GOT to be water or waste. Instead I am going to buy a measuring tape and rely on that when I want some concrete evidence of progress. It's fun to see the scale go down, but when it goes up it can definitely make you go AHH, especially if you don't remember to factor in the way workouts can affect your body. That's basically the point I'm making.
The 1200 is a minimum and it's a NET number. Are you eating back some of those exercise calories?
4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »southrnchic479 wrote: »I too have been weighing myself frequently but the reason I said I should stop is because my body is starting to retain water for muscle repair. I am eating under my calorie goal of 1200, or meeting it, so I know that whatever is showing on the scale has GOT to be water or waste. Instead I am going to buy a measuring tape and rely on that when I want some concrete evidence of progress. It's fun to see the scale go down, but when it goes up it can definitely make you go AHH, especially if you don't remember to factor in the way workouts can affect your body. That's basically the point I'm making.
The 1200 is a minimum and it's a NET number. Are you eating back some of those exercise calories?
I recently just upped my calories to 1300 and some days I’ll eat back some or most of the calories from working out (usually not much - 57 calories) but I finish my day with a yummy protein shake after I do my calisthenics. Thanks to the forums I’m getting acquainted with the concept of recomping and adjusting my calories and macros based on my day (workout or off day). I’m also looking at starting strong curves. I definitely am not all about scale number or quick fixes. I want to treat my body right otherwise it won’t treat me right lol!1 -
southrnchic479 wrote: »I too have been weighing myself frequently but the reason I said I should stop is because my body is starting to retain water for muscle repair. I am eating under my calorie goal of 1200, or meeting it, so I know that whatever is showing on the scale has GOT to be water or waste. Instead I am going to buy a measuring tape and rely on that when I want some concrete evidence of progress. It's fun to see the scale go down, but when it goes up it can definitely make you go AHH, especially if you don't remember to factor in the way workouts can affect your body. That's basically the point I'm making.
When you switch over to measuring yourself every day ... you will find that your waist measurements are often different from one day to next as well ... I think it's called 'bloat' ... but watch the trend and you will see where the numbers are heading.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »Wow I hate that you had to hear such terrible advice no one should get on the scale everyday like that makes you obsessive. Also I personally don't believe excercising a lot and eating a little leads to healthy weight loss from my experience your muscles just shrink and your metabolism slows down and then you gain ALL the weight back again and you start to look jiggly
Um, happily non-obsessive daily weigher here. I like seeing the trends precisely so I *don't* freak out when I get a random high day (or two or three). To each their own :ohwell:
Good for you darling but it's not healthy for most people especially people trying to lose a lot of fat.
It's not healthy for SOME people. Many of us weigh daily, make a note and move on with our day. I lost a lot of weight (50 lbs.) weighing daily without it becoming anything more than a useful tool.
Yeah, this.
For me it's healthier to weigh daily or close to it. When I don't is when I start getting weird about getting on the scale and overreacting to it.
This is me. I go through getting weird spells and back off from it until I'm well away from the edge. During those times, I focus on other things (habits, compliance) to get proper perspective. Then I get back on track.
One thing I learned during the period of reaching my highest weight is that staying away from the scale for long stretches is not a good behavior for me and is not a trap I'll ever fall into again.10 -
DennysWifeMrsMattox wrote: »Most weight loss is in the kitchen, not the gym. Unless you are checking BMI, you have no idea what you lost if you're working out. I've lost 8 pounds in 3 days (yes water weight), but I haven't checked my BMI so I'm not that excited. My jeans are still tight so that's what matters.
Um, no. BMI is just a "measurement" relating weight to height. With BMI, you have no idea what you may have lost. BF% is what you'd want to track.
Ha, yes. I meant BF% thank you.0 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »This is why I avoid diet/fitness/nutrition small talk with 99% of the people in my life. People don't know what they don't know and it's easier to talk about more pleasant topics.
I'm going to disagree on principle. The absence of discussing sticky topics is one of the large contributing factors to the polarization of society. It is very necessary to purge that release valve periodically. Like any muscle or skill what we neglect atrophies and dies.
We are quickly losing the skill of conversation and the ability to agree to disagree.
Common ground is easily sought and of much more importance than uncommon ground.
I agree with what you're saying, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I do discuss other "sticky topics" (politics, culture, religion) with people in my life, I've just found that diet/fitness/nutrition tends (with the people I know) to go round and round without it feeling very constructive. Unlike, say, politics, where I feel like I can better understand where someone is coming from after a conversation (even if we still disagree).
I guess it's more interesting for me to have IRL debates that center on values and perceptions rather than "Well, Dr Oz swears that raspberry ketones work" or "my cousin lost 40 pounds after she detoxed" (not that all workplace diet conversations are like this, but all the ones in *my workplace* tend to be).
I thought you were very clear, but I'm attempting to find common ground with you. This is key.
With all things it is all about how you say it, and very little about the topic. Comedians and salesmen and masters of this craft.
No, when I looked back at what I wrote in the context of your comments, I realized I didn't exactly *mean* what I wrote and I wanted to clarify. I don't think "pleasant topics" are the highest value (in the work place or generally) and if I read what I wrote, I would have concluded that is what I thought (I don't know if that is what you concluded, but I wanted to make sure).
It may be that it has more to do with me than the topic, but I *feel* like when I discuss things like politics and religion with people I disagree with (or to explore whether we agree), it feels like there is more potential for understanding someone's value system and how they seem the world. There is more opportunity for potential closeness, for me to learn new things, or for me to be challenged.
Now that I'm writing all this out, I'm willing to accept this has more to do with how I approach these different topics and conversations than something that is inherent to conversations about diet/weight loss.
I think in all things it is more critical to understand why people think what they do. So in diet/nutrition it's "Ok you're doing low carb...Why?" The response you get is an indicator if people actually understand the information or simply parroting what they've heard. You only get an emotional rise in those who don't understand and now feel threatened as the potential of ignorance is exposed. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, yet the vast majority is terrified of not knowing - to the point most will openly lie rather than risk being outed from the masses.
I'm going to split a hair that I think is a significant hair. People don't mind being ignorant; they mind having others think less of them. And being (or seeming to be) ignorant can provoke that response.vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Or egg whites!
I would agree with this hair split, but I find is fascinating why anyone would ever be concerned with ignorance. With the volume of data out there ignorance is simply an absolute. It is absurd to believe that we aren't ignorant of something. Even more absurd to be thought lesser because of this.
Ignorance is a spectrum, though. And our current levels of access to all kinds of information is unparalleled in history. Historically, information was often difficult to come by - the more specialized, the more difficult. "Knowledge is power" didn't just mean that having knowledge made you powerful (although that's part of it). It also means that being powerful gives you more access to information. The counterpoint is that ignorance is weakness.
In a similar way, being misinformed (rather than simply uninformed) means that either someone duped us, or that the information was accurate but we misunderstood it. Both of these imply mental weakness.
That perception of weakness is (IMO) why people are concerned about someone saying their information is wrong.
But, at the same time, devouring good information, including information in the form of substantiated corrections, increases knowledge power. Listening skills, reading comprehension, humility, and more: These are tools that help build mental strength.
We all have egos, and most of us don't like having them bruised. But hostility to incoming better information is counter-productive. It makes one weaker. (Not only that, defensiveness in the face of accurate corrections makes one look worse to the actual cool kids. .)
I think this post has good insights, but I also think there's something deeper about defensive vs. more open orientations to the world in generral, how ingrained suspicion of authority contributes (in some people) , etc.
I'm no psychologist (career in IT & management), but I'd observed among colleagues that the most effective were voracious learners who parked their egos and would listen and learn from nearly everyone who had even useful scraps. At the next tier lower in effectiveness were people of similar (sometimes greater ) raw intelligence who reached a point where they considered themselves expert, and would mostly invest in and defend that self-perceived status. They stopped learning in lots of scenarios, and by doing so, self-limited.
My reflex is to be defensive. But I try to work on that, because a critical openness is a more effective strategy, IMO.
Oh I definitely agree that in the long run, admitting mistakes and learning from them is a much better option. That's quite reasonable. Alas that we're not always reasonable!
If you haven't read Mindset, by Carol Dweck, you might want to see if you can find a copy.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »This is why I avoid diet/fitness/nutrition small talk with 99% of the people in my life. People don't know what they don't know and it's easier to talk about more pleasant topics.
I'm going to disagree on principle. The absence of discussing sticky topics is one of the large contributing factors to the polarization of society. It is very necessary to purge that release valve periodically. Like any muscle or skill what we neglect atrophies and dies.
We are quickly losing the skill of conversation and the ability to agree to disagree.
Common ground is easily sought and of much more importance than uncommon ground.
I agree with what you're saying, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I do discuss other "sticky topics" (politics, culture, religion) with people in my life, I've just found that diet/fitness/nutrition tends (with the people I know) to go round and round without it feeling very constructive. Unlike, say, politics, where I feel like I can better understand where someone is coming from after a conversation (even if we still disagree).
I guess it's more interesting for me to have IRL debates that center on values and perceptions rather than "Well, Dr Oz swears that raspberry ketones work" or "my cousin lost 40 pounds after she detoxed" (not that all workplace diet conversations are like this, but all the ones in *my workplace* tend to be).
I thought you were very clear, but I'm attempting to find common ground with you. This is key.
With all things it is all about how you say it, and very little about the topic. Comedians and salesmen and masters of this craft.
No, when I looked back at what I wrote in the context of your comments, I realized I didn't exactly *mean* what I wrote and I wanted to clarify. I don't think "pleasant topics" are the highest value (in the work place or generally) and if I read what I wrote, I would have concluded that is what I thought (I don't know if that is what you concluded, but I wanted to make sure).
It may be that it has more to do with me than the topic, but I *feel* like when I discuss things like politics and religion with people I disagree with (or to explore whether we agree), it feels like there is more potential for understanding someone's value system and how they seem the world. There is more opportunity for potential closeness, for me to learn new things, or for me to be challenged.
Now that I'm writing all this out, I'm willing to accept this has more to do with how I approach these different topics and conversations than something that is inherent to conversations about diet/weight loss.
I think in all things it is more critical to understand why people think what they do. So in diet/nutrition it's "Ok you're doing low carb...Why?" The response you get is an indicator if people actually understand the information or simply parroting what they've heard. You only get an emotional rise in those who don't understand and now feel threatened as the potential of ignorance is exposed. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, yet the vast majority is terrified of not knowing - to the point most will openly lie rather than risk being outed from the masses.
I'm going to split a hair that I think is a significant hair. People don't mind being ignorant; they mind having others think less of them. And being (or seeming to be) ignorant can provoke that response.vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Or egg whites!
I would agree with this hair split, but I find is fascinating why anyone would ever be concerned with ignorance. With the volume of data out there ignorance is simply an absolute. It is absurd to believe that we aren't ignorant of something. Even more absurd to be thought lesser because of this.
Ignorance is a spectrum, though. And our current levels of access to all kinds of information is unparalleled in history. Historically, information was often difficult to come by - the more specialized, the more difficult. "Knowledge is power" didn't just mean that having knowledge made you powerful (although that's part of it). It also means that being powerful gives you more access to information. The counterpoint is that ignorance is weakness.
In a similar way, being misinformed (rather than simply uninformed) means that either someone duped us, or that the information was accurate but we misunderstood it. Both of these imply mental weakness.
That perception of weakness is (IMO) why people are concerned about someone saying their information is wrong.
Even though people have access to the information only a small percentage have the skill and experience to apply this knowledge. Add this to the massive amount of misinformation/disinformation out there are you have quite the dilemma.
Very easy to identify what is not true, but it is very challenging finding what is true. By eliminating what is not true we get closer to what is true.5 -
GlorianasTears wrote: »GlorianasTears wrote: »Wow I hate that you had to hear such terrible advice no one should get on the scale everyday like that makes you obsessive. Also I personally don't believe excercising a lot and eating a little leads to healthy weight loss from my experience your muscles just shrink and your metabolism slows down and then you gain ALL the weight back again and you start to look jiggly
Um, happily non-obsessive daily weigher here. I like seeing the trends precisely so I *don't* freak out when I get a random high day (or two or three). To each their own :ohwell:
Good for you darling but it's not healthy for most people especially people trying to lose a lot of fat.
It is because I weighed daily that I was able to notice trends and understand how my body reacts to certain things. For instance, my weight always tends to increase the day after a heavy lifting session probably because my muscles are retaining water to repair themselves. Because I weigh daily I don't freak out when I see this increase, I simply keep doing what I am doing without panicking. You hear a lot on here that weight loss is not linear which is absolutely true, and weighing and logging that weight daily allowed me to see that.
Agreed. I think it can be seen as unhealthy because people who are in the right mindset and weigh themselves daily are often less vocal about it. Most often I hear of people weighing themselves daily and then those same people will be there type to say "I ate pizza and gained 8lbs" and panic. Similarly, for me at the beginning of my fitness journey I couldn't weigh myself daily because I was so unsure about what I was doing and I was too concerned about it. Now that I've lost 35lbs and know what works for me, I found it's actually more beneficial to weigh myself more often so I can see overall trends. It's easy to eat slightly more carbs one day or have an extra tough workout and retain more water. If I only weighed myself weekly or biweeklu and the number went up it might take me longer to realize why, or if it was actually fat or just daily fluctuations. But obviously there are people on this thread who do better weighinf less frequently. I don't think the number of times you weigh yourself is either healthy or unhealthy, I think it's the mindset that's either healthy or unhealthy. It's about the weight we give those numbers.1 -
clicketykeys wrote: »clicketykeys wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »This is why I avoid diet/fitness/nutrition small talk with 99% of the people in my life. People don't know what they don't know and it's easier to talk about more pleasant topics.
I'm going to disagree on principle. The absence of discussing sticky topics is one of the large contributing factors to the polarization of society. It is very necessary to purge that release valve periodically. Like any muscle or skill what we neglect atrophies and dies.
We are quickly losing the skill of conversation and the ability to agree to disagree.
Common ground is easily sought and of much more importance than uncommon ground.
I agree with what you're saying, I should have been clearer in what I wrote. I do discuss other "sticky topics" (politics, culture, religion) with people in my life, I've just found that diet/fitness/nutrition tends (with the people I know) to go round and round without it feeling very constructive. Unlike, say, politics, where I feel like I can better understand where someone is coming from after a conversation (even if we still disagree).
I guess it's more interesting for me to have IRL debates that center on values and perceptions rather than "Well, Dr Oz swears that raspberry ketones work" or "my cousin lost 40 pounds after she detoxed" (not that all workplace diet conversations are like this, but all the ones in *my workplace* tend to be).
I thought you were very clear, but I'm attempting to find common ground with you. This is key.
With all things it is all about how you say it, and very little about the topic. Comedians and salesmen and masters of this craft.
No, when I looked back at what I wrote in the context of your comments, I realized I didn't exactly *mean* what I wrote and I wanted to clarify. I don't think "pleasant topics" are the highest value (in the work place or generally) and if I read what I wrote, I would have concluded that is what I thought (I don't know if that is what you concluded, but I wanted to make sure).
It may be that it has more to do with me than the topic, but I *feel* like when I discuss things like politics and religion with people I disagree with (or to explore whether we agree), it feels like there is more potential for understanding someone's value system and how they seem the world. There is more opportunity for potential closeness, for me to learn new things, or for me to be challenged.
Now that I'm writing all this out, I'm willing to accept this has more to do with how I approach these different topics and conversations than something that is inherent to conversations about diet/weight loss.
I think in all things it is more critical to understand why people think what they do. So in diet/nutrition it's "Ok you're doing low carb...Why?" The response you get is an indicator if people actually understand the information or simply parroting what they've heard. You only get an emotional rise in those who don't understand and now feel threatened as the potential of ignorance is exposed. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, yet the vast majority is terrified of not knowing - to the point most will openly lie rather than risk being outed from the masses.
I'm going to split a hair that I think is a significant hair. People don't mind being ignorant; they mind having others think less of them. And being (or seeming to be) ignorant can provoke that response.vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Or egg whites!
I would agree with this hair split, but I find is fascinating why anyone would ever be concerned with ignorance. With the volume of data out there ignorance is simply an absolute. It is absurd to believe that we aren't ignorant of something. Even more absurd to be thought lesser because of this.
Ignorance is a spectrum, though. And our current levels of access to all kinds of information is unparalleled in history. Historically, information was often difficult to come by - the more specialized, the more difficult. "Knowledge is power" didn't just mean that having knowledge made you powerful (although that's part of it). It also means that being powerful gives you more access to information. The counterpoint is that ignorance is weakness.
In a similar way, being misinformed (rather than simply uninformed) means that either someone duped us, or that the information was accurate but we misunderstood it. Both of these imply mental weakness.
That perception of weakness is (IMO) why people are concerned about someone saying their information is wrong.
Even though people have access to the information only a small percentage have the skill and experience to apply this knowledge. Add this to the massive amount of misinformation/disinformation out there are you have quite the dilemma.
Very easy to identify what is not true, but it is very challenging finding what is true. By eliminating what is not true we get closer to what is true.
I check Snopes. 6 -
vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.7 -
It depends on what you want to accomplish and where you're starting from. I've got some coordination issues which, while much improved from when I was a child, tend to mess me up when I'm trying out a new exercise. "Tense this muscle, loosen that one, stand this way, inhale on X, exhale on Y..." something usually gets messed up the first couple (of dozen!) times. Most of the exercises I do, I started with 3lb weights until I knew I had my form correct. Then I started gradually increasing. This week, I'm not using them. But I'm transitioning from 5lbs to 8 for "triceps extensions on a stability ball".
If I decide I want to change up my routine a bit and use a new exercise for one muscle group, say "Ys and Ts on the ball" instead of "Front and side shoulder raises", I'll probably start with 3lbs initially, too.8 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.11 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
How do you shop for groceries?5 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
Perhaps I should have rephrased "able-bodied" as someone who is capable of safely lifting more.3 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.7 -
JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.4 -
Getting on the scale is just a tool.
For some people it works. For some people it doesn't. I have done both successfully. Just like calorie counting. I'm a nerd person- so numbers work for me- measurements and daily tracking. but It's certainly not the be all end all.
At least that's a discussable topic. I was strolling around in WallyWorld grabbing some essentials and had to pass a these women chatting in the way- and the one was talking about how she was alkaline and had to reduce the alkalinity and if you wake up in the morning and your breath tastes sweet is the toxins leaving your body.
I wanted to punch her in the face.
8oz of H2SO4 will clear that right up!
Somebody, somewhere will be stupid enough to try that. ((facepalm))0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
True. I was thinking of the more popular exercises that are advertised on the front of Shape magazine and Women's whatever right alongside the fad diets that always suggest/demonstrate low weights to get you "toned," not the less common exercises you brought up.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.5 -
stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.
Actually if you’re going to do aerobic dance cardio circuits you shouldn’t be using any weights for the dance cardio part.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »JMcGee2018 wrote: »vivmom2014 wrote: »ladymarsyorkiemom wrote: »The ones who drive me crazy are the MLM "coaches" who give fitness and nutrition advice but have no training or education. These are the people who tout egg whites, using 3 lb weights, and calculating BMI with weight and height. Smh...
What's wrong with 3 lb. weights?
Nothing if you don't want to get toned or gain any functional strength. Apologies if this was supposed to be a sarcastic statement, but for an able-bodied person, sticking to such low weights is a waste of time.
3# weights is all I can manage to safely lift. Thank you for the insult.
If someone has a medical condition, rehabbing an injury, etc, 3 lb weights may well be all they can handle. For most of the population though most likely should be working out with heavier weights.
Heck a gallon of milk or a newborn baby is 8 pounds.
Yes, I should have come up with a term better than "able-bodied" when what I meant is that people who CAN safely lift more than 3# SHOULD lift more than 3#, or work there way up from 3# if they safely can.
Here's the thing. There are exercises that even healthy able bodied people shouldn't be doing with heavy weights.
Then there are the exercises being discussed above.
Jillian Michaels, Chalean, etc. doing squat-thrusts and Lunges with 2-3# hand weights, and poor form. It looks silly, because it is silly. And it should be ridiculed.
Internal/external shoulder rotation drills(for example) should be done with 2-5# weights, because the need for load is very slight and the desired adaption is very specific.
However, if you're going to be doing what amounts to a dumbbell-accessorized aerobic dance cardio circuit kind of routine, you really shouldn't be flinging heavy weights around while you do it. It's a recipe for injury.
I understand that that sort of thing is not your thing, and you don't see value in it (intending "you"/"your" to refer to several people posting along this line, not just PP).
It's not my thing, either.
It doesn't optimize any adaptation. But it's not void of value. It will create some gradual adaptation in a fitter direction, to a point. If it's fun to someone, and they'll do it, but they don't enjoy "more nearly optimal" forms of exercise and wouldn't do those, they should certainly ride on what they enjoy, at least until they reach the point of wanting different/more. Doing any (safe) active thing is better than doing nothing - lots better.
It seems like it should be possible to point out limitations of certain modalities, and encourage trial/adoption of others, without (mostly) coming across as dismissive. That kind of communication style also seems more likely to draw converts . . . if that's the point.
JMO.
Actually if you’re going to do aerobic dance cardio circuits you shouldn’t be using any weights for the dance cardio part.
IME, it's its usually some interludes of pseudo-weight-lifting moves at a moderately high rate: Say, the 3-lb dumbbell curls or rows in tandem with side steps, or bodyweight lunges/squats in dance-music rhythm while merely holding the 3-pounders . . . not gonna hurt most people.
But I've never done a Jillian or Chalean workout, just some earlier-era stuff in a similar vein. With the ones I've done in the past, those specific moves, 3 pounds wouldn't likely hurt someone who didn't fatigue out to really bad form at the reps given, but I'd have found it silly dangerous to do them with weight I'd use in a more intentional, more controlled, less distracting weight training format.
If you've done the Jillian or Chalean workouts, I'll defer to your more recent knowledge.
It does seem odd to me that a little while ago, 3 pounds was an inconsiderable nothing to be using in those contexts, and now it's a risky excess. Again, I'm speaking to the overall thrust of the thread in saying this, not necessarily saying you personally switched horses about whether 3 pounds is too little or too much.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions