I can't do it! I can't live with hunger
Options
Replies
-
Increase protein and limit process foods. They generally have a higher caloric density and are less filling per unit calorie.
**edit** some hunger is NOT a bad thing imho. Us westerners have no idea what TRUE hunger is. It can be useful. It makes you sharper and Farr more grateful when you are sated.17 -
Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.12
-
psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks.
I didn't woo you but I would argue the point you made that hunger makes you sharper. This might be the case for some people, but hunger can also affect a persons ability to concentrate and sometimes even the ability to think straight. I would never say I am of a sharper frame of mind when I am hungry because the opposite often holds true. In saying that I do agree that most of us would have no idea of what real hunger, beyond a missed meal or two is actually like.13 -
Lillymoo01 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks.
I didn't woo you but I would argue the point you made that hunger makes you sharper. This might be the case for some people, but hunger can also affect a persons ability to concentrate and sometimes even the ability to think straight. I would never say I am of a sharper frame of mind when I am hungry because the opposite often holds true. In saying that I do agree that most of us would have no idea of what real hunger, beyond a missed meal or two is actually like.
Well lily. Imho, the more animal we live, the more animal we become. Much like a predator. Ok, n=1 and from people watching hunter gathers who often live on the fringe of starvation. Their senses become hyper in tuned with their environment. They are very vigilant and always on the look out for things. A hungry wolf is the same. A lion or wolf will watch a herd for hours to find the weakest member. Predator animals are smarter than prey animals for a reason. Many prey animals have abundant resources for food. A wolf might make a kill once every week or two. Americans have now become the same. We are the "prey" animals.23 -
Many ‘westerners’ live below the poverty line and are hungry daily. That is such an insulting and generalised statement. And that is from someone who grew up in a missionary family travelling to many third world nations.11
-
I'm rarely hungry with my approach. Best of luck finding an eating pattern than suits you.4
-
Florida man.1
-
Florida man.
I might be. I am many things in this life. I feel privileged you looked at my profile. These days my sympathy levels are low, but my empathy is extremely high. I have spent the last 2 years listening and reading from every guru, white hatter, person of science. Read hundreds, not an exaggeration btw, ncbi studies on hunger, satiety,weight loss, and maintenance. Also, have been lucky enough to work with one of the BEST in the business. So, my knowledge base is high. OP, I have reviewed your "diet". I stand by my original statements. Increase protein and decrease processed carbs. If you dont eat meat except fish, there is tempeh, tofu, beans, lentils. While nothing wrong with cheerios and pita, they are energy dense. If these foods sate you and keep you that way, great! Otherwise, corn .8cals a gram, oatmeal, .7 cals a gram, the lowly potato .8cals a gram. The lowly plain potato has been rated as one of the most satisfying foods there is. So, report me, ban me. I don't really care anymore.9 -
[psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's...
its ok @psychod787 you will always get hugs from me
3 -
You know you have my heart @LivingtheLeanDream ! Some people just hate to hear the truth! Lol hugs my pretty Irish girl!4
-
psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?6 -
kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.4 -
Finding macros that lets me never go hungry 5 years ago at the age of 63 has been a positive game changer for me and my family. The more my health recovers the happier they are. Seeing me lose 50 pounds and keeping if off for 4 years now and eating all that I want to keep from getting hungry is encouraging to some others.
Keep in mind "Woo" from an anonymous profile posters carries no provable value where it is meant in a positive or negative way.4 -
cmriverside wrote: »Two things jump out at me in your post.
1. Your protein intake early in the day is low. I'm guessing that unless you are having a lot of protein at dinner, this is part of your problem. Try getting each of your three meals to contain about 30g protein each and about 10g fiber in each meal.
2. Then, either leave yourself a small calorie amount for an after dinner treat, or delay your last meal until it's close to bedtime. If I eat my dinner and then have a small treat and go to bed within 2-3 hours, I'm good. If I try to stay up for more than 4 hours after dinner I'm going to be hungry. So get your meals planned, time-wise.
I came here to say the same thing... you need more protein!2 -
Ditch the Low fat/light stuff...they are usually filled with other stuff to make it taste palatable that stall loss... I add chia seeds to yogurt, cottage cheese with raspberries (my fav), and even my coffee in mornings. Adding fat does add calories but our bodies process better and you feel fuller longer on less. It took me years to grasp this concept but once I realized it I ditched all the "low fat" items and less fills me up now. Try soup at night...less calories than the cereal and fills you better I found. Also, measuring EVERYTHING is key to All of it. Weight, measure etc... all of it. Lots of water!!! No artificial stuff as that kills metabolism. You will vary each day a bit in weight so try not to obsess on a number...measure your self and use that. Sometimes you will have higher number on scale but in actuality you have lost inches. Good Luck! that last 15lbs is a killer to loose... I KNOW first hand as struggling still there myself... No fast fixes. Eat nutritionally packed foods and long term you will see inches lost.17
-
Lots of great advice here! I am having similar issues (gained 15 with late night eating) so I am plan to shift my big meal to dinner and add protein snack for bedtime. Carbs before bed are not my friend, tempting though they be!
1 -
psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:11 -
psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.5 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.7 -
psychod787 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »psychod787 wrote: »Ohh wow... look at the woo's... would you like me to post the research to back up my statement? Or is it that westerners are kinda soft, hmmm. Tough luck... we are. Hunger has been my constant companion for 2 years. Not the oh... my stomach is growling I need to eat, but that pain in your gut that feels like someone is trying to cut it out. The current low level thud i have now is an upgrade. No where near the people who live and have survived famines though. Mine has been my own doing. I am harder now, but nowhere as hard as those folks. Oh and OP, my question is, what are those 15lbs worth to you? Are they "vanity" pounds? Or, are they "health" pounds? Because anything you do to lose them, you will have to maintain to keep them off.
The "Woo" reaction is going to be removed soon: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10759987/woo-to-become-disagree/p1
You posted something interesting on another thread about people on controlled diets, increased protein, decreased hunger, and weight loss - maybe repost it here?
Okay, come do my best Ace Ventura impression. To backup my statement I'll say these things. First off, when one looks inside the studies of high protein diets, one sees a spontaneous reduction of calories in obese individuals by 600 to a thousand calories a day. That is when protein is around 30% of total calories. If one looks inside of bland liquid diet studies, there is a reduction in calories to near starvation level diets with no hunger. Inside Kevin Halls most recent study on processed vs. Unprocessed diet, people on an unprocessed diet, the lower reward value, ate an average of 400 calories a day less than people on a process diet. N equals 1 experience, as well. I also work in a highly controlled environment, where food and activity are controlled as close as one can get, outside of a research setting. I have seen men go from 400 lb to 240 lb with little hunger issues. The diet that get is actually very healthy. It's high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats. It does not taste very good, so far less rewarding than what they had on the outside. Most of the people, have to get jobs that require activity. Is all this coincidence? Possibly. I think it lines up with many of the Rat and monkey studies I've seen as well.
I saw you post this on the other thread, and I agree with the overall thrust of the post.
But 2x repetition brings out the quibbler in me: On one of the debate threads about the Hall study, some felt the unprocessed diet was not "more palatable" but rather "more filling" - there were opinions on both sides. I'm one who would pick the study's "unprocessed" side to eat myself, hands down, for palatabilty/enjoyment alone if I had to pick one of the two as an unaltered whole.
I guess if people eat less that way, that "why" question is academic. But I kinda hate feeding the idea that highly processed food generally tastes better. To me (and I wasn't the only one), it doesn't, mostly.
Humans are very norm-driven, suggestible. No question corporate food processors work hard to push our natural-selection-installed gustatory buttons. But they also work hard to convince us that all the very-processed foods taste better, and that all the happy pretty people like to eat them: Double barrelled! (Don't help them.)
I'd encourage anyone with satiation problems to eat enough protein, enough healthy fats, and plenty of varied/colorful veggies and fruits . . . the ones they personally find tasty. Giving up enjoyment may not be necessary.
As far as your prison population - or whatever it is - I get that the institution's impetus would not be to provide amazing flavor. It doesn't necessarily follow that amazing flavor is impossible (or even difficult) on a diet "high in fruits vegetables beans lean meats with some added fats".
Both palatability and lower-calorie satiation are possible explanations for the Hall study results. IIRC, they didn't demonstrate which was operating (and time to consume was another possibility brought up in the debate thread). If they didn't support one answer vs. another with research findings, don't assume one (and implicitly support the food processors' thesis that all the cool people think the highly-processed choice always tastes better).
:drinker:
Possible, but another hypothesis is protein leverage. While the diets in Kevin hall's study were roughly the same per gram, it actually took less food to reach that "magic" 15% protein that "seems" to be the norm in tribal diets.
Sure. I personally find protein satiating (despite vegetarian and all that), so I get that viscerally. I'm just saying "don't advocate beyond the clearly demonstrated conclusion", or at least admit you're doing it.
In particular, without the slightest hard proof, I'm encouraging that you not argue this specific point from the palatabilty standpoint, because it's (1) unproven, and (2) potentially unhelpful, because people accept the advertising without much personal testing.
Do you understand where I'm coming from? I like you, iconoclast/provocateur and all. But maybe question harder whether "hyperpalatable" foods really have the taste-power imputed to them? Can you understand what I'm saying, in terms of whether we encourage others to accept orthodoxies , or question them . . . at least at n=1?
I'm not saying I think there's a universal answer. That would be dumb. IMO.
No Anne, no answers for anything, just hypothesis. Though as the saying goes, If it walks like a duck.... get my drift?😏6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions