PiperGirl08 Member

Check with a doctor. If all good, heart rate zone training is the ticket while running/training, especially for endurance. Use a chest strap for best results.

I haven't read all of the replies, but Stevia is a natural, plant-based sugar substitute. I don't much care for it (too sweet), but it gets the job done and is carbohydrate free. Also, I've seen the posts suggesting that your Dr. is a quack. If interested, and depending on your age (if over or approaching 50), you can…

wattiskeep is correct. Water percentage is driven by body composition. Fat contains far less water than muscle, so the higher your body fat level, the lower your water percentage will be. To increase your water percentage, you have to decrease the ratio of fat to muscle (lower fat/higher muscle) and only then will that…

Not sure I understand the question. I've already stated that I use MFP to see where I am relative to my nutritional goals and I've described which particular metrics I track.

"Are you really saying that having ice cream occasionally is going to shorter your lifespan?" If truly occasionally, then probably not -- unless one has other health issues. But going back to the over weight/obesity statistics in this country, too often, indulgences like ice cream are not all that occasional. I speak to no…

Thank you for editing :-)

Well, there isn't a potato chip in the world that is worth the heart (or other) disease path to me. Also, as I return to athletic competition, bad foods inhibit my ability to achieve my goals, i.e. they don't enhance athletic performance having instead the opposite effect. There was an editorial a few months ago that went…

Actually, setting nutritional goals sets you up to align your food consumption to meet those goals, not the other way around.

I could eat crazy amounts like that back in the days when I was a competitive athlete. But no more <sigh>.

Yeah, I know it was a low blow -- didn't appreciate his/her personal reference directed my way.

Well, two things here: 1) this is quote from the article, not my statement; and 2) my personal goal is not to understand the amount I'm eating, but rather "what" I am eating and how it impacts my nutritional goals. Also, I don't think it takes courage to log foods. Just a computer and a decision to do so.

Of course the real underlying question is what would lead anyone who hasn't burned 3000 calories in a day to feel the need to consume that many or how having that much food in one's stomach could even be comfortable, regularly. But if counting helps, count away. But attacking people who don't count, also a problem.

I read that the average American woman used to consume 1600 calories a day in 1960 and now consumes 1900. I wonder if that's not because we are more comfortable then we were coming out of the war years. The American standard of living has increased considerable since that time, so there is more food on the plate to force…

Ha ha, I'm not sure I remember anymore... :-)

Well, given that this is the debate forum, no, I don't see why this thread is bad idea. Calorie counting enthusiasts should continue to count. No one should be threatened by a topic that presents an alternative viewpoint. Accept it, reject it. What else is there?

"Shouldn't you explain why we have to choose one approach instead of using both together?" You don't have to choose one or the other. You don't have to choose, either. Free will is a beautiful thing.

Actually, the thread title is that of the article. Also, do recall that this is the debate forum. Also, the spanish language poster asked why not both. And given that this *is* the debate forum...

Because "here" is called, "MyFitnessPal." You do realize it is not called "MyCalorieCountingPal" right? And also you do realize that "here" is owned by UnderArmor and is not a Calorie counting co-op. You do know this, yes? Comments like this make me worry that people don't know this.

Well, those years of French didn't help me here, but according to Google, the translation reads, "Why not both?" Yes, why not?

That's what people keep saying. The non-reflected Paltrow is not chunky, but that mirror does her no favors.

Oh shoot, I missed the hostile part! Got bored before I got that far. I think the unhealthiness issues are your own. I think you are self-conscious about your weight and are of the mind that everyone must tell you that your (and others) weight issues are ok and you want to be coddled about them. I didn't start this thread…

Not ignoring them, they weren't in the article and consequently are not germane to the discussion. That you don't care for Tracey is fine, but this isn't a "who likes Tracey?" thread. It is a calorie counting vs. food understanding thread. Please feel free to start one of the former of your own, though.

Yet there are all these people on this thread doing exactly that.

Bad things like what? That calories counting isn't necessary, but rather food understanding is? Oh, the horror.

Actually, I didn't call the woman hideous, someone else did. I said she, Tracey, was anything but. But yep, I did refer to the one by the door as chunky. Fat is not the new fit, no matter how vociferously people lobby for FA.

Thumbs up to your most intelligent post. Bingo on the bolded statement. Those who wish to count should do so. But the general cult-like enmity towards those who don't (and don't need to) is rather disturbing.

This is true, though I'm not sure that taking an approach besides counting calories qualifies someone as hideous.

Ha ha, not sure which one is Paltrow, either, but neither of these closer women is hideous.

Based on the previously posted picture, assuming she's not the chunky one near the door, she doesn't appear to be at all hideous.

I don't know her. Which one is she -- the lithe blonde, the tall, thinner woman behind or the chunky one with the ponytail near the door?