Sugars
Replies
-
^^^^^
"Fructose is the devil" studies called into question
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(14)00357-8/fulltext
"In conclusion, one cannot infer that fructose uniquely affects most components of the metabolic syndrome (fasting blood glucose, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and blood pressure) from the present systematic review and meta-analysis of uncontrolled comparisons. The adverse signals disappear in the appropriate controlled comparisons with other carbohydrates under calorie-matched conditions. The implication remains that fructose is no worse than other carbohydrates likely to replace it and that any adverse effects are explained by an imbalance in calories."
The letter you linked to based it's data on links to meta analyses, not actual intervention studies. Here is an intervention study comparing isocaloric effects of glucose and fructose
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2673878/
"Consuming fructose-sweetened, not glucose-sweetened, beverages increases visceral adiposity and lipids and decreases insulin sensitivity in overweight/obese humans" Different impact of fructose and glucose in the body
Because intervention studies take place over a short time, they have very odd parameters. In the above study, 25% of energy requirement was provided by fructose or glucose. As you can see by the study, fructose and glucose behave differently in the body, and fructose is more likely to result in decreased insulin sensitivity (cause of type II diabetes) and VAT (predictor of multiple health issues).
The cohort studies I linked to show how the relationship revealed in forced conditions in a lab plays out in the real world. Reduced insulin sensitivity, and increased diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and VAT in response to SSBs - a significant source of fructose in the western world.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Please please please show us actual evidence, science, not some blog that says sugar specifically causes diabetes.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
So no fruits, vegetables, brown rice, oatmeal or whole grain bread?prettykitty1515 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Does anyone still think PrettyKitty is a genuine account?
Seriously?
I actually do. I really think she actually believes the things she writes. It goes with the first thread she made when she came here and it was a disaster.
Yes, I do believe what I write. Pre-diabetic? ZERO SUGAR!
Vegetables are fine. And this is not a change for the rest of your life, it's a change to hopefully have your doctor tell you that you are no longer pre-diabetic. Once your OK, eat fruit, brown rice, oatmeal and whole grain bread. And yes, I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.
From this article: http://ask.metafilter.com/237108/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Prediabetes
"Today, you begin a life with very very little bread. And very little pasta, rice, and crackers. Today you stop eating cookies, and for God's sakes please put down the donut and the cake and basically anything that comes in a shiny brightly colored bag that you can buy at the pharmacy or gas station."
"Eat nuts, eat lean meats, eat all the vegetables (besides potatoes) that you want. Eat plain yogurt with berries. Eggs are good for you. Get used to Truvia, Splenda, erithryitol if you simply must have something sweet. AVOID all the crappy "sugar-free" candies that use sugar alcohols, as stuff like Maltitol has about the same glycemic impact as table sugar."
Now let the attacks from the usual suspects begin.
PK,
Come on, any "attacks" are in your perception only, just as the "usual suspects" are. Nobody here is out to get you.
That said, what you've posted is a link to someone's blog entry. There are no links to peer reviewed studies.
If you are diagnosed as pre-diabetic, which I'm not even sure I believe in because sugar does not cause diabetes, why would you not make carb/sugar moderation a lifetime goal? Why just do it for awhile? It seems to me that if you are indeed pre-diabetic and you control your glucose levels through diet but then go back to eating in a way you did before, wouldn't you end up having high glucose levels?
Saying you can be cured of pre-diabetes is like saying you can be cured of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, though it can be controlled through sugar/carb moderation, exercise, and insulin pills or injections if needed.
By the way, this is not an attack, it is engaging in conversation based on something you wrote.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Then what does, sautéed chicken breasts? Broccoli?
If I'm ever diagnosed with pre-diabetes, my sugar and grain consumption will immediately get down to as close to zero as possible, and my consumption of sautéed chicken breasts and broccoli will double.
Just do a little on-line search and you will find so many pre-diabetics who ended the problem with a change in diet. I am not making this up, and have no reason to make this up.
Show me some science where it says it doesn't. Burden on proof is on you, not me. Diabetes = too much blood sugar. What has sugar, a donut or broccoli?
Both actually.
On point. Sugar is sugar.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
No. The burden of proof is on you actually. Nowhere does it day sugar causes diabetes. There you go again with the donut stuff. It's getting old. It's a lame debate by you.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Please please please show us actual evidence, science, not some blog that says sugar specifically causes diabetes.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
So no fruits, vegetables, brown rice, oatmeal or whole grain bread?prettykitty1515 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Does anyone still think PrettyKitty is a genuine account?
Seriously?
I actually do. I really think she actually believes the things she writes. It goes with the first thread she made when she came here and it was a disaster.
Yes, I do believe what I write. Pre-diabetic? ZERO SUGAR!
Vegetables are fine. And this is not a change for the rest of your life, it's a change to hopefully have your doctor tell you that you are no longer pre-diabetic. Once your OK, eat fruit, brown rice, oatmeal and whole grain bread. And yes, I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.
From this article: http://ask.metafilter.com/237108/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Prediabetes
"Today, you begin a life with very very little bread. And very little pasta, rice, and crackers. Today you stop eating cookies, and for God's sakes please put down the donut and the cake and basically anything that comes in a shiny brightly colored bag that you can buy at the pharmacy or gas station."
"Eat nuts, eat lean meats, eat all the vegetables (besides potatoes) that you want. Eat plain yogurt with berries. Eggs are good for you. Get used to Truvia, Splenda, erithryitol if you simply must have something sweet. AVOID all the crappy "sugar-free" candies that use sugar alcohols, as stuff like Maltitol has about the same glycemic impact as table sugar."
Now let the attacks from the usual suspects begin.
PK,
Come on, any "attacks" are in your perception only, just as the "usual suspects" are. Nobody here is out to get you.
That said, what you've posted is a link to someone's blog entry. There are no links to peer reviewed studies.
If you are diagnosed as pre-diabetic, which I'm not even sure I believe in because sugar does not cause diabetes, why would you not make carb/sugar moderation a lifetime goal? Why just do it for awhile? It seems to me that if you are indeed pre-diabetic and you control your glucose levels through diet but then go back to eating in a way you did before, wouldn't you end up having high glucose levels?
Saying you can be cured of pre-diabetes is like saying you can be cured of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, though it can be controlled through sugar/carb moderation, exercise, and insulin pills or injections if needed.
By the way, this is not an attack, it is engaging in conversation based on something you wrote.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Then what does, sautéed chicken breasts? Broccoli?
If I'm ever diagnosed with pre-diabetes, my sugar and grain consumption will immediately get down to as close to zero as possible, and my consumption of sautéed chicken breasts and broccoli will double.
Just do a little on-line search and you will find so many pre-diabetics who ended the problem with a change in diet. I am not making this up, and have no reason to make this up.
Show me some science where it says it doesn't. Burden on proof is on you, not me. Diabetes = too much blood sugar. What has sugar, a donut or broccoli?
With your logic I can aliens exist and you have to prove to me they don't
From the ADA - "Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by either a lack of insulin or the body's inability to use insulin efficiently. Type 2 diabetes develops most often in middle-aged and older adults but can appear in young people, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes."
Hey, it's the ADA. What the heck do they know?
Oh wait, what's this.........I found it myself!!! Please note the web site, the link and the title of the article.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Diabetes Myths
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/#sthash.sHaCrNIB.dpuf
So, to be clear, the ADA are saying that sugar does not cause T2 diabetes, being overweight may cause T2 diabetes, and that sugary drinks should be avoided because they contain a lot of calories?
Or, in other words, some people get T2 because they eat too much, not because of sugar.
Looks like old Kitty poo just got declawed.
Where sugar gets the rap with diabetes is through it's contribution to visceral fat (VAT) and abdominal subcutneous fat (SAT). Visceral fat is associated with diabetes and metabolic disease. Certain foods are more likely to contribute to visceral fat, like sugar-sweetened beverages. That is why diabetes health authorities recommend limiting SSBs. Visceral fat also predicts other health problems.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/10/2490.full.pdf
Exploration of relationship of VAT, SAT, insulin resistance, secretion, and the ability to compensate for both (DI) "Johnson et al. (34) have shown that subcutaneous adipocytes of women with visceral adiposity exhibit insulin resistance and an increased rate of lipolysis. This would contribute to increased peripheral insulin resistance. Finally, both SAT and VAT secrete a host of factors that could induce or worsen insulin resistance, such as tumor necrosis factor-interleukin-6, or resistin"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1212.full
VAT predicts diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full
"individuals in the highest quantile of SSB intake (most often 1–2 servings/day) had a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quantile (none or <1 serving/month)"
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/144/8/1283
"Abdominal adiposity, particularly visceral adipose tissue (VAT), is independently linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."
Study shows link between sugar sweetened beverages and VAT
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
The Lustig study, linking availability of sugar over time in a country to diabetes rates
The problem with added sugars is the fructose. Fructose gets through the digestive system faster than glucose, and can be added to visceral fat by the liver without being changed into glucose first, like other carbs are. Fructose does not downregulate DNL.
There are other dietary habits that increase VAT/SAT, or increase diabetes risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522441
Study showing foods that increased risk of high visceral fat, including higher intake of fried foods, over 35% of calories from fat, and carbohydrate and SSB intake. Intake of fiber was associated with less VAT.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic835338.files/Hu-_DIET.LIFESTYLE.DIABETES.PREVENTION.pdf
"In conclusion, our findings suggest that the majority of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by weight loss, regular exercise, modification of diet, abstinence from smoking, and the consumption of limited amounts of alcohol." Study showed GI (gylcemic index) of food and consumption of trans fat linked with increased rate of diabetes, consumption of cereal fibers was protective.
Some foods are more likely to increase the risk of developping diabetes than others, others are protective.
Right... but, as said before, only if you over indulge, otherwise not a problem.
Yes?
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN", the last link, "Our data suggest that the percentage of cases of diabetes that are preventable by diet and exercise independently of body weight is greater among women of normal weight than among obese women." So, when eating at maintenance, what you eat matters.
As the other links establish, some foods increase visceral fat preferentially (ie. SSBs), and increased visceral fat is more risky than overall obesity. So, when eating at excess, what you eat matters.
"Overindulging" for SSBs would be more than one a month, for example. Terms like "moderation" and "over indulge" can be a little too subjective to be useful as advice.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
No. The burden of proof is on you actually. Nowhere does it day sugar causes diabetes. There you go again with the donut stuff. It's getting old. It's a lame debate by you.prettykitty1515 wrote: »
Please please please show us actual evidence, science, not some blog that says sugar specifically causes diabetes.prettykitty1515 wrote: »prettykitty1515 wrote: »
So no fruits, vegetables, brown rice, oatmeal or whole grain bread?prettykitty1515 wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Does anyone still think PrettyKitty is a genuine account?
Seriously?
I actually do. I really think she actually believes the things she writes. It goes with the first thread she made when she came here and it was a disaster.
Yes, I do believe what I write. Pre-diabetic? ZERO SUGAR!
Vegetables are fine. And this is not a change for the rest of your life, it's a change to hopefully have your doctor tell you that you are no longer pre-diabetic. Once your OK, eat fruit, brown rice, oatmeal and whole grain bread. And yes, I am basing this on anecdotal evidence.
From this article: http://ask.metafilter.com/237108/How-to-Get-Rid-of-Prediabetes
"Today, you begin a life with very very little bread. And very little pasta, rice, and crackers. Today you stop eating cookies, and for God's sakes please put down the donut and the cake and basically anything that comes in a shiny brightly colored bag that you can buy at the pharmacy or gas station."
"Eat nuts, eat lean meats, eat all the vegetables (besides potatoes) that you want. Eat plain yogurt with berries. Eggs are good for you. Get used to Truvia, Splenda, erithryitol if you simply must have something sweet. AVOID all the crappy "sugar-free" candies that use sugar alcohols, as stuff like Maltitol has about the same glycemic impact as table sugar."
Now let the attacks from the usual suspects begin.
PK,
Come on, any "attacks" are in your perception only, just as the "usual suspects" are. Nobody here is out to get you.
That said, what you've posted is a link to someone's blog entry. There are no links to peer reviewed studies.
If you are diagnosed as pre-diabetic, which I'm not even sure I believe in because sugar does not cause diabetes, why would you not make carb/sugar moderation a lifetime goal? Why just do it for awhile? It seems to me that if you are indeed pre-diabetic and you control your glucose levels through diet but then go back to eating in a way you did before, wouldn't you end up having high glucose levels?
Saying you can be cured of pre-diabetes is like saying you can be cured of diabetes. There is no cure for diabetes, though it can be controlled through sugar/carb moderation, exercise, and insulin pills or injections if needed.
By the way, this is not an attack, it is engaging in conversation based on something you wrote.
Sugar doesn't cause diabetes? Then what does, sautéed chicken breasts? Broccoli?
If I'm ever diagnosed with pre-diabetes, my sugar and grain consumption will immediately get down to as close to zero as possible, and my consumption of sautéed chicken breasts and broccoli will double.
Just do a little on-line search and you will find so many pre-diabetics who ended the problem with a change in diet. I am not making this up, and have no reason to make this up.
Show me some science where it says it doesn't. Burden on proof is on you, not me. Diabetes = too much blood sugar. What has sugar, a donut or broccoli?
With your logic I can aliens exist and you have to prove to me they don't
From the ADA - "Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes, a condition characterized by high blood glucose levels caused by either a lack of insulin or the body's inability to use insulin efficiently. Type 2 diabetes develops most often in middle-aged and older adults but can appear in young people, and the American Diabetes Association recommends that people limit their intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes."
Hey, it's the ADA. What the heck do they know?
Oh wait, what's this.........I found it myself!!! Please note the web site, the link and the title of the article.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/
Diabetes Myths
Myth: Eating too much sugar causes diabetes.
Fact: The answer is not so simple. Type 1 diabetes is caused by genetics and unknown factors that trigger the onset of the disease; type 2 diabetes is caused by genetics and lifestyle factors.
Being overweight does increase your risk for developing type 2 diabetes, and a diet high in calories from any source contributes to weight gain. Research has shown that drinking sugary drinks is linked to type 2 diabetes.
The American Diabetes Association recommends that people should avoid intake of sugar-sweetened beverages to help prevent diabetes. Sugar-sweetened beverages include beverages like:
regular soda
fruit punch
fruit drinks
energy drinks
sports drinks
sweet tea
other sugary drinks.
These will raise blood glucose and can provide several hundred calories in just one serving!
See for yourself:
Just one 12-ounce can of regular soda has about 150 calories and 40 grams of carbohydrate. This is the same amount of carbohydrate in 10 teaspoons of sugar!
One cup of fruit punch and other sugary fruit drinks have about 100 calories (or more) and 30 grams of carbohydrate.
- See more at: http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/myths/#sthash.sHaCrNIB.dpuf
So, to be clear, the ADA are saying that sugar does not cause T2 diabetes, being overweight may cause T2 diabetes, and that sugary drinks should be avoided because they contain a lot of calories?
Or, in other words, some people get T2 because they eat too much, not because of sugar.
Looks like old Kitty poo just got declawed.
Where sugar gets the rap with diabetes is through it's contribution to visceral fat (VAT) and abdominal subcutneous fat (SAT). Visceral fat is associated with diabetes and metabolic disease. Certain foods are more likely to contribute to visceral fat, like sugar-sweetened beverages. That is why diabetes health authorities recommend limiting SSBs. Visceral fat also predicts other health problems.
http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/52/10/2490.full.pdf
Exploration of relationship of VAT, SAT, insulin resistance, secretion, and the ability to compensate for both (DI) "Johnson et al. (34) have shown that subcutaneous adipocytes of women with visceral adiposity exhibit insulin resistance and an increased rate of lipolysis. This would contribute to increased peripheral insulin resistance. Finally, both SAT and VAT secrete a host of factors that could induce or worsen insulin resistance, such as tumor necrosis factor-interleukin-6, or resistin"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/5/1212.full
VAT predicts diabetes
http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/33/11/2477.full
"individuals in the highest quantile of SSB intake (most often 1–2 servings/day) had a 26% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than those in the lowest quantile (none or <1 serving/month)"
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/144/8/1283
"Abdominal adiposity, particularly visceral adipose tissue (VAT), is independently linked to the pathogenesis of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases."
Study shows link between sugar sweetened beverages and VAT
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057873
The Lustig study, linking availability of sugar over time in a country to diabetes rates
The problem with added sugars is the fructose. Fructose gets through the digestive system faster than glucose, and can be added to visceral fat by the liver without being changed into glucose first, like other carbs are. Fructose does not downregulate DNL.
There are other dietary habits that increase VAT/SAT, or increase diabetes risk.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24522441
Study showing foods that increased risk of high visceral fat, including higher intake of fried foods, over 35% of calories from fat, and carbohydrate and SSB intake. Intake of fiber was associated with less VAT.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic835338.files/Hu-_DIET.LIFESTYLE.DIABETES.PREVENTION.pdf
"In conclusion, our findings suggest that the majority of cases of type 2 diabetes could be prevented by weight loss, regular exercise, modification of diet, abstinence from smoking, and the consumption of limited amounts of alcohol." Study showed GI (gylcemic index) of food and consumption of trans fat linked with increased rate of diabetes, consumption of cereal fibers was protective.
Some foods are more likely to increase the risk of developping diabetes than others, others are protective.
Right... but, as said before, only if you over indulge, otherwise not a problem.
Yes?
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN", the last link, "Our data suggest that the percentage of cases of diabetes that are preventable by diet and exercise independently of body weight is greater among women of normal weight than among obese women." So, when eating at maintenance, what you eat matters.
As the other links establish, some foods increase visceral fat preferentially (ie. SSBs), and increased visceral fat is more risky than overall obesity. So, when eating at excess, what you eat matters.
"Overindulging" for SSBs would be more than one a month, for example. Terms like "moderation" and "over indulge" can be a little too subjective to be useful as advice.
You're actually presenting a "study" from the wheat belly dude?
A person can get diabetes even if they don"t eat hoards of sugar and are not overweight. This is what happened to my former sister -in-law. She was insulin dependent. Funny, it was in her genetics and she got it.
As I've said before, diabetes runs rampant in my family. If I ever get it, it won't be because of obesity, it will be because of my inheritance of the gene.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I always wanted to lose weight to "look better" but it was the threat of Metformin and blood pressure medicines that finally shoved me into action.
Weighing, as I did, 257 on a smallish 5'4" frame, I had dozens of false starts, but then my doctor and I attempted 7 different blood pressure meds, all with terribly annoying side effects. The Metformin wasn't unpleasant, but on my previous diet, it hadn't reduced my blood sugar either.
Finally I grasped the fact that it was ridiculous to expect those pills to "fix" me if I didn't become actively engaged in fixing myself.
I stopped eating dairy, grain, added salt and added sugar, lost 85 pounds, and my blood numbers went down to normal and have stayed there. My a1c is below 5.6, blood pressure below 110/70.
I use Truvia or Splenda to sweeten my berries, eat large portions of veggies, chicken, eggs, sometimes fish or pork, and a half cup of nuts every night.
I don't miss anything so much that I feel I have to have it. I don't tell anyone how to eat. i'm just happy this works for me. My doctor likes what I'm doing too.0 -
It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
This is a serious question about visceral fat. Isn't that pretty much genetic?
I drank soda for years. Never had a belly. I don't really have much of one now either, just the remnants of having a kid at 40. I'm a natural hourglass shape with a small waist.
0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.
Or eat them in moderation.
Yes?
What is moderation? I see the word thrown around a lot, in the context of ignoring the advice given by various medical organizations i.e. don't worry about MFP's sugar recommendtions. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" when it comes from people who also say as long as macros are met then everything else will work out. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" with people who say CICO is all that matters. I can agree when "eat in moderation" means eating a healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of food groups, whole foods, plus some treats with discretionary calories.0 -
It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
The visceral fat data was in regards to type II diabetes risk. The assertion was made that specific diet items do not impact diabetic risk (you don't get diabetes from sugar). An argument was presented that high GI foods (ie. sugar, processed carbs, and overall high carb intake) can increase risk of type II diabetes. Evidence was presented of specific food intake that predicted type II diabetes. SSBs have been shown to cause visceral fat and insulin resistance in short term intervention studies, and be associated with visceral fat and diabetes in cohort studies. Visceral fat also predicts type II diabetes.
The argument isn't about what would cause diabetes during a calorie deficit, just whether or not diabetes risk is impacted by specific foods, as opposed to a surplus diet in general (resulting in the recognized obesity risk).
Hopefully, a caloric deficit would reduce risk of diabetes in overweight/obese individuals due to weight loss. In T2D bariatric patients, weight loss often results in significant improvements in insulin sensitivity, even if the patient remains obese.
In a longitudinal study on lifestyle predictors of type II diabetes in individuals eating at deficit, however, exercise and having a healthy diet would likely be negatively associated with emergence of type II diabetes, just as it was in the nurses' study for healthy-weight individuals (eating at maintenance).
Someone eating in a calorie deficit may already have visceral fat, btw.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.
Or eat them in moderation.
Yes?
What is moderation? I see the word thrown around a lot, in the context of ignoring the advice given by various medical organizations i.e. don't worry about MFP's sugar recommendtions. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" when it comes from people who also say as long as macros are met than everything else will work out. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" with people who say CICO is all that matters. I can agree when "eat in moderation" means eating a healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of food groups, whole foods, plus some treats with discretionary calories.
Moderation means 'not excessive', so within dietary guidelines by mass for calorie intake, blood volume for glucose level, and nutritional profile as recommended by reputable health organisations - not the general advice, the numbers.
You do know what these are for, say, a 60kg woman and a 90kg man, yes?
'Fraid I would have to look them up, as I am neither....I'm a little worried about recommended "blood volume for glucose level" - are we feeding vampires? I'm aware of the WHO recommendation for added sugars, but I personally would be little more lenient when there is discretionary calories. I would say 1-2 servings of fruit for myself, and up to 2 1/2 for an active young man, 3-4 servings of vegetables and 2-3 servings of dairy for both, and a minimum of 3 for me and 4 for him grain servings up to what is limited by calories for each, after protein and fat is included, and that should cover blood glucose. I don't think eating enough protein that it is converted to glucose is a good idea outside of carb-limited dieting. Again, going with whole foods when possible.
Um, calories for 60kg woman - are we talking sedentary? 1621 if over 31. Male is under 31 and active, 3024? Minimum 3 servings protein for him, two for me. 55-119 g fat for him, 36-63 grams for the lady, just over 1g minimum omega3s/day for each. 27 g fiber for her, 45 for him.
And then it gets complicated....Was there a point to your question (other than older, less- active, smaller women have very different nutritional needs than younger, active men?)
edited because I am losing the ability to spell....0 -
herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
In "DIET, LIFESTYLE, AND THE RISK OF TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS IN WOMEN" consumption of cereal fibers and a healthy balance of fats were both protective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2453647/
"An increase of three servings/day in total fruit and vegetable consumption was not associated with development of diabetes (multivariate-adjusted hazard ratio 0.99 [95% CI 0.94–1.05]), whereas the same increase in whole fruit consumption was associated with a lower hazard of diabetes (0.82 [0.72–0.94]). An increase of 1 serving/day in green leafy vegetable consumption was associated with a modestly lower hazard of diabetes (0.91 [0.84–0.98]), whereas the same change in fruit juice intake was associated with an increased hazard of diabetes (1.18 [1.10–1.26])."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/preventing-diabetes-full-story/#diet
Recommendations based on the nurse's study.
I'm sure if you google diet and type II diabetes risk you will come up with all sorts of recommendations, but it's mostly what everyone already knows. Include low GI, whole grains, whole fruits and veggies, healthier fats etc. Avoid fried foods, and SSBs.
Or eat them in moderation.
Yes?
What is moderation? I see the word thrown around a lot, in the context of ignoring the advice given by various medical organizations i.e. don't worry about MFP's sugar recommendtions. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" when it comes from people who also say as long as macros are met than everything else will work out. I can't agree to "eat in moderation" with people who say CICO is all that matters. I can agree when "eat in moderation" means eating a healthy diet that includes the recommended servings of food groups, whole foods, plus some treats with discretionary calories.
Moderation means 'not excessive', so within dietary guidelines by mass for calorie intake, blood volume for glucose level, and nutritional profile as recommended by reputable health organisations - not the general advice, the numbers.
You do know what these are for, say, a 60kg woman and a 90kg man, yes?
'Fraid I would have to look them up, as I am neither....I'm a little worried about recommended "blood volume for glucose level" - are we feeding vampires? I'm aware of the WHO recommendation for added sugars, but I personally would be little more lenient when there is discretionary calories. I would say 1-2 servings of fruit for myself, and up to 2 1/2 for an active young man, 3-4 servings of vegetables and 2-3 servings of dairy for both, and a minimum of 3 for me and 4 for him grain servings up to what is limited by calories for each, after protein and fat is included, and that should cover blood glucose. I don't think eating enough protein that it is converted to glucose is a good idea outside of carb-limited dieting. Again, going with whole foods when possible.
Um, calories for 60kg woman - are we talking sedentary? 1621 if over 31. Male is under 31 and active, 3024? Minimum 3 servings protein for him, two for me. 55-119 g fat for him, 36-63 grams for the lady, just over 1g minimum omega3s/day for each. 27 g fiber for her, 45 for him.
And then it gets complicated....Was there a point to your question (other than older, less- active, smaller women have very different nutritional needs than younger, active men?)
edited because I am losing the ability to spell....
So you don't actually know what an acceptable blood sugar content is by volume, but feel you're qualified to offer advice on what is and isn't moderate?
I think I'll pass.
I know that blood sugar should be between 3.9 and 5.5 mmol/L (70 to 100 mg/dL) when fasting for non-diabetics, but not about blood volume for glucose level (your question).
My advice isn`t on what is moderate, it is my understanding of what is recommended.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
How about eat your fruit rather than drink it, and stay away from sodas and etc. based on the precautionary principle as applied to your own life? Lots of people on MFP who don't give a damn about avoiding sugar refuse to drink their treat calories because it's much more satiating to eat them anyway. Up to you, of course, I'm not the cola police. I just want subsidies shifted away from crap and toward fruit and veg.0
-
We can't just point at one thing as the cause of visceral fat. Genetics will play a role in visceral fat accumulation but diet, metabolic disorders, diseases, hormonal imbalances etc will also be important factors.mamapeach910 wrote: »It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
This is a serious question about visceral fat. Isn't that pretty much genetic?
I drank soda for years. Never had a belly. I don't really have much of one now either, just the remnants of having a kid at 40. I'm a natural hourglass shape with a small waist.
Significant visceral fat tends to accumulate more in men, but is associated with higher risk when present in women. In the absence of CT, waist-hip ratios (greater than 8 for women, 9 for men), or waist size (over 35" for women, 40" for men) are shortcuts to get an approximate idea of if there is enough visceral fat to be concerned.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".0 -
How about eat your fruit rather than drink it, and stay away from sodas and etc. based on the precautionary principle as applied to your own life? Lots of people on MFP who don't give a damn about avoiding sugar refuse to drink their treat calories because it's much more satiating to eat them anyway.
As what? Common sense advice or "this is something I do that might be helpful"? Sure, absolutely. I don't stay away from soda on a precautionary principle, but because they seem like ridiculous wastes of calories and aren't even, IMO, very good. (I'm skeptical about how many people really want to cut out all sources of risk in their lives anyway--what people choose to focus on can be really interesting. Moreover, it's possible to monitor risk without going to such lengths--for example, I know I don't have overmuch visceral fat, so I'm not super stressed about it.)
However, my concern would be making the advice into some kind of one size fits all recommendation. Say someone really enjoys smoothies or even (much as it makes me roll my eyes) refuses to eat fruits and veggies other than in juice form. Might those be exceptions to the don't drink calories rule? Say someone finds a cola just as satiating as I might find a bowl of ice cream or you might find equivalent calories of steak. I don't, I'm sure, but some could. Say the same person prefers soda to any other kind of sweet and likes it as a dessert on occasion. Seems weird to me, but might that be a perfectly reasonable reason to keep soda in the diet? I think so.
On the whole, I think sugary sodas are calories that most consume without really noticing and thus tend to drink way too much of, and I tend to prefer how I recall things being back in the day (when kids weren't on my lawn) when as kids we'd have maybe a soda as a special treat when going to McD's once a month and not as a regular beverage with dinner or whenever kids drink them now. I don't think overconsumption of sugary sodas is a great habit to develop. But this idea that that means that the only option is that we must declare all consumption of them terrible and unhealthy and a plague seems a bit ridiculous and missing the big picture, which is that people should eat a good overall diet (and be active).0 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »How about eat your fruit rather than drink it, and stay away from sodas and etc. based on the precautionary principle as applied to your own life? Lots of people on MFP who don't give a damn about avoiding sugar refuse to drink their treat calories because it's much more satiating to eat them anyway.
As what? Common sense advice or "this is something I do that might be helpful"? Sure, absolutely. I don't stay away from soda on a precautionary principle, but because they seem like ridiculous wastes of calories and aren't even, IMO, very good. (I'm skeptical about how many people really want to cut out all sources of risk in their lives anyway--what people choose to focus on can be really interesting. Moreover, it's possible to monitor risk without going to such lengths--for example, I know I don't have overmuch visceral fat, so I'm not super stressed about it.)
However, my concern would be making the advice into some kind of one size fits all recommendation. Say someone really enjoys smoothies or even (much as it makes me roll my eyes) refuses to eat fruits and veggies other than in juice form. Might those be exceptions to the don't drink calories rule? Say someone finds a cola just as satiating as I might find a bowl of ice cream or you might find equivalent calories of steak. I don't, I'm sure, but some could. Say the same person prefers soda to any other kind of sweet and likes it as a dessert on occasion. Seems weird to me, but might that be a perfectly reasonable reason to keep soda in the diet? I think so.
On the whole, I think sugary sodas are calories that most consume without really noticing and thus tend to drink way too much of, and I tend to prefer how I recall things being back in the day (when kids weren't on my lawn) when as kids we'd have maybe a soda as a special treat when going to McD's once a month and not as a regular beverage with dinner or whenever kids drink them now. I don't think overconsumption of sugary sodas is a great habit to develop. But this idea that that means that the only option is that we must declare all consumption of them terrible and unhealthy and a plague seems a bit ridiculous and missing the big picture, which is that people should eat a good overall diet (and be active).
Can't you blend smoothies in a way that won't destroy all the fiber? If so, someone who won't eat fruit and veg any other way should most definitely try that. I am not one size fits all anyway, I said I'm not the cola police. For me, I'm definitely not going to drink my calories. I know where that road leads, and it's not pretty. I also tried very healthy and very delicious smoothies and found even when I added nuts and seeds for protein and fat I was ravenous later. Yet some people swear by them. One size does not fit all.
This does not mean we should rip into anyone who posts research showing regular consumption of calories from sweet beverages in particular might be harmful to large numbers of people.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.0 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Yeah, my mom is diabetic, so I definitely understand. I'm mostly concerned with weight loss to mitigate potential risks. I also have reactive hypoglycemia, but my body also seems to respond strangely to carbs. What ends up working for me is semi-low carb (not really all that low), and I focus on getting proteins and fat early in the day and consume most of my carbs at night.
Luckily, it was easy for me to find what works because I had a direct symptom; I'd get shaky if I wasn't doing something my body liked. If you're just trying to prevent diabetes, there is no clear indicator if what you're doing is working or not. You may want to somewhat reduce carbs or sugars, but there is no need to exclude them entirely if you're able to incorporate them into your diet in moderation. I'd also recommend consistent annual physicals and/or bloodwork to make sure your A1C is at an appropriate level.0 -
As always, what is your point. It's as if you believe what your post said is somehow contradicting my posts. Like I said before, I'm not bothering addressing you anymore because it's boring to debate someone that only knows how to cut and paste from Google.
We can't just point at one thing as the cause of visceral fat. Genetics will play a role in visceral fat accumulation but diet, metabolic disorders, diseases, hormonal imbalances etc will also be important factors.mamapeach910 wrote: »It's as if those 2 members don't understand what caloric deficit means? How are we going to accumulate visceral fat in a caloric deficit?
This is a serious question about visceral fat. Isn't that pretty much genetic?
I drank soda for years. Never had a belly. I don't really have much of one now either, just the remnants of having a kid at 40. I'm a natural hourglass shape with a small waist.
Significant visceral fat tends to accumulate more in men, but is associated with higher risk when present in women. In the absence of CT, waist-hip ratios (greater than 8 for women, 9 for men), or waist size (over 35" for women, 40" for men) are shortcuts to get an approximate idea of if there is enough visceral fat to be concerned.
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post to say (again) that you will not respond to my posts (a case of last word-itis?)
My point is that you can have an hourglass shape, but still have an waist hip ratio, or waist size that indicates a higher level of visceral fat. Also, that women tend to deposit fat more in their lower body than men do - a hormonal difference in fat distribution, which is also affected by life events. Pregnancy can cause new fat cells to develop, fat cells developped after adulthood tend to develop in the lower body, so some women will end up with more fat cells in their lower body. So women, in general, would have less visceral fat at a given body fat %, but when they do, the associated level of risk is higher. I also gave some approximate measures that would give readers an idea of their personal risk level, if anyone was wondering.-1 -
I found this quote on the government database:
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000313.htm
"Type 2 diabetes can also develop in people who are thin. This is more common in the elderly.
Family history and genes play a role in type 2 diabetes. Low activity level, poor diet, and excess body weight around the waist increase your chance of getting the disease."
I'm very irate, they don't define poor diet!
As someone who deals with federal regulations all the time (FDA and OHRP), it seems like it's almost impossible to get the government to define anything. And if they do, you'd need a couple of lawyers and a dictionary to figure it out. Maybe.
My guess is that it's subjective, and so there is no definition of "poor diet" just like there's no one definition of "healthy diet".
Well they suck then. Back to reading abstracts, some of which contradict each other. For example, I've found some lovely ones that match my current low carb plan, but I've found others talking about saturated fats causing insulin resistance. What is a woman to do?
Eat whatever you want that keeps you satiated, you enjoy to eat, and helps get you to your goals (within you calorie limit, gives you enough energy, etc.). :flowerforyou:
Diabetes runs heavily in my family, even among those who are not noticeably overweight, so I'm thinking long term here. Also, even though I'm a biodunce who has to read something or listen to a lecture fifty-eleven times to get it and then sometimes still doesn't, I'm fascinated with nutrition right now. It's a much healthier obsession than cookies.
Well, since genetics is the top listed factor for development of diabetes and it runs in your family, if I were you, I'd try to lessen the ones I could like low activity levels and being overweight, but also understand that it isn't worth driving myself crazy over because it might be out of my control.
Basically, do whatever you think you need to do for your own sanity.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions