Cutting sugar in diet
Options
Replies
-
This?lemurcat12 wrote: »
I reread it. Then I looked at the report and searched it for plant based diet which came up with the (traditional) Mediterranean diet. Interesting.
That's interesting. I've always understood "plant based" as a trendy (and annoying) way of saying vegan, not Med diet.
I think DASH is in there and a third I cant remember but I read about those in a dietitician's (not MFP) overview of the report. Haven't read the whole report to see the other two mentioned there myself. The Mediterranean is not a bad place to start if you wanted direction to improve your diet (not you directly - general population "you").
Maybe the third was a vegan one.
Yes, I'd say the "healthy U.S.-style" would look quite like the (so-called "faddish" lol) Dash diet.These patterns are the Healthy U.S.- style Pattern, the Healthy Mediterranean-style Pattern, and the Healthy Vegetarian Pattern. These patterns include the components of a dietary pattern associated with health benefits.0 -
herrspoons wrote: »
Ask me again when you have reached 60 and have gone through menopause, until then it would be difficult to compare our diets and exercise regime. But I will tell you, I have not had a day off work in over 20 years, have never had the flu, get the occasional sniffle and do not get vaccinated, have normal blood pressure and am on no medication whatsoever. I am 4 kilos heavier than I would like to be (vanity only as I am still in a healthy weight range) and the most I have ever weighed in my life is 65 kilos and that was the day I had my last child. I am one of those annoying people who eats like a pig and never puts on weight. I rarely eat processed food and try to stay away from added sugar. I eat dairy but do not eat wheat.
My purpose for being here is personal and involves a family member.
Now be honest and tell me your story.0 -
meljimenez777 wrote: »My fitness expert Doctor told me to cut down on sugar for my health and help me lose weight. 50 grams a day. I'm starting today
Given the newly minted guidelines that suggest no more than 12 teaspoons of added sugar (added being the important word), that sounds about right.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
Except the government is giving specific numbers on added sugar. Those numbers are much lower than the average american, and not in the eye of the beholder, actually. They are set recommendations.
I think it's also important to remember that this report isn't a weight loss report, per se, it's attempting to improve our health (while much of our health related concerns as a nation are weight related).
i usually do the opposite of what the government says….
I get 60 to 100 grams of sugar a day in my diet and my blood work comes back almost perfect at my annual physical every year…
again - hit your calorie/micro/macro targets and everything else will fall in line...0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Foods should not be demonised. Sugar is just sugar. In moderation it's fine.
What does moderation look like ? 15% of calorie intake, or 20%, or 50 grams or ......
According to the drafted guidelines? no more than 10%. And no more than 48 grams of added sugar per day. About one soda a day, or one Oprah Chai Tea [sic] Latte. Of course, it's all moot until and unless the U.S. government actually starts labeling added sugars accurately.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
Except the government is giving specific numbers on added sugar. Those numbers are much lower than the average american, and not in the eye of the beholder, actually. They are set recommendations.
I think it's also important to remember that this report isn't a weight loss report, per se, it's attempting to improve our health (while much of our health related concerns as a nation are weight related).
i usually do the opposite of what the government says….
I get 60 to 100 grams of sugar a day in my diet and my blood work comes back almost perfect at my annual physical every year…
again - hit your calorie/micro/macro targets and everything else will fall in line...
I'm not surprised in the slightest that you'd do the opposite.
Im' sure my "macros and micros" are fine, thanks.
BTW: how do you know you're "hitting your micros"? Which ones are you tracking with MFP? I can't get it to track more than a tiny handful of obvious ones.
You're right though, you do eat a pretty LOW amount of sugar, it's mostly added, but still not a bad number. Except for the obvious lack of leafy green vegetables in your diet, you seem to make some good choices.
MY micros wouldn't be met with no green vegetables day after day. Perhaps I'm considering them differently.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
I would wager that 99% of the government is overweight...
Don't let them guide you
I'd assume that "government" here is a metonymy of sorts. I'd assume they mean the folks on the government panel who've been studying mountains of data. I'll google a few, but I'm figuring 99% of that panel isn't overweight.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
Sorry? I'm not making the connection. Can you say more?
If you already eat a limited amount of added sugars (as I do) it's silly to claim that you would have a healthier diet by limiting added sugars more or by reducing the amount of added sugars you eat. That suggests that for everyone less is always better and none is the ideal, and I don't think that's true. There are better things to focus on depending on one's diet, like eating more veggies.
Did I say that you should limit them more to be healthy?
The typical American sure needs to. You probably don't need to. I don't need to.
Should we aim for "no added sugars?" Possibly, but probably not. Granted, I'd say we should aim for more honey and juice as our sweeteners, less HFCS. But as we know, I have a bias there: I think HFCS bad for us.
I already avoid HFCS, so again one-size-fits-all advice wouldn't work. Which is all I was saying.
I'd like to focus on what eating a good, nutritious diet requires, and not feed into weird scapegoating about eliminating foods. If one eats a good nutritious diet, one is not going to be eating excessive amounts of sugar, and if you read the WHO rationale about limiting sugar (which is quite sensible) its generally about making sure that you get a good balanced diet and not excessive calories. That's why it's a shame that the weird sugar fear that people get instead causes them to worry about eating fruit and dairy, which aren't even included in the WHO's added sugar limit, of course.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
Sorry? I'm not making the connection. Can you say more?
If you already eat a limited amount of added sugars (as I do) it's silly to claim that you would have a healthier diet by limiting added sugars more or by reducing the amount of added sugars you eat. That suggests that for everyone less is always better and none is the ideal, and I don't think that's true. There are better things to focus on depending on one's diet, like eating more veggies.
Did I say that you should limit them more to be healthy?
Yes, you said everyone should. That's what I was responding to. Not everyone eats tons of sugar, not everyone eats tons of processed food (as usually defined on these threads) or HFCS. That's why it makes more sense to give advice as to what's good to do, not assume that everyone is eating Twinkies 24/7 or getting all of their meals from McD's, which is IMO insulting.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
Sorry? I'm not making the connection. Can you say more?
If you already eat a limited amount of added sugars (as I do) it's silly to claim that you would have a healthier diet by limiting added sugars more or by reducing the amount of added sugars you eat. That suggests that for everyone less is always better and none is the ideal, and I don't think that's true. There are better things to focus on depending on one's diet, like eating more veggies.
Did I say that you should limit them more to be healthy?
Yes, you said everyone should. That's what I was responding to. Not everyone eats tons of sugar, not everyone eats tons of processed food (as usually defined on these threads) or HFCS. That's why it makes more sense to give advice as to what's good to do, not assume that everyone is eating Twinkies 24/7 or getting all of their meals from McD's, which is IMO insulting.
Exactly. Recommendations are good to take into consideration when making an informed decision about the course of action you would like to take, but for many people, particularly those on this site who have already figured out their course of action, the 12 teaspoons of sugar as a hard and fast rule may not apply.
To the OP, I think you probably got the idea by now. Most people find that by cutting calories, they naturally also cut down on sugar, and everything else, from all sources.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I reread it. Then I looked at the report and searched it for plant based diet which came up with the (traditional) Mediterranean diet. Interesting.
That's interesting. I've always understood "plant based" as a trendy (and annoying) way of saying vegan, not Med diet.
There are two primary ways to understand "plant based". One is vegan (with an emphasis on plants rather than heavily processed non animal foods). I actually like that, because I know many ethical vegans who eat for sh1te.
I don't like it, since the people I know who use it just use it as a euphemism for vegan. Vegan already has a meaning and so far I don't find that those who describe themselves as "plant based" eat better than vegans (to be honest the vegetarians I know often eat poorly, but all the vegans I know are quite health conscious). (I probably live--like you--in a part of the US with more vegetarians and vegans than average.)The other is making plants the main course and bulk of you foods. Making animal protein a side dish.
I'm all in favor of this, as you should know if you ever read my posts (and I think my diary supports it somewhat), but I have honestly NEVER heard anyone using "plant based" in that way, even in my Michael Pollan/green market/local produce obsessed subculture. Perhaps because, as mentioned above, the term has already been co-opted.
That said, apparently women in particular have trouble meeting protein goals and I'm always surprised that people have trouble with the relatively moderate MFP goal, so I'd probably still advise building a meal around protein. That doesn't mean the actual volume wouldn't be made up of mostly veggies, though. That's what I do--what made it easy to add lots of veggies to my diet (other than the fact I already liked them and was in the habit of eating them) was just decide that I'd cook as side dishes the veggies (2-3) that I had on hand to complement my main dish, rather than having to buy something specifically to go with them. This was especially helpful when I had a CSA box to use--I forced myself to cook endless greens in the spring--but it works even in the winter when I buy out of season veggies to have on hand.Michael Pollan's "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" is how many (including myself) describe their plant based diet.
I agree with this, but would never call it "plant-based" as people around here would assume I was claiming to be vegan (and people assume that you eat veggies, since responsible people do).The new guidelines basically just go for mediterranean style (more fish than red meat) with a hint of South Beach (actively limiting added sugars).
I wasn't talking about the new guidelines, but they seem reasonable enough to me, and even seem to be lightening up on the fat warnings, which is pleasant.
(My problem with DASH is just that using salt while cooking is normal and avoiding that seems to me to be unnecessary for most, especially if you don't eat a lot of processed foods (in the pre packaged, added sodium usage of the term). It plays into the idea that healthy eating and flavorful eating must be opponents, unlike Pollan who promotes the idea that healthful eating is also extremely tasty. But mostly I find named diets irritating. The Med diet isn't really a diet, is a descriptor of a way of eating, so I make an exception. But I'm on a soapbox about grains being over promoted by the US gov't already, so I have my disagreements even with it, although I think it's a fine way to eat if you enjoy it, just not the be-all, end-all of healthy eating. Amusingly, Leena and I might be somewhat on the same page here. But this is all a huge digression, of course.)0 -
Plant based is not a term I use, mainly because it is so ambiguous and it isn't clear exactly what it means. If I WERE to start using the term (I can't imagine why I would though!), to me it would mean having plants as the "base" of your food pyramid. Do we even use the pyramid anymore, or has it been supplanted by that equally silly plate? I digress...lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »
I reread it. Then I looked at the report and searched it for plant based diet which came up with the (traditional) Mediterranean diet. Interesting.
That's interesting. I've always understood "plant based" as a trendy (and annoying) way of saying vegan, not Med diet.
There are two primary ways to understand "plant based". One is vegan (with an emphasis on plants rather than heavily processed non animal foods). I actually like that, because I know many ethical vegans who eat for sh1te.
I don't like it, since the people I know who use it just use it as a euphemism for vegan. Vegan already has a meaning and so far I don't find that those who describe themselves as "plant based" eat better than vegans (to be honest the vegetarians I know often eat poorly, but all the vegans I know are quite health conscious). (I probably live--like you--in a part of the US with more vegetarians and vegans than average.)The other is making plants the main course and bulk of you foods. Making animal protein a side dish.
I'm all in favor of this, as you should know if you ever read my posts (and I think my diary supports it somewhat), but I have honestly NEVER heard anyone using "plant based" in that way, even in my Michael Pollan/green market/local produce obsessed subculture. Perhaps because, as mentioned above, the term has already been co-opted.
That said, apparently women in particular have trouble meeting protein goals and I'm always surprised that people have trouble with the relatively moderate MFP goal, so I'd probably still advise building a meal around protein. That doesn't mean the actual volume wouldn't be made up of mostly veggies, though. That's what I do--what made it easy to add lots of veggies to my diet (other than the fact I already liked them and was in the habit of eating them) was just decide that I'd cook as side dishes the veggies (2-3) that I had on hand to complement my main dish, rather than having to buy something specifically to go with them. This was especially helpful when I had a CSA box to use--I forced myself to cook endless greens in the spring--but it works even in the winter when I buy out of season veggies to have on hand.Michael Pollan's "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" is how many (including myself) describe their plant based diet.
I agree with this, but would never call it "plant-based" as people around here would assume I was claiming to be vegan (and people assume that you eat veggies, since responsible people do).The new guidelines basically just go for mediterranean style (more fish than red meat) with a hint of South Beach (actively limiting added sugars).
I wasn't talking about the new guidelines, but they seem reasonable enough to me, and even seem to be lightening up on the fat warnings, which is pleasant.
(My problem with DASH is just that using salt while cooking is normal and avoiding that seems to me to be unnecessary for most, especially if you don't eat a lot of processed foods (in the pre packaged, added sodium usage of the term). It plays into the idea that healthy eating and flavorful eating must be opponents, unlike Pollan who promotes the idea that healthful eating is also extremely tasty. But mostly I find named diets irritating. The Med diet isn't really a diet, is a descriptor of a way of eating, so I make an exception. But I'm on a soapbox about grains being over promoted by the US gov't already, so I have my disagreements even with it, although I think it's a fine way to eat if you enjoy it, just not the be-all, end-all of healthy eating. Amusingly, Leena and I might be somewhat on the same page here. But this is all a huge digression, of course.)
In other words, to me it doesn't mean you don't eat meat or animal products, just that you eat mostly fruits, vegetables and grains. If I meant vegan, I would say vegan. Or vegetarian for vegetarian.
However, I realize that many people do think vegetarian/vegan/or even something else when they hear this. For that reason, I wish scientists and medical professionals would not use this term when dealing with the public. I think when it comes to nutritional guidelines, clarity is very important. Plant based is too vague to be useful. Look at all the debates on this site over words like moderation, varied, healthy, junk, etc. The very ambiguous nature of these words almost guarantees that there will be misunderstandings and misinterpretations because these all can mean different things to different people.
FYI, unrelated but I agree on the over promotion of grains. I suspect politics plays heavily into this. I've seen some articles recently talking about the backlash the WHO expects towards their draft guidelines from lobbyists of certain industries and some friendly politicians. It's interesting reading if you're so inclined.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »(to be honest the vegetarians I know often eat poorly, but all the vegans I know are quite health conscious)
Just picking this out of your post to comment. Piggybacking on something you said in another thread regarding the general diet composition of people and assumptions...
I think the percentage of vegetarians eating poorly is probably analogous to omnivores who eat poorly in this country. If you were an omnivore who ate a preponderance of convenience foods and went veggie, you likely still eat a preponderance of convenience foods, just veggie versions. If you're inclined to cook from scratch and like fresh foods, you'll eat better whether you're an omnivore or a vegetarian or a vegan. "Healthy" eating habits, and unhealthy ones, cross all spectra.
Nothing wrong with the occasional convenience food, mind. Too many veggies forget to actually eat vegetables, though!
0 -
I"m at 15 grams of sugar per day. No it's not "hard" after the first week.
And there's all the usual "ignore the sugar" comments. lol Well, for most of us here with excess fat, I'm sorry to break the news but sugar does matter. Justify it, excuse it, ignore it, whatever works for ya.0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
I think get it. Just because someone limits sugars does not mean they are necessarily healthy.lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
i agree that limiting added sugars is a way to moderate, but so is limiting any food. For example, I don't need two servings of meat anymore than I need six teaspoons of sugar in my coffee, because I want overall balance. This has nothing to do with any foods being good or bad, it's just a method of trying to keep a calorie deficit if losing, or not going over TDEE when maintaining.
oh. Did someone say cutting sugar was the essence of being healthy? I must have missed that.
The government has now explicitly said to limit added sugar, for weight and for health. The WHO has said to limit added sugars for health. I can see why there are even more sugar threads than usual.
I think I went out on a limb.
The "government" is talking about moderation, which is in the eye of the beholder. We all make the choice what to moderate, as well as how to moderate.
I love my sugary stuff, have lost plenty of weight eating the sweet stuff, and have been maintaining for well over a year. The thing is I don't go hog wild every day like I used to, I just hog wild sometimes, but work hard to make sure my end week calories are reasonably close to what I need. It's not perfect, but it's doable.
Except the government is giving specific numbers on added sugar. Those numbers are much lower than the average american, and not in the eye of the beholder, actually. They are set recommendations.
I think it's also important to remember that this report isn't a weight loss report, per se, it's attempting to improve our health (while much of our health related concerns as a nation are weight related).
Isn't it the American Heart Association that provides these sugar guidelines? They are non-profit and funded by private institutions, I believe. They are not the government.
What's important to me is creating my own mode of moderation given the types of foods I like to eat. The American Heart Association providing specific numbers promotes moderation, no matter how small the numbers are and whether it's for health or weight loss. It may not be a moderation I that works for me, you, or anyone else, but we all get to choose how to moderate our own intake.
I said moderation is in the eye of the beholder, which is accurate, especially if you choose not to follow any guidelines.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
Yep. EVERYONE should limit added sugars.herrspoons wrote: »I think everyone should limit added sugars. Limiting is, after all, the very essence of moderation.
Not sure why people find that one tricky.
But if you already limit added sugars it's silly to make that the main definition as to whether you are healthy.
Sorry? I'm not making the connection. Can you say more?
If you already eat a limited amount of added sugars (as I do) it's silly to claim that you would have a healthier diet by limiting added sugars more or by reducing the amount of added sugars you eat. That suggests that for everyone less is always better and none is the ideal, and I don't think that's true. There are better things to focus on depending on one's diet, like eating more veggies.
Did I say that you should limit them more to be healthy?
Yes, you said everyone should. That's what I was responding to. Not everyone eats tons of sugar, not everyone eats tons of processed food (as usually defined on these threads) or HFCS. That's why it makes more sense to give advice as to what's good to do, not assume that everyone is eating Twinkies 24/7 or getting all of their meals from McD's, which is IMO insulting.
Yep.
0 -
Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »meljimenez777 wrote: »My fitness expert Doctor told me to cut down on sugar for my health and help me lose weight. 50 grams a day. I'm starting today
Given the newly minted guidelines that suggest no more than 12 teaspoons of added sugar (added being the important word), that sounds about right.
12 teaspoons to me sounds like an awful lot.0 -
bread is loaded with sugar, actually is even worse than a can of coke i seen it in a research that was done ,0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions