Sugar as evil
Replies
-
-
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
LOL and here we go ....
just save your breath brother, she is never wrong...0 -
-
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
LOL and here we go ....
just save your breath brother, she is never wrong...
Anyone is free to disagree with my opinions, but extrapolating my statements to mean something not intended makes no sense.
I never said sugar is worse than fat, except within the context of the low sugar vs low fat discussion. If you can't grasp the difference, then I can't help that.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I only read the abstract, but that second study is comparing different types of fats.
I only read the abstract too, but the two study groups were differentiated by how much sugar was in their diets. There was no difference in cholesterol levels from different amounts of sugar.
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »On other matters, there has been discussion about the continued medical warnings about excess sat fat (for similar reasons) and some of the same people who are anti sugar were dismissive on the grounds that they have no cholesterol issues. I'm sympathetic to that--I also have never had any cholesterol issues, and I suspect the biggest positive thing many could do is lose weight anyway--but you'd think more people would get that a lot of the sugar paranoia is basically identical to the fat paranoia of old, and unlikely to be any more helpful.
This point was made by another poster early on in the thread.
I would question whether limiting sugar and especially added or refined sugars would not be more helpful in a diet than limiting fat.
I think for most it would be (I personally find fat more satiating, and that includes saturated fat), but the point is that focusing on one macronutrient and all foods containing it, so that "no sugar!" or "no fat!" become markers of healthiness independent of anything else about the product--see the Walden Farms discussion--is really a distraction from what you ideally should focus on to have a healthy diet overall.
For example, the number of people convinced that eating fruit might be unhealthy or that sugar should ideally be eliminated isn't all that different from people thinking Snackwells are some kind of health food.
Maybe. But I don't see many posts from people convinced that fruit is unhealthy.
I've seen a ton.
Even the current one is really a question about that: if at my sugar limit (according to MFP), should I avoid fruit?
I also was told by another poster during this thread that eating more dairy and fruit than your MFP sugar limit is probably dangerous.
We think differently I guess. Someone asking if they are getting too much sugar from fruit doesn't translate to 'I think fruit is unhealthy' for me.
In the threads where those questions are asked there are invariably multiple posters who jump in and say fruit and dairy should be limited or go on about non-fat dairy.
For the record, I was actually trying to agree with your post in referencing the sugar paranoia becoming like the fat paranoia that we are still recovering from. As I said earlier, I thought you put it well in this post:Too much sugar is not a good thing. And most American eat too much sugar. This causes health agencies to put out recommendations to cut back on sugar.
Unfortunately, many people see "cut back" as "cut out" and start thinking all sugar is evil/bad/unhealthy and try to cut it all out, when they really should just be cutting down on the amount they eat.
It's the same thing that happened in the 80's when the recommendation to eat less fat and especially less saturated fat came out. Suddenly all fat was bad and to be avoided.0 -
MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.0 -
-
Sugar thread! Yippeee!!!!!
10 pages on yet.... another worthless....sugar thread...
This never ends well0 -
MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
0 -
"Excess ____ causes heart disease"Sugar is not good for you, and most people eat way to much, and it is hard to cut back on since it is in everything - read your labels and you will see. There are studies that have linked excess sugar consumption to cholesterol and triglyceride levels. I would not make yourself crazy, however being mindful is a good thing. Choose to get your sugar from fruit, etc, and stay away from things that are not good for you anyway on your path for weight loss and good health - and have your occasional treat.
"____ is bad for you"
These two statements are not even close to the same thing. Pretty much everything is bad for you in the wrong dose.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
The issue with the amount for additional sugars recommended, based on my understanding, is that it is arbitrary to a degree They looked at discretionary calories (i.e. once you hit your nutrients - the amount 'leftover' and applied a % for added sugar (50% if discretionary if memory serves me right.) Discretionary calories however will vary individual to individual.
0 -
herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
No, it's not at all.
Yes, you are. You say limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. By implication you are therefore stating that sugar is worse than fat, otherwise why limit it more?
It's pretty clear cut.
Another way to characterize the statement in question is that it is saying the dosage at which sugar becomes a problem is, for many contexts, lower than the dosage at which fat becomes a problem.
That may or may not be correct, but it is a reasonable thing to hypothesize.
0 -
Yes, I don't think any of the sugar limits and recommendations are evidenced based -- which I have a problem with. But for those who are concerned about their sugar intake (rightly concerned, IMO) I think 15% of your total calories from sugar is a reasonable limit which allows for a varied, not overly restrictive diet. ETA: And is a level of sugar intake that is not likely to do any harm.AlabasterVerve wrote: »MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
The issue with the amount for additional sugars, based on my understanding, is very arbitrary. They looked at discretionary calories (i.e. once you hit your nutrients - the amount 'leftover' and applied a % for added sugar (50% if discretionary if memory serves me right.) Discretionary calories however will vary individual to individual.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
The 10% seems misleading, since the Dietary Guidelines don't quantify it, and if someone is at reduced calories they could easily exceed the MFP percentage without even eating the full recommended amounts of fruit and veggies and dairy. The Guidelines say that Americans over 4 eat too little fruit, not too much, and also recommend increasing consumption of non fat dairy (especially switching from full fat), which are both contrary to what those focused so much on sugar would say. (I'm kind of neutral on non fat vs. full fat, but these things are ignored, as well as the reasoning given.)
On the other hand, the Dietary Guidelines do recommend a range for carbs of 45-65% (which I think is higher than lots of people need, but whatever) and a minimum fiber number, so I think this largely supports the approach many MFP-ers recommend--focus on fiber as a way to make sure that your carbs are coming largely from more nutrient-dense sources.
I'd further say pay attention to how many servings of veggies you are getting. What I find overly-simplistic and not supported by any evidence is the idea that getting more than 15% from sugar, regardless of the diet as a whole or the particular make-up of those calories is something to be concerned about, such that people fret about eating an apple or are told they'd better limit their fruit consumption to lower sugar fruits or switch from low fat to full fat dairy (which again is fine for taste reasons if that's your preference, but NOT, in fact, what the mainstream nutrition types recommend).0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
The 10% seems misleading, since the Dietary Guidelines don't quantify it, and if someone is at reduced calories they could easily exceed the MFP percentage without even eating the full recommended amounts of fruit and veggies and dairy. The Guidelines say that Americans over 4 eat too little fruit, not too much, and also recommend increasing consumption of non fat dairy (especially switching from full fat), which are both contrary to what those focused so much on sugar would say. (I'm kind of neutral on non fat vs. full fat, but these things are ignored, as well as the reasoning given.)
On the other hand, the Dietary Guidelines do recommend a range for carbs of 45-65% (which I think is higher than lots of people need, but whatever) and a minimum fiber number, so I think this largely supports the approach many MFP-ers recommend--focus on fiber as a way to make sure that your carbs are coming largely from more nutrient-dense sources.
I'd further say pay attention to how many servings of veggies you are getting. What I find overly-simplistic and not supported by any evidence is the idea that getting more than 15% from sugar, regardless of the diet as a whole or the particular make-up of those calories is something to be concerned about, such that people fret about eating an apple or are told they'd better limit their fruit consumption to lower sugar fruits or switch from low fat to full fat dairy (which again is fine for taste reasons if that's your preference, but NOT, in fact, what the mainstream nutrition types recommend).
That also gets messy, because you have to be sure of where the recommendation is coming from in terms of region. If it's a US scientist or US guideline, it's assumed that fiber is included in the carb number, unless specifically stated otherwise. If it's a scientist or region outside the US, fiber is not included in the carb number, and they are considered to be two independent things. 45% of UK carbs are a wholly different thing that 45% of US carbs, if you're going solely by food labeling standards.0 -
These are US numbers.
However, I've never really seen a good basis for the macronutrient percentages (I haven't looked into it all that hard, granted). I looked into the protein one when it came up on another thread and the explanation was basically "amount left over when you add up the fat and carb ranges."0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »These are US numbers.
However, I've never really seen a good basis for the macronutrient percentages (I haven't looked into it all that hard, granted). I looked into the protein one when it came up on another thread and the explanation was basically "amount left over when you add up the fat and carb ranges."
Ouch. That seems backwards - protein should be set according to LBM, and the other macros key off of that and your calorie target.
0 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »
Yes, I don't think any of the sugar limits and recommendations are evidenced based -- which I have a problem with. But for those who are concerned about their sugar intake (rightly concerned, IMO) I think 15% of your total calories from sugar is a reasonable limit which allows for a varied, not overly restrictive diet. ETA: And is a level of sugar intake that is not likely to do any harm.AlabasterVerve wrote: »MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
The issue with the amount for additional sugars, based on my understanding, is very arbitrary. They looked at discretionary calories (i.e. once you hit your nutrients - the amount 'leftover' and applied a % for added sugar (50% if discretionary if memory serves me right.) Discretionary calories however will vary individual to individual.
I think that there are categories of people who should be concerned - I am not denying that. Personally, I have no medical issues that indicate sugar in excess of that is an issue and I am at a healthy body weight, the usual blood markers are good and I am active - so I am not concerned (my macro, micro and fiber targets are self governing to a degree as well).0 -
I waNeed2Exerc1se wrote: »herrspoons wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Why is sugar worse than fat? Because sugar is the new boogeyman? Hey, I watched my sugar for years. Read the labels. Watched it all. But many items full of sugar, like fruits, I tolerated just fine while some carbohydrates (i.e. white rice) hit this diabetic like a ton of bricks.
When my weight came off, so did the cholesterol markers, so did the diabetes. No big changes to my diet other than portions. I eat more sugar these days because I can.
I wouldn't say that sugar is worse than fat. I said limiting sugar is probably better than limiting fat. And by limiting I mean low, as in low sugar vs low fat.
Logically, by implication that's exactly what you're saying.
LOL and here we go ....
just save your breath brother, she is never wrong...
Anyone is free to disagree with my opinions, but extrapolating my statements to mean something not intended makes no sense.
I never said sugar is worse than fat, except within the context of the low sugar vs low fat discussion. If you can't grasp the difference, then I can't help that.
I was not talking to you ….-1 -
We could discuss the Taino Indians. . . .Spaniards.. . . .etc, but nah.
-1 -
_Terrapin_ wrote: »
We could discuss the Taino Indians. . . .Spaniards.. . . .etc, but nah.
that would be a more legit criticism then any of the "sugar is evil" folks ever come up with...-1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »These are US numbers.
However, I've never really seen a good basis for the macronutrient percentages (I haven't looked into it all that hard, granted). I looked into the protein one when it came up on another thread and the explanation was basically "amount left over when you add up the fat and carb ranges."
Ouch. That seems backwards - protein should be set according to LBM, and the other macros key off of that and your calorie target.
Yeah, that's one reason I don't have a lot of faith in the ranges given.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »MFP sets the sugar limits based on a draft WHO recommendation. The WHO recommendation is based on added sugars, but MFP does not differentiate. This leads dieters who are watching their sugars, to go over the MFP allowance on naturally occurring sugars alone.
What can they do? Drink lactose - free milk and sugar-free fruits? Insanity.
There has to be some sense applied here. Sugar is not the bugbear. The MFP limit is too low.
Actually, the limit is based on the food recommendations in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines which if followed would have about 10% of your calories coming from naturally occurring sugar. They then take it a step further and allow for another 5% for free sugars the WHO recommends. That's a total of 15% of your total calories from sugar -- 10% naturally occurring, 5% added.
All of which seems entirely reasonable to me; sensible given the current research without being alarmist.
The 10% seems misleading, since the Dietary Guidelines don't quantify it, and if someone is at reduced calories they could easily exceed the MFP percentage without even eating the full recommended amounts of fruit and veggies and dairy. The Guidelines say that Americans over 4 eat too little fruit, not too much, and also recommend increasing consumption of non fat dairy (especially switching from full fat), which are both contrary to what those focused so much on sugar would say. (I'm kind of neutral on non fat vs. full fat, but these things are ignored, as well as the reasoning given.)
On the other hand, the Dietary Guidelines do recommend a range for carbs of 45-65% (which I think is higher than lots of people need, but whatever) and a minimum fiber number, so I think this largely supports the approach many MFP-ers recommend--focus on fiber as a way to make sure that your carbs are coming largely from more nutrient-dense sources.
I'd further say pay attention to how many servings of veggies you are getting. What I find overly-simplistic and not supported by any evidence is the idea that getting more than 15% from sugar, regardless of the diet as a whole or the particular make-up of those calories is something to be concerned about, such that people fret about eating an apple or are told they'd better limit their fruit consumption to lower sugar fruits or switch from low fat to full fat dairy (which again is fine for taste reasons if that's your preference, but NOT, in fact, what the mainstream nutrition types recommend).
I'd probably be more willing to concede to your point if I actually ever saw someone on MFP exceeding the sugar limit eating whole foods. I'm absolutely sure it's possible, especially if you eat a mostly plant based diet, but that's not what I see.
All I've ever seen is people eating foods with "health halos", eating fruit on top of that and then saying they can't even eat an apple (or a cookie) without going over their sugar limit. And everyone rushing into the thread to agree with them and telling them to ignore the sugar limits, fruit is fine.
People eating whole foods and exceeding their sugar limit are not the ones starting "sugar threads" from what I've seen. You know, like the people who claim they eat clean but a look at their diary shows they're eating processed food just like everyone else. Or the people who say they're eating at a deficit but their food log is spotty and inconsistent at best. Peoples perception of what they're doing versus what they actually do often doesn't line up.
P.S. For what it's worth, I think the focus on fiber is a terrible barometer of a healthful diet as everyone adds cellulose to their products these days in order to put the fiber claim on the package. Do those foods really promote good health? I don't think they do. As for what mainstream nutrition recommends, I think it's criminal and people deserve to go to jail; at the very least it's not evidence based.
@Sarauk2sf I agree with that as well; if you're healthy, active and eating a reasonable diet an arbitrary sugar limit probably isn't a concern. I even think the people who are the sickest and rightly should be the most concerned about their diet can improve their health dramatically just by restricting their calories across the board, losing weight and becoming more active.
And with all of that, I still think the 15% sugar limit is reasonable for most people. I'm certainly not comfortable telling people sugar doesn't matter. More research is needed by those whose only agenda is good science, IMO.
0 -
My point is mostly that whether it's something to be concerned about or part of a balanced and nutrient dense diet is something more nuanced than "will this apple kick me over the limit," and the way that even fruit gets discussed in some of these sugar threads is ridiculous. I think people should know where their sugar is coming from and what else they are eating and decide based on that if there's an issue. I think some of the comments you get (like don't eat a banana, it's nature's cupcake, from a recent thread) really do suggest that we are replacing fat paranoia with sugar paranoia with very little reason to do so. I kind of agree that it's usually not simply fruit (although it can be, especially if someone is at 1200 or a person who eats lots of produce in general)--that's between the person who claims it and his or her diary--but I also think that a better focus is what are you eating overall. If you are getting lots of fiber (we can say from fruit, veggies, and beans, if you like), adequate protein, a reasonable amount of fats from reasonable sources and the like, worrying about sugar is probably going to be rather pointless and an unnecessary thing to focus on. That's why I like to point to the actual reasoning used for the WHO standards.
I'd rather have people use common sense and eat a sensible diet than bounce from one scapegoat macronutrient or food (fat, carbs, sugar, oh my!) and ignore the big picture. After all, switching out bananas for sugar free gummi bears is hardly the ideal path to take for most.0 -
Well, I'm back "weighing in" on the sugar issue. Yesterday, I exercised and ate at home and exceeded my sugar limit of 67 by eating 80 grams of sugar. The main culprits were Fiber One cereal (16), plain (unsweetened) nonfat yogurt (18), and 1/2 cup jarred mixed fruit, canned in juice (18), and blueberries (8). By the way, I ate less than my calorie targets for that day. Today, I had a lower sugar allotment because I didn't exercise. I actually ate out at Olive Garden and had dessert and exceeded my calories for the day; however, my sugar macros were well within limits, the major culprit being the dessert (25). I didn't eat pasta at Olive Garden (which I did have at home yesterday), but I did have potatoes, by the way. Which day, then is "healthier"? The day when I cooked my own food and my sugars came from yogurt and fruit, or the day when I ate at a restaurant, exceeded my calories, and ate dessert? I also exceeded fat and cholesterol today because I had bacon and eggs for breakfast.0
-
This documentary really helped me, it's all about sugar:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEjUGNi-Mlg 0 -
I'm prediabetic. If it runs in your family and you're concerned, just make sure that when you eat fruit or something carby, you pair it with something high in protein. That's what the doctor told me. She didn't say stop eating fruits, more like have the fruit as dessert after eating a meal that has plenty of protein. Or suppose you ate an apple or a banana and also a tablespoon of peanut butter. Eat the bowl of cereal, but also a boiled egg, for example.0
-
Sometimes I wish we could get rid of all the stupid people. But then I realize if we did that we'd be wiped out by a disease contracted from an unsanitized telephone.lemurcat12 wrote: »I think some of the comments you get ... really do suggest that we are replacing fat paranoia with sugar paranoia with very little reason to do so.
-1 -
There are people that claim so. Indeed it is pretty easy: on a 1200 cals diet, the sugar limit is set at 45 grams. 3 medium bananas are enough to reach it.AlabasterVerve wrote: »I'd probably be more willing to concede to your point if I actually ever saw someone on MFP exceeding the sugar limit eating whole foods.
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