Looking for other pro science people on here
Options
Replies
-
Count me in!0
-
Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.0 -
Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!0 -
great thread, thanks OP this is exactly what I needed to. All here are welcome to add me. I am a Physics Teacher, so energy is essential to much of what I preach on a day to day basis. CICO is pretty simple and effective and unfortunately gets clouded with so much other crap that people get frustrated and get lost along the way.
0 -
summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
Sorry no that is just a report I found when I googled it as an example, it's all over the news this morning here in Australia and there are doctors and other health professionals reporting on it.......I've been trying to find where it's come from. Ive been on the WHO web site for over an hour and I can't find a thing about it anywhere. I'm just trying to find where these reports are coming from but it is being reported as The World Health Organization has changed its recommendations and red meat is now listed with cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic as our top carcinogenics! They must have got it from somewhere.......0 -
Ohh, thank you for starting this!0
-
summerkissed wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
Sorry no that is just a report I found when I googled it as an example, it's all over the news this morning here in Australia and there are doctors and other health professionals reporting on it.......I've been trying to find where it's come from. Ive been on the WHO web site for over an hour and I can't find a thing about it anywhere. I'm just trying to find where these reports are coming from but it is being reported as The World Health Organization has changed its recommendations and red meat is now listed with cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic as our top carcinogenics! They must have got it from somewhere.......
It's the Daily Fail.
Look, meat in excessive quantities has been shown to have an epidemiological link to cancer (particularly processed meats) however it is not and cannot be the equivalent carcinogenic effect as asbestos. Now are the case rates equivalent? Are the number of cases appearing the same? Well, you can go research that if you like - hint - it isn't on the WHO website.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
Sigh. No science there.
The WHO is a fantastic organisation and no, they ARE NOT SAYING THAT red meat is as carcinogenic as asbestos. Nope. That is some blog you got there, but not science.
Sorry no that is just a report I found when I googled it as an example, it's all over the news this morning here in Australia and there are doctors and other health professionals reporting on it.......I've been trying to find where it's come from. Ive been on the WHO web site for over an hour and I can't find a thing about it anywhere. I'm just trying to find where these reports are coming from but it is being reported as The World Health Organization has changed its recommendations and red meat is now listed with cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic as our top carcinogenics! They must have got it from somewhere.......
It's the Daily Fail.
Look, meat in excessive quantities has been shown to have an epidemiological link to cancer (particularly processed meats) however it is not and cannot be the equivalent carcinogenic effect as asbestos. Now are the case rates equivalent? Are the number of cases appearing the same? Well, you can go research that if you like - hint - it isn't on the WHO website.
Don't think you quite get the point of putting this up on here......I'm looking for the report that is being used for this and the science behind it!
But it's ok I have found what I'm looking for I just received an email......stay tuned the Health Report isn't on The WHO yet because it gets released to public later today....there are 170 known top causes (including cigarettes etc) processed meats are thought to be going to be included in that top 170, red meat will most likely be put in with the probable cause.......but stay tuned this one could be an interesting read today!0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.
And yet, your representation is an oversimplification of most of those cases.
Detoxes are often part of an MLM (which isn't a scientific issues, but an ethical one), and saying they have psychological value doesn't justify them - any number of actions can have placebo effect, and most scientific and medical associations consider it unethical to give people a treatment purely for placebo effect purposes.
Most people that argue against VLCD's are in the context of self-administered ones. Given that a VLCD crosses not just what makes scientific sense, but ethics because of the potential for self harm and even death, it never make sense to allow someone to VLCD without medical supervision. Both MFP and most posters are okay with VLCD's under medical supervision, with the caveat that they are never a necessity.
It is all best viewed in a Bayesian sense - sure, there are disease out there that affect metabolism, but given common inaccuracies in other areas, assuming someone has a self diagnosed one just isn't probable. Many frequent posters in favor of the established science have, in a sense, become expert systems in applying a methodology. Yes, it becomes a rote recital, but it works far more than the likely hood that we have a rare metabolic disorder. Indeed, many make claims that they fail to lose weight on calorie counts that would defy any capacity for a variance in metabolism, as metabolism has floors on it far more than ceilings.0 -
Yes! Sometimes, it's really hard to tell what's real and what's pseudoscience (at least for me). Feel free to add me.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.
And yet, your representation is an oversimplification of most of those cases.
Detoxes are often part of an MLM (which isn't a scientific issues, but an ethical one), and saying they have psychological value doesn't justify them - any number of actions can have placebo effect, and most scientific and medical associations consider it unethical to give people a treatment purely for placebo effect purposes.
Most people that argue against VLCD's are in the context of self-administered ones. Given that a VLCD crosses not just what makes scientific sense, but ethics because of the potential for self harm and even death, it never make sense to allow someone to VLCD without medical supervision. Both MFP and most posters are okay with VLCD's under medical supervision, with the caveat that they are never a necessity.
It is all best viewed in a Bayesian sense - sure, there are disease out there that affect metabolism, but given common inaccuracies in other areas, assuming someone has a self diagnosed one just isn't probable. Many frequent posters in favor of the established science have, in a sense, become expert systems in applying a methodology. Yes, it becomes a rote recital, but it works far more than the likely hood that we have a rare metabolic disorder. Indeed, many make claims that they fail to lose weight on calorie counts that would defy any capacity for a variance in metabolism, as metabolism has floors on it far more than ceilings.
Yep, my post was an oversimplification or more precisely a counter simplification. I wouldn't say you are one of the people bleeting a thoughtless echo of truth - I've seen you dig in thoughtfully - although sometimes you seem to argue for arguments sake.
As to the ethics of placebo? Please. First, I'm not prescribing anything, let along detox/cleanse. Second, in terms of weight loss - a low cal detox or cleanse for a short period is anything but a placebo - fasting for this time does show clinically significant results - people lose weight. Not a placebo. Is it an effective strategy? I don't think so - in the absence of learning how to manage calorie intake AND habits it isn't likely to be successful. But it isn't a weight loss placebo. It's a mealy-mouthed argument to question my ethics.
Short term VLCDs (<4 weeks) to reach sports or event weight have little to no risk of self harm or death. I've yet to see a scientific report that demonstrates this. And while I obviously don't recommend them (the site has a policy) many of us old timers have tried variants of protein sparing rapid weight loss diets. It's an LCD to VLCD.
We don't yet live in a society where it's even about "allowing someone to VLCD" - one can provide the risks concerning them - from metabolic issues, to gallstones, to depression, etc...
As to medical necessity under supervision? Who are you to say? That is really a clinical decision. In cases of significant comorbidity - and difficulties in adherence otherwise they make clinical sense
But feel free to show me evidence of large risks for short diets - I haven't found it. What I have found is that there is some evidence that short term rapid loss is more effective long term (for example, greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y and other studies support or contradict...)
Rare diseases? Are you really calling PCOS, diabetes, hypothyroidism, metabolic syndrome, depression, mobility handicaps rare diseases in the overweight population on this site?
Indeed some people make those claims that they can't lose at calories count that suggest something magical is going on. And yes, it makes sense to first confirm method and adhesion (and gasp, weight loss is possible without counting too). I'm in no way arguing that "cico doesn't work" so please don't place me in that camp. However reducing weight loss to a linear conservation of energy equation is outright silly and scientifically obtuse. Yet some people here do it constantly. Because science! Equations! Where does satiety, hunger signaling or a variety of other factors that effect long term adherence enter into that equation. Because the science of habit and the influence of the invisible mind are so much more difficult to quantify some people seem to ignore them.0 -
I'm a hospitalist and think I would qualify. I do occasionally raise a glass to the flying spaghetti monster.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Science as is so often used here is an epistemological construct where people believe that by calling upon it they have referenced some immutable Truth that applies to all people and all situations. I abhor this seagull cackle of me-too head-nodding where people do not look at evidence-based something or other and do not allow for arguments that are some times contradictory.
For example, I'm generally unsupportive of detoxes and the bandwagon 'in-the-name-of-science' people will baaa-baaa their way to beat down any discussion or talk about any detox or cleanse as completely useless and unnecessary.
A scientist will look at this and say, what evidence is there to their harm, or to their positive effect? And while generally I would not recommend them - I certainly DO read about them and DO consider the psychological value, the self sense that some people pay to them.
In other cases, there is published evidence of value for some health markers.
For example, one might consider that these short term cleanses might demonstrate the same value, vis a vis insulin, as calorie restriction for the period. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25912765)
Or sometimes VLCD make sense.
Or CICO, being the first order equation, may be highly influenced by second order factors such as metabolic disease, macro breakdown, satiety, etc.
If you aren't first and foremost self-critical you are not using science.
And yet, your representation is an oversimplification of most of those cases.
Detoxes are often part of an MLM (which isn't a scientific issues, but an ethical one), and saying they have psychological value doesn't justify them - any number of actions can have placebo effect, and most scientific and medical associations consider it unethical to give people a treatment purely for placebo effect purposes.
Most people that argue against VLCD's are in the context of self-administered ones. Given that a VLCD crosses not just what makes scientific sense, but ethics because of the potential for self harm and even death, it never make sense to allow someone to VLCD without medical supervision. Both MFP and most posters are okay with VLCD's under medical supervision, with the caveat that they are never a necessity.
It is all best viewed in a Bayesian sense - sure, there are disease out there that affect metabolism, but given common inaccuracies in other areas, assuming someone has a self diagnosed one just isn't probable. Many frequent posters in favor of the established science have, in a sense, become expert systems in applying a methodology. Yes, it becomes a rote recital, but it works far more than the likely hood that we have a rare metabolic disorder. Indeed, many make claims that they fail to lose weight on calorie counts that would defy any capacity for a variance in metabolism, as metabolism has floors on it far more than ceilings.
Yep, my post was an oversimplification or more precisely a counter simplification. I wouldn't say you are one of the people bleeting a thoughtless echo of truth - I've seen you dig in thoughtfully - although sometimes you seem to argue for arguments sake.
As to the ethics of placebo? Please. First, I'm not prescribing anything, let along detox/cleanse. Second, in terms of weight loss - a low cal detox or cleanse for a short period is anything but a placebo - fasting for this time does show clinically significant results - people lose weight. Not a placebo. Is it an effective strategy? I don't think so - in the absence of learning how to manage calorie intake AND habits it isn't likely to be successful. But it isn't a weight loss placebo. It's a mealy-mouthed argument to question my ethics.
Short term VLCDs (<4 weeks) to reach sports or event weight have little to no risk of self harm or death. I've yet to see a scientific report that demonstrates this. And while I obviously don't recommend them (the site has a policy) many of us old timers have tried variants of protein sparing rapid weight loss diets. It's an LCD to VLCD.
We don't yet live in a society where it's even about "allowing someone to VLCD" - one can provide the risks concerning them - from metabolic issues, to gallstones, to depression, etc...
As to medical necessity under supervision? Who are you to say? That is really a clinical decision. In cases of significant comorbidity - and difficulties in adherence otherwise they make clinical sense
But feel free to show me evidence of large risks for short diets - I haven't found it. What I have found is that there is some evidence that short term rapid loss is more effective long term (for example, greater weight reduction and long-term maintenance: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12529-010-9092-y and other studies support or contradict...)
Rare diseases? Are you really calling PCOS, diabetes, hypothyroidism, metabolic syndrome, depression, mobility handicaps rare diseases in the overweight population on this site?
Indeed some people make those claims that they can't lose at calories count that suggest something magical is going on. And yes, it makes sense to first confirm method and adhesion (and gasp, weight loss is possible without counting too). I'm in no way arguing that "cico doesn't work" so please don't place me in that camp. However reducing weight loss to a linear conservation of energy equation is outright silly and scientifically obtuse. Yet some people here do it constantly. Because science! Equations! Where does satiety, hunger signaling or a variety of other factors that effect long term adherence enter into that equation. Because the science of habit and the influence of the invisible mind are so much more difficult to quantify some people seem to ignore them.
Misrepresentation. Obviously one can't significantly alter non-water weight in a non-placebo fashion. We both know that's beyond the capacity of the placebo effect. Most of the purported health effects of a cleanse or detox are placebo. Yes, I am aware that repeated fasting as a life-style decision may have cardiovascular benefits - hard to say as the studies I've seen involve religious fasting, particularly of Mormons who admittedly have huge confounds. They have very little do with the typical MFPer coming on looking to detox to jumpstart their metabolism.
And I'm not questioning your ethics. I'm sure outside of this discussion, you're almost as likely as anyone of the other pro science brigade to dissuade people. I hold you in higher esteem than that. I do, however, recall at least one specific instance of a person on this site (who had more issues with his advice than just this once) who tried to persuade someone to try to over exercise to lose weight in hopes they'd exercise enough to see some results and then start a habit. So it isn't out of the realm of possibilities that someone would unethically encourage it.
I'm pretty sure people have died trying to make weight for sports, more so from dehydration than their VLCD, but the VLCD weighs in on (sorry, bad pun) the risks of that dehydration. There's also an increased risk for eating disorder development in people that do sports that have a weigh-in. It isn't risk free. Redefining it as large risk then becomes moving the goal posts.
As for medical necessity, I already said done under medical supervision is acceptable. What I am to say is, I fail to see what health risk a person is at that losing the weight rapidly is going to have immediate positives in excess of a slower, equivalent weight loss.
Those diseases are red herring. None of them will significantly alter one's BMR, and only mobility ones are liable to significantly alter TDEE outside of choice. Yes, even hypothyroidism won't lower BMR to the extent people proclaim - it certainly requires medical treatment, but it isn't enough to cover the people who are 50 lb+ overweight and complain they can't lose on 1200 calories. Like I said, there is a very strong floor to the BMR and TDEE a person can have. Not just thermodynamics, but actual biological pathways that no one could develop out of, prevent metabolic rates from going below certain levels.
As for arguing for argument sake. Yeah, I engage in arguments easily on MFP, including on this one. I seem to recall someone that argued the laws of thermodynamics apply only to closed systems just to make an argument for arguments sake, so I'm hardly alone in that respect on MFP.
Personally, I see the call of science as less epistemological talisman and more of a tribalistic shibboleth - people who advocate science are usually more willing to discuss the minutia with a less hard edge with people that already show the signs of science. I think we both would find there's a world of shades and differences you and I might discuss on these subjects than either of us would with someone who just showed up on MFP saying they need to detox their dead metabolism because bad carbs mean they can't lose weight on 200 calories a day. I think that's where the hard edges on science and advise happen.0 -
You know what? I ate a piece of bacon this morning. I also know beyond certainty that I'm going to die some day, hopefully later rather than sooner. Coincidence??0
-
summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
I'll go with the stack of peer reviewed evidence on nitrates, nitrites, smoke, and browned meat. I wish that the WHO would be more specific about what it is in processed meats that contributes to cancer risk.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »lithezebra wrote: »summerkissed wrote: »Has science now gone too far? The World Health Organization has released that Red meat will now be listed at the same level as cigarettes, asbestos and arsenic on the cancer causing scale!!! So now red meat is as bad for you as smoking!
http://www.medicaldaily.com/red-meat-just-likely-give-you-cancer-cigarette-world-health-organization-says-358750
Can anyone find the research confirming this? And I mean confirming this like the research on cigarettes and asbestos!!!
They should have said that nitrates cause cancer. You can get bacon without nitrates. The smoking process also produces carcinogens. Oh well.
But, but:
http://chriskresser.com/the-nitrate-and-nitrite-myth-another-reason-not-to-fear-bacon/
Hell, they make nitrite supplements that supposedly improve your health.
I'll go with the stack of peer reviewed evidence on nitrates, nitrites, smoke, and browned meat. I wish that the WHO would be more specific about what it is in processed meats that contributes to cancer risk.
Has this come about now though because of the LCHF movement where people are eating processed meats in massive amounts?? I'll still have my snags on the bbq, char grilled steak and bacon and eggs on Saturday mornings.....but I know heaps of people eating bacon, ham, sausages in huge amounts everyday with little to no carbs because they want to lose weight....Why does everything have to be to the extreme?0 -
Meh, we're getting a little off topic and there are bacon arguments elsewhere in the forums. We're here for science!
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
- 403 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
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions