Daily goals: Sugar
Replies
-
Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar.
There are many things you body needs and if you are displacing those things and substituting unneeded sugar calories instead, eventually you will have nutritional or metabolic consequences.
Sugar is fun to eat, don' mistake it for necessary.
What medical condition would sugar cause in the context of a diet that hits micros and macros??
Hmm. I've done my research. Start reading.
Show me one medical condition that specifically states that sugar causes that medical condition... I am talking causation, not correlation.
Dental Caries.0 -
I see higher numbers here, @rabbitjb . I think the last time I added it up it was something like 20%, including estimated undiagnosed.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/statistics/?referrer=https://www.google.ca/
Worth noting that the US currently puts the cutoff for IR at a much lower level than many other countries, including the UK. And estimates for undiagnosed are questionable because people with risk factors are far more likely to be tested (this is my own experience).
Also, one big tipoff for IR is that one is not satisfied when eating lots of processed carbs and has trouble sticking with a calorie limit, which of course is not something that OP said at all.0 -
Sugar, the staff of life. It is natural, and it is needed. Most obviously for infants and diabetics. But glucose runs in your veins too, @yarwell .
Yes, and the point is that glucose runs in my veins irrespective of whether I eat any sugar or indeed carbohydrate at all.
You do understand that ? What's in your blood stream is influenced by, but not wholly dependant on what you eat.0 -
Show me a baby's formula that doesn't contain sugar. If it's not necessary, why is it there? Sugars are fast-acting carbs. Sometimes we need fast-acting.
Show me a smart diabetic who doesn't carry emergency sugar with them. If it wasn't necessary, why are there glucotabs?
I've never met a Type 2 diabetic that does carry sugar and reported incidences of hypoglycaemia in T2D are pretty rare and probably all down to certain drugs or insulin (most diabetics I know are only on Metformin. I'm more likely to meet T2Ds with a blood glucose of 10 (180 in American) than anyone worrying about hypoglycaemia.
T2Ds on a ketogenic diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ and hypoglycaemia isn't mentioned, just reducing medications.
Type 1s yes I've witnessed and treated hypoglycaemia. My cousin died at 14 from inappropriate treatment of her diabetes in an emergency. Paramedics carry 5g shots of glucose. But this is like arguing that aspirin is an essential because people get headaches.
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body. Go tell the experts at the IoM that they got it wrong and carbohydrate intake is a pre-requisite for life. (Thinking about it, the sugar in formula could be there just to provide a dry sterile powder, but I don't know that).
Unless the OP is a diabetic, which I doubt, how does this even apply to the OP?
Go back and read again, jgnatca was clinging to a life raft of diabetes and infant nutrition to support an idea that sugars were in some way essential / necessary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
0 -
Also, who cares if sugar is "necessary" or not. (The body basically makes it if you don't eat it, which is why claiming it's toxic or inherently garbage is absurd.) The question was whether eating above the MFP limit (actually a number that seemed lower than the current MFP limit) from nutrient dense foods with fiber like apples and some likely sweetened greek yogurt (with lots of protein) is something to worry about. So far no one has given any credible reason as to why it would be, assuming someone otherwise meets their macros and has a good diet and, rolling eyes, follows normal recommended dental hygiene.0
-
Show me a baby's formula that doesn't contain sugar. If it's not necessary, why is it there? Sugars are fast-acting carbs. Sometimes we need fast-acting.
Show me a smart diabetic who doesn't carry emergency sugar with them. If it wasn't necessary, why are there glucotabs?
I've never met a Type 2 diabetic that does carry sugar and reported incidences of hypoglycaemia in T2D are pretty rare and probably all down to certain drugs or insulin (most diabetics I know are only on Metformin. I'm more likely to meet T2Ds with a blood glucose of 10 (180 in American) than anyone worrying about hypoglycaemia.
T2Ds on a ketogenic diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ and hypoglycaemia isn't mentioned, just reducing medications.
Type 1s yes I've witnessed and treated hypoglycaemia. My cousin died at 14 from inappropriate treatment of her diabetes in an emergency. Paramedics carry 5g shots of glucose. But this is like arguing that aspirin is an essential because people get headaches.
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body. Go tell the experts at the IoM that they got it wrong and carbohydrate intake is a pre-requisite for life. (Thinking about it, the sugar in formula could be there just to provide a dry sterile powder, but I don't know that).
Unless the OP is a diabetic, which I doubt, how does this even apply to the OP?
Go back and read again, jgnatca was clinging to a life raft of diabetes and infant nutrition to support an idea that sugars were in some way essential / necessary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
Doesn't say a jot about dietary sugars. People who eat no sugar are normoglycaemic.
Unless the brain has a secret passage to smuggle carbs past my bloodstream it gets the same fuel via my bloodstream as anyone else without me eating any sugar. In fact my liver is hell bent on oversupplying the stuff.0 -
Sugar, the staff of life. It is natural, and it is needed. Most obviously for infants and diabetics. But glucose runs in your veins too, @yarwell .
Yes, and the point is that glucose runs in my veins irrespective of whether I eat any sugar or indeed carbohydrate at all.
You do understand that ? What's in your blood stream is influenced by, but not wholly dependant on what you eat.
Yes we understand
But there's no issue with eating sugar either0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »OP, don't stress the sugar thing too much, especially since the majority of it is coming from whole and nutritious foods.
I have no problem with plain yogurt, but put sweetened yogurt in the treat box with ice cream due to the added sugar.
Just for comparison, I used a cup of ice cream, although a serving is actually 1/2 cup.
17 grams of protein for 240 calories is much better than a treat, added sugar be damned. The separation is silly anyway.
Cottage cheese is a far better source of protein from dairy than sweetened yogurt:
Again, I used a cup for comparison, although an actual serving is 1/2 cup
0 -
Show me a baby's formula that doesn't contain sugar. If it's not necessary, why is it there? Sugars are fast-acting carbs. Sometimes we need fast-acting.
Show me a smart diabetic who doesn't carry emergency sugar with them. If it wasn't necessary, why are there glucotabs?
I've never met a Type 2 diabetic that does carry sugar and reported incidences of hypoglycaemia in T2D are pretty rare and probably all down to certain drugs or insulin (most diabetics I know are only on Metformin. I'm more likely to meet T2Ds with a blood glucose of 10 (180 in American) than anyone worrying about hypoglycaemia.
T2Ds on a ketogenic diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ and hypoglycaemia isn't mentioned, just reducing medications.
Type 1s yes I've witnessed and treated hypoglycaemia. My cousin died at 14 from inappropriate treatment of her diabetes in an emergency. Paramedics carry 5g shots of glucose. But this is like arguing that aspirin is an essential because people get headaches.
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body. Go tell the experts at the IoM that they got it wrong and carbohydrate intake is a pre-requisite for life. (Thinking about it, the sugar in formula could be there just to provide a dry sterile powder, but I don't know that).
Unless the OP is a diabetic, which I doubt, how does this even apply to the OP?
Go back and read again, jgnatca was clinging to a life raft of diabetes and infant nutrition to support an idea that sugars were in some way essential / necessary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
Doesn't say a jot about dietary sugars. People who eat no sugar are normoglycaemic.
Unless the brain has a secret passage to smuggle carbs past my bloodstream it gets the same fuel via my bloodstream as anyone else without me eating any sugar. In fact my liver is hell bent on oversupplying the stuff.
And we keep asking what's the problem with eating sugars within a balanced nutritionally sound diet if you have no medical issues0 -
0 -
Show me a baby's formula that doesn't contain sugar. If it's not necessary, why is it there? Sugars are fast-acting carbs. Sometimes we need fast-acting.
Show me a smart diabetic who doesn't carry emergency sugar with them. If it wasn't necessary, why are there glucotabs?
I've never met a Type 2 diabetic that does carry sugar and reported incidences of hypoglycaemia in T2D are pretty rare and probably all down to certain drugs or insulin (most diabetics I know are only on Metformin. I'm more likely to meet T2Ds with a blood glucose of 10 (180 in American) than anyone worrying about hypoglycaemia.
T2Ds on a ketogenic diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ and hypoglycaemia isn't mentioned, just reducing medications.
Type 1s yes I've witnessed and treated hypoglycaemia. My cousin died at 14 from inappropriate treatment of her diabetes in an emergency. Paramedics carry 5g shots of glucose. But this is like arguing that aspirin is an essential because people get headaches.
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body. Go tell the experts at the IoM that they got it wrong and carbohydrate intake is a pre-requisite for life. (Thinking about it, the sugar in formula could be there just to provide a dry sterile powder, but I don't know that).
Unless the OP is a diabetic, which I doubt, how does this even apply to the OP?
Go back and read again, jgnatca was clinging to a life raft of diabetes and infant nutrition to support an idea that sugars were in some way essential / necessary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
Doesn't say a jot about dietary sugars. People who eat no sugar are normoglycaemic.
Unless the brain has a secret passage to smuggle carbs past my bloodstream it gets the same fuel via my bloodstream as anyone else without me eating any sugar. In fact my liver is hell bent on oversupplying the stuff.
And we keep asking what's the problem with eating sugars within a balanced nutritionally sound diet if you have no medical issues
dunno, why are the WHO motivated to have a limit ? or the UK's SACN ?
I personally haven't seen a strong case that the typical ~100 g/day consumption of sugar is an issue, in fact the EU RDI is about that. Most people here eat less than that too.
There's the dental caries thing, obviously, and some weak epidemiology in a few areas but I haven't seen the smoking gun as I posted earlier. Somewhere around fatty liver and elevated triglycerides perhaps but if the sugar is consumed in a meal with appropriate dental hygiene I have never viewed it as a problem. I used to make 35 t/h of the stuff ;-)0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »
LOL0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »OP, don't stress the sugar thing too much, especially since the majority of it is coming from whole and nutritious foods.
I have no problem with plain yogurt, but put sweetened yogurt in the treat box with ice cream due to the added sugar.
Just for comparison, I used a cup of ice cream, although a serving is actually 1/2 cup.
17 grams of protein for 240 calories is much better than a treat, added sugar be damned. The separation is silly anyway.
Cottage cheese is a far better source of protein from dairy than sweetened yogurt:
Again, I used a cup for comparison, although an actual serving is 1/2 cup
It also tastes absolutely disgusting if you eat it pure.0 -
Show me a baby's formula that doesn't contain sugar. If it's not necessary, why is it there? Sugars are fast-acting carbs. Sometimes we need fast-acting.
Show me a smart diabetic who doesn't carry emergency sugar with them. If it wasn't necessary, why are there glucotabs?
I've never met a Type 2 diabetic that does carry sugar and reported incidences of hypoglycaemia in T2D are pretty rare and probably all down to certain drugs or insulin (most diabetics I know are only on Metformin. I'm more likely to meet T2Ds with a blood glucose of 10 (180 in American) than anyone worrying about hypoglycaemia.
T2Ds on a ketogenic diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ and hypoglycaemia isn't mentioned, just reducing medications.
Type 1s yes I've witnessed and treated hypoglycaemia. My cousin died at 14 from inappropriate treatment of her diabetes in an emergency. Paramedics carry 5g shots of glucose. But this is like arguing that aspirin is an essential because people get headaches.
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body. Go tell the experts at the IoM that they got it wrong and carbohydrate intake is a pre-requisite for life. (Thinking about it, the sugar in formula could be there just to provide a dry sterile powder, but I don't know that).
Unless the OP is a diabetic, which I doubt, how does this even apply to the OP?
Go back and read again, jgnatca was clinging to a life raft of diabetes and infant nutrition to support an idea that sugars were in some way essential / necessary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
Doesn't say a jot about dietary sugars. People who eat no sugar are normoglycaemic.
Unless the brain has a secret passage to smuggle carbs past my bloodstream it gets the same fuel via my bloodstream as anyone else without me eating any sugar. In fact my liver is hell bent on oversupplying the stuff.
And we keep asking what's the problem with eating sugars within a balanced nutritionally sound diet if you have no medical issues
dunno, why are the WHO motivated to have a limit ? or the UK's SACN ?
I personally haven't seen a strong case that the typical ~100 g/day consumption of sugar is an issue, in fact the EU RDI is about that. Most people here eat less than that too.
There's the dental caries thing, obviously, and some weak epidemiology in a few areas but I haven't seen the smoking gun as I posted earlier. Somewhere around fatty liver and elevated triglycerides perhaps but if the sugar is consumed in a meal with appropriate dental hygiene I have never viewed it as a problem. I used to make 35 t/h of the stuff ;-)
They are very clear as to why and you should know it too because you've read the WHO report if I remember. The caries thing (which can be mostly prevented by having something called hygiene) and that foods with lots of sugar often have many calories and not much micronutrition. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less. Calories and caries.0 -
And again with the necessary stuff. If you wanted to only put necessary things in your mouth, multivitamin pills, a shotglass of fat and a few protein shakes made with water should be your daily food, nothing else. I've said that so often now I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Since none of you are going to eat that way, arguing you should stay away from things that aren't necessary is kind of hollow.0
-
Lowest common denominator thinking I reckon...cut sugar cut calories cut obesity0
-
0
-
the_log_lady wrote: »
Well, insulin does start responses that supress hunger. And everyone has heard their mom tell them not to eat snacks or else they won't be able to finish dinner.0 -
Lowest common denominator thinking I reckon...cut sugar cut calories cut obesity
Yes, probably an easy goal as a "discretionary calorie". The amount of intrinsic sugars in the WHO's 5-a-day is less than 100 grams/day. There's no evidence of nutritional deficiency due to sugar consumption, people might choose to eat beige food but that's not really a sugar issue.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »OP, don't stress the sugar thing too much, especially since the majority of it is coming from whole and nutritious foods.
I have no problem with plain yogurt, but put sweetened yogurt in the treat box with ice cream due to the added sugar.
Just for comparison, I used a cup of ice cream, although a serving is actually 1/2 cup.
17 grams of protein for 240 calories is much better than a treat, added sugar be damned. The separation is silly anyway.
Cottage cheese is a far better source of protein from dairy than sweetened yogurt:
Again, I used a cup for comparison, although an actual serving is 1/2 cup
In the context of a diet that hits macros and micros source does not matter...Just like source of sugar does not matter in the same dietary context0 -
stevencloser wrote: »And again with the necessary stuff. If you wanted to only put necessary things in your mouth, multivitamin pills, a shotglass of fat and a few protein shakes made with water should be your daily food, nothing else. I've said that so often now I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Since none of you are going to eat that way, arguing you should stay away from things that aren't necessary is kind of hollow.
Cosign0 -
-
Show me a baby's formula that doesn't contain sugar. If it's not necessary, why is it there? Sugars are fast-acting carbs. Sometimes we need fast-acting.
Show me a smart diabetic who doesn't carry emergency sugar with them. If it wasn't necessary, why are there glucotabs?
I've never met a Type 2 diabetic that does carry sugar and reported incidences of hypoglycaemia in T2D are pretty rare and probably all down to certain drugs or insulin (most diabetics I know are only on Metformin. I'm more likely to meet T2Ds with a blood glucose of 10 (180 in American) than anyone worrying about hypoglycaemia.
T2Ds on a ketogenic diet http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633336/ and hypoglycaemia isn't mentioned, just reducing medications.
Type 1s yes I've witnessed and treated hypoglycaemia. My cousin died at 14 from inappropriate treatment of her diabetes in an emergency. Paramedics carry 5g shots of glucose. But this is like arguing that aspirin is an essential because people get headaches.
Why does baby "formula" exist ? no idea, infant nutrition isn't my thing. The question about necessity requires evidence that a baby has to have sugary milk, rather than it being a convenient circulating substrate in the mothers body. Go tell the experts at the IoM that they got it wrong and carbohydrate intake is a pre-requisite for life. (Thinking about it, the sugar in formula could be there just to provide a dry sterile powder, but I don't know that).
Unless the OP is a diabetic, which I doubt, how does this even apply to the OP?
Go back and read again, jgnatca was clinging to a life raft of diabetes and infant nutrition to support an idea that sugars were in some way essential / necessary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3900881/
The mammalian brain depends upon glucose as its main source of energy, and tight regulation of glucose metabolism is critical for brain physiology. Consistent with its critical role for physiological brain function, disruption of normal glucose metabolism as well as its interdependence with cell death pathways forms the pathophysiological basis for many brain disorders.
Doesn't say a jot about dietary sugars. People who eat no sugar are normoglycaemic.
Unless the brain has a secret passage to smuggle carbs past my bloodstream it gets the same fuel via my bloodstream as anyone else without me eating any sugar. In fact my liver is hell bent on oversupplying the stuff.
And we keep asking what's the problem with eating sugars within a balanced nutritionally sound diet if you have no medical issues
dunno, why are the WHO motivated to have a limit ?
They explain it well. It's about calories and getting a diet with adequate nutrients. (And teeth, of course, which again are more affected by dental hygiene.)0 -
stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »OP, don't stress the sugar thing too much, especially since the majority of it is coming from whole and nutritious foods.
I have no problem with plain yogurt, but put sweetened yogurt in the treat box with ice cream due to the added sugar.
Just for comparison, I used a cup of ice cream, although a serving is actually 1/2 cup.
17 grams of protein for 240 calories is much better than a treat, added sugar be damned. The separation is silly anyway.
Cottage cheese is a far better source of protein from dairy than sweetened yogurt:
Again, I used a cup for comparison, although an actual serving is 1/2 cup
It also tastes absolutely disgusting if you eat it pure.
I think it's delicious, but it's silly to say it's inherently better or worse (especially without considering how much sat fat is in the kind you choose and how much added sugar or sugar in general you are consuming or what you eat it with). If someone likes greek yogurt sweetened only and eats it as a dessert or if someone only likes oatmeal with added sugar or, say, rhubarb with some added sugar, it's fundamentalism as opposed to sense to claim that the added sugar makes the food no longer good for you or worth eating. What matters is the overall diet.0 -
Sugar always generates some lively discussion here. Regardless of where your agreement lies, there's no need to insult people by calling them dumb and stupid.0
-
Lowest common denominator thinking I reckon...cut sugar cut calories cut obesity
Yes, probably an easy goal as a "discretionary calorie". The amount of intrinsic sugars in the WHO's 5-a-day is less than 100 grams/day. There's no evidence of nutritional deficiency due to sugar consumption, people might choose to eat beige food but that's not really a sugar issue.
So in context, you would agree that sugar isn't the devil and can be a part of a healthy diet? Realizing that people on this forum are going to make better food choices than the average person out there?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »And again with the necessary stuff. If you wanted to only put necessary things in your mouth, multivitamin pills, a shotglass of fat and a few protein shakes made with water should be your daily food, nothing else. I've said that so often now I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Since none of you are going to eat that way, arguing you should stay away from things that aren't necessary is kind of hollow.
Neo could have had a lifetime of steak and wine, but he chose the gloop.
0 -
But is there sugar in the glop??stevencloser wrote: »And again with the necessary stuff. If you wanted to only put necessary things in your mouth, multivitamin pills, a shotglass of fat and a few protein shakes made with water should be your daily food, nothing else. I've said that so often now I'm starting to sound like a broken record. Since none of you are going to eat that way, arguing you should stay away from things that aren't necessary is kind of hollow.
Neo could have had a lifetime of steak and wine, but he chose the gloop.
0 -
I think around half of the population seem to be ables to eat a diet with added sugars and higher carbs. The rest should eat low carbohydrate or, at the very least, moderate carbohydrates.
Insulin resistance is thought to include prediabetes, Type 2 diabetes, PCOS, NAFLD, and Alzheimer's disease as well as other possible neurological diseases (like possibly MS and Parkinson's). Roughly half of North Americans will develop one of these health problems in their lifetime, and sugar intake, along with excessive carbs and obesity, is generally thought to contribute to those problems.
I thought I could eat sugars with no problem until suddenly I couldn't. I have a good mainly friend who loves her sweets and is just slightly overweight. Now in her mid 70s she as Alzheimer's. there was no way to reduction that back in the 80s when she was eating sugars with no apparent problems. I wonder if she could have turned back time and attempted to prevent her dementia with a low sugar diet if she would have... I would have changed things for myself.
In my mind, sugar's only real benefit for the average person is that it tastes good. It as no needed micronutrients and has the potential to contribute to IR problems, never mind the act that those with a higher sugar intake are more likely to develop certain cancers, have a more difficult time beating some cancers, and are more likely to develop CAD.
IMO, the only thing going for added sugars (or a diet high in carbs) is that tastes good. Sugar is a bit of a risk for the (apparently) healthy person, IMO.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions