Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What is clean eating?
Replies
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
But aren't most -- if not all cucumbers -- grown by humans the result of a process of selection where we already influenced the shape, texture, color of the final vegetable?
We've already tampered with them. We've already changed them. The cucumber isn't a item that just appeared without human interference. Vegetables aren't just the color they are -- it's the end result of endless human tampering.
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
Not just recipes - that's my knee-jerk response to about 90% of the threads that get posted...:)
Yep. Exactly why I don't post very often.Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
When I see posts asking for clean eating recipes I respond with recipes I'd consider clean and let them decide whether to try it or ignore it. I just assume they define it the same way I do.
See now, that's helpful. Sometimes it feels like many on MFP (no one in particular in my thoughts here
) are so caught up in being right/getting in the last word/trying to change people's opinions that actually providing an answer that is useful to the original post falls by the wayside (the recent "heating blueberries" thread comes to mind).
Someone coming into a thread stating "eat clean" as an answer to concerns about plateauing/gaining/eating habits is unhelpful because there really is no solid definition of eating clean, and it's not like it's some magical formula (even if everyone could agree on a definition) that's going to solve all problems. However, it seems equally unhelpful to have an extensive discussion in said thread regarding what "clean eating" is. Now if someone posted asking about what clean eating means... I'd be down for that discussion (hence, why I'm here). I suppose I'm reading into this discussion a bit of the other thread (sadly now closed) where people were discussing the semantic arguments surrounding "sugar addiction." Before joining MFP, I'd never really seen people have such heated discussions over diet preferences and definitely not over the semantics of the definitions those diet preferences. I'm a live and let live, pragmatic kind of person. I don't care how other people choose to eat, unless they're doing something harmful to themselves.
Even in this thread, it feels akin to beating a dead horse at this point. There is no single definition of clean eating - I think we could all agree on that, no? Are the "moderates" in this thread just trying to understand why people define certain foods as clean/less clean? Does it matter?
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
There is also corn oil and salt. You consider these unnatural?
Why is there an association between "clean" and "natural"? Would I be correct in assuming that people who make that association see "natural" as a good thing? Why is this? Why is "natural" better?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
There is also corn oil and salt. You consider these unnatural?
Neither are used in their natural state.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
So there is no distinction between selectively splicing seeds to result in a plant that has a greener color and dumping green food coloring chemicals on a plant?
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »The problem with this topic seems to be the baggage that everyone carries in from previous threads. So even though users are articulating something that is not very controversial or outlandish, they bear the burden of getting lumped in with the fringe people from other conversations.
Well, yes, since the thread was started to discuss the answers given in multiple threads to the question, which show there's no consistent understanding (and the general common thread "no processing" is not applied consistently).Cleanliness itself is nebulous; my concept of a clean house, clean car, or clean body isn’t commonly defined within my own household, let alone universal to the human race. Does that mean that we should abandon cleanliness for lack of a universal understanding of what it is? Of course not.
But in the food sense "clean" isn't being used literally (thus the outrage at the dumb joke that always gets made about washing food). It's being used in some other sense -- either as a synonym for "healthy" or to mean "not processed" or to mean "no additives of certain sorts" or, as with Need2, to mean "natural" (but I don't think "natural" is all that clear either, as my questions earlier in the thread indicate).
Given that it doesn't seem to aid communication, the question becomes, what's the purpose of clinging to the term, especially as it's popularity increasingly means it's getting co-opted and used by marketers (see, e.g., Panera) and fad diet purveyers?
After all, as I think we established earlier in the thread, there's no more commonality between how self-identified clean eaters eater and individual clean eaters and moderates. IMO, calling yourself a "clean eater" is often a way to make yourself (not you -- I mean generally) feel all virtuous or better than others without actually doing much to establish a healthy diet pattern (at MFP it's more often than not "I'm a clean eater, I cut out processed foods 6 days ago and now can't manage a Reeses without feeling sick and bloated -- haven't managed to add vegetables yet, but I'm working up to it!). And, yeah, that there's an obviously intended religious or purity or anti-industrialization message is worth considering, as I don't think modern improvements are necessarily bad or less authentic or pure than older ways of life that were harder. (I also prefer to cook from whole foods, but I like that it's a lot easier for me to get these whole foods than it would have been in 1850, even if I do choose to try and buy from local farms or a fish market and meat market and the like vs. just the supermarket.)What is my definition of clean eating? I have a few broad parameters, mostly concerning minimizing industrial food processing ingredients. I try to eat food with less of those. I don’t think that makes them more nutritional, it is just that if I’m eating a pickle, and have a choice, I would choose the one without Yellow #5 and Polysorbate 80 added, because I don't see the point of consuming extra lab chemicals just to have a yellower pickle with a firmer texture, that is of no value to me.
This is IMO the most clear use of "clean," but not how it's usually used at MFP, where it gets confused with being a weight-loss-focused way of eating or with claims that it's more nutritious. I still would not use "clean" for this meaning in that I just think it does have too much ambiguity and baggage -- foods that have additives I avoid or additives that I may not know what they are aren't therefore "dirty" (and that's what not clean means to me). But my argument here is just with the term, not you making the decision to eat this way. I rarely consume such ingredients not because I actively avoid them, but because I just happen not to buy a lot of packaged stuff and prefer cooking for myself or going to restaurants where the use of such ingredients is less common.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
You're the one claiming there is a distinction, that one is less desirable than the other. I'm not sure why that is and I was hoping you could explain it to me.
You're speaking out against the "tampering mentality." But that mentality has already shaped the pickle you have said is more desirable.
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.stevencloser wrote: »
One of them is far more intrusive to the course of nature than the other. And it's not adding a few drops of food coloring.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »I don't go out of my way not to see eye to eye, but as I noted previously it's pretty clear that we do not see eye to eye on this topic and likely never will. I will start off by saying I am 100% in favor of reducing stress whenever possible.
BUT, if someone were interested in living in a clean eating utopia then I don't see why they wouldn't take satisfaction in raising/hunting their own natural foods. Satisfaction leads to reduced stress in my experience.
Because -- AGAIN -- a lot of people think that clean eating is better and somehow more healthy or nutritious and that the reason they are fat is because of "chemicals" or that they eat "processed" foods. Or maybe, like me, they just get drawn to extreme thinking in such matters and so start telling themselves that it's really not good enough to buy some pickles, they must make their own (and if it's not cucumber season they must wait until it is). It's not good enough to buy some canned tomatoes for pasta sauce, it's not good enough to buy dried pasta or canned or even dried beans, so on. Somehow that avoiding these things is more virtuous than not.
I think if you are a crafty sort that enjoys gardening (and has the space) and cooking and so on that these can all be fun things. Some of them I find fun and others I probably would under the right circumstances. But it seems obvious that many people attracted to the term "clean eating" or who buy into the hype wouldn't find these things fun.
Also, one reason I find them fun is that I can admit to myself they are something I do as a hobby, for fun. Not something essential for health or virtue. Just like buying soap isn't inherently worse or less "natural" or virtuous than making it.
It's also true that in the city, where I live, a lot of the options for buying farm-raised, local, organic, free range, etc. stuff (or crafty soaps, for that matter) are both more expensive and really obviously patronized by a certain subculture that is more educated and privileged than the average (and shares various other qualities). I am generally in this subculture, and happily partake of a lot of it (while maintaining a sense of humor about it) -- and there are some cheaper options, although they also are more time-consuming -- but think it's worth being aware that in some ways it's just something else for overly-privileged people to get self-righteous and think they are better because of or blame others for not caring enough to do things that probably don't matter really. To start seeing how one eats as "cleaner" than how others eat seems to me a rather nasty way to think and a step along this direction.
And yes, rather than saying "I don't agree, but see why this might be a concern, however, what about blah, blah" I firmly expect you to say "well, that's just not common sense and I don't see that at all in my world so it must not exist and isn't worth thinking about at all."0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
I don't understand the significance of those differences to making a food choice, no. I really don't.
There may be a specific additive that I choose to avoid, but avoiding an additive just because it is an additive . . . no, I don't get that. It looks to me like making a fetish of the "natural" while ignoring the profound impact human choices and actions have already had on the various foods we eat. Why is seed splicing more "natural" than coloring a food?
And this is a debate section. Debate for the sake of debate is what it exists for.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »
I think you understand the distinction between the characteristics gained by selective breeding and those gained by chemical alteration. If not, there is a wealth of information available on the interwebs. At some point this just turns into debate for the sake of debate, I would rather just move on.
The social and environmental impact of the agricultural revolution is a fascinating topic, and one bears little on my nutrition plan.
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.0 -
Yep. Exactly why I don't post very often.
See now, that's helpful. Sometimes it feels like many on MFP (no one in particular in my thoughts here ) are so caught up in being right/getting in the last word/trying to change people's opinions that actually providing an answer that is useful to the original post falls by the wayside (the recent "heating blueberries" thread comes to mind).
I don't see why that's more helpful than saying "I have lots of ideas for desserts that would seem to me to be 'clean' under some of the common usages or lower cal, if that's what you are really getting at -- if you clarify what you mean by clean, I'd love to share them?"
Or, as I've said over and over re the clean recipes: "I think most cookbooks are based on cooking from whole foods, if that's what you mean by clean, here are some ideas [then I give a list usually including the basic Bittman book as a beginner book, the Bittman Fish book if someone is interested in cooking fish, Barbara Kafka's Vegetable Love and Greene on Greens as a couple of good sources for vegetables, and whatever seasonal cookbook or two I happen to be thinking of]." I also usually link 101cookbooks as an excellent internet site for cooking based around fresh ingredients, vegetables, and legumes and the like, and perhaps mention epicurious as a good basic recipe site with a ton of recipes and the ability to put in your own preferences.
I don't ever argue about the term "clean eating" in those threads, but it's bizarre how often the OP refuses to explain what they mean by clean or act as if you must be a moron not to get it. (Kind of like the blueberry OP decided everyone but Yarwell was dumb not to see that her first post was 100% clear in every way.)0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
Salad is (typically) not just lettuce. Unnatural because we're putting multiple ingredients together?0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Neither are used in their natural state.
So iceberg lettuce sprinkled with olive oil and sea salt (neither in their "natural state") would be just as unclean as Fritos?
Or does it have to LOOK unclean like Fritos first?1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Fritos are not just ground corn. The "naturalness" of food is the measure of how clean a food is.
You realize that is circular reasoning, right?0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
So iceberg lettuce sprinkled with olive oil and sea salt (neither in their "natural state") would be just as unclean as Fritos?
Or does it have to LOOK unclean like Fritos first?
Not sure what you mean by "look unclean", but if the lettuce were ground first then I don't see why it would be more clean than the Fritos.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
Salad is (typically) not just lettuce. Unnatural because we're putting multiple ingredients together?
As said previously in this thread, I don't think number of ingredients affects how clean a food is. I realize some others use that criteria but I can only answer for myself.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
I don't see why that's more helpful than saying "I have lots of ideas for desserts that would seem to me to be 'clean' under some of the common usages or lower cal, if that's what you are really getting at -- if you clarify what you mean by clean, I'd love to share them?"
Or, as I've said over and over re the clean recipes: "I think most cookbooks are based on cooking from whole foods, if that's what you mean by clean, here are some ideas [then I give a list usually including the basic Bittman book as a beginner book, the Bittman Fish book if someone is interested in cooking fish, Barbara Kafka's Vegetable Love and Greene on Greens as a couple of good sources for vegetables, and whatever seasonal cookbook or two I happen to be thinking of]." I also usually link 101cookbooks as an excellent internet site for cooking based around fresh ingredients, vegetables, and legumes and the like, and perhaps mention epicurious as a good basic recipe site with a ton of recipes and the ability to put in your own preferences.
I don't ever argue about the term "clean eating" in those threads, but it's bizarre how often the OP refuses to explain what they mean by clean or act as if you must be a moron not to get it. (Kind of like the blueberry OP decided everyone but Yarwell was dumb not to see that her first post was 100% clear in every way.)
I never said Need2's response is more helpful than what you stated in your post. Asking someone to clarify exactly what they are looking for (particularly in a recipe request thread) only makes sense. What about a thread where people state they're looking for clean eaters to friend? IMO, it becomes less helpful there because the person is clearly a self-identified clean eater looking for others who self-identify that way. And what about the threads where someone is looking for help because they've "plateaued" and someone comes in suggesting "clean eating?" Invariably, someone else comes in saying something along the lines of "'clean eating' isn't necessary" or "what do you mean by 'clean'" and the thread becomes a hotbed of what is/is not clean eating and whether it's a "good" way to eat and the original post is all but forgotten. As bizarre as it is that the OP's often can't/won't define clean eating, I find it just as bizarre that so often those threads do turn into an argument of semantics regarding clean eating. (The blueberry thread was bizarre in so many ways...)
Will debating the definition of clean eating here (where we should have debate), lead to clearer discussions in other parts of the forum?0 -
IMO no because the definition of food as clean or unclean has more to do with the individual eater's hangups then the nature of the food itself.Will debating the definition of clean eating here (where we should have debate), lead to clearer discussions in other parts of the forum?
I also think some people really just like debating...0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
And again, why is smoked salmon or a tortilla made with ground corn (let's say I buy the corn ground from the green market, and it's made from local corn) less "natural" than a banana in Chicago or "fresh" tomatoes in Chicago in February? Or any corn, given the nature of corn today? These lines about what is and is not natural don't seem clear or obvious. To a certain extent, it's like we pick a period of time and decide that what was available then (1850, say) is "natural," and interventions since are not.
I'm not sure I totally understand the thought behind these questions but I'll try to answer. I think local has little to do with clean, but is salmon more local to Chicago than bananas? Does the smoked salmon contain additives? I don't think I've ever seen a tortilla made with nothing other than corn so I'm not sure why all the focus on that one single ingredient.
And yes, as stated several times already in this thread what is clean or natural is not black and white and judgment is involved. We can nitpick over specific ingredients or foods as long as you want and I'll give my best answer but it still won't make the gray areas go away.
Not sure what is meant by your last sentence re: time periods.0 -
This sounds a lot like "I've made a claim that I've assumed to be true (food having a certain color by breeding is inherently better than color added by chemistry) that I can't be bothered to back up, so I'm going to invert the burden of proof".
For a person that seems to insist their food choice is based on some kind of rational process over preference, I see a lack of rational, empirical evidence for it.
I’m working on gathering the empirical evidence of why I like naturally colored food over artificially colored food. At the same time I’m also gathering empirical evidence on why I like real blue eyes over blue-colored contact lenses, real boobs over stuffed bras, and the appearance of Michael Jackson in 1978 over Michael Jackson in 1998. Stay tuned.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »
Because -- AGAIN -- a lot of people think that clean eating is better and somehow more healthy or nutritious and that the reason they are fat is because of "chemicals" or that they eat "processed" foods. Or maybe, like me, they just get drawn to extreme thinking in such matters and so start telling themselves that it's really not good enough to buy some pickles, they must make their own (and if it's not cucumber season they must wait until it is). It's not good enough to buy some canned tomatoes for pasta sauce, it's not good enough to buy dried pasta or canned or even dried beans, so on. Somehow that avoiding these things is more virtuous than not.
I think if you are a crafty sort that enjoys gardening (and has the space) and cooking and so on that these can all be fun things. Some of them I find fun and others I probably would under the right circumstances. But it seems obvious that many people attracted to the term "clean eating" or who buy into the hype wouldn't find these things fun.
Also, one reason I find them fun is that I can admit to myself they are something I do as a hobby, for fun. Not something essential for health or virtue. Just like buying soap isn't inherently worse or less "natural" or virtuous than making it.
It's also true that in the city, where I live, a lot of the options for buying farm-raised, local, organic, free range, etc. stuff (or crafty soaps, for that matter) are both more expensive and really obviously patronized by a certain subculture that is more educated and privileged than the average (and shares various other qualities). I am generally in this subculture, and happily partake of a lot of it (while maintaining a sense of humor about it) -- and there are some cheaper options, although they also are more time-consuming -- but think it's worth being aware that in some ways it's just something else for overly-privileged people to get self-righteous and think they are better because of or blame others for not caring enough to do things that probably don't matter really. To start seeing how one eats as "cleaner" than how others eat seems to me a rather nasty way to think and a step along this direction.
And yes, rather than saying "I don't agree, but see why this might be a concern, however, what about blah, blah" I firmly expect you to say "well, that's just not common sense and I don't see that at all in my world so it must not exist and isn't worth thinking about at all."
Okay, so I'm sensing that you don't want to live in a clean eating utopia. But you didn't ask me about you or whether someone like you should want to live in a clean eating utopia, you asked me about a clean eating utopia.
Any obligation you feel to live there comes from you. I never suggested it.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
Not sure what you mean by "look unclean", but if the lettuce were ground first then I don't see why it would be more clean than the Fritos.
There you have it folks! Fritos are just as natural (and clean) as salad.1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
As said previously in this thread, I don't think number of ingredients affects how clean a food is. I realize some others use that criteria but I can only answer for myself.
But you did say that Fritos "are not just ground corn."
So if adding two more ingredients to the ground corn makes it unnatural, I fail to see how adding shredded carrots, shredded cabbage and olive oil to lettuce would not also similarly affect the "naturalness" of salad.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
There you have it folks! Fritos are just as natural (and clean) as salad.
I'm sure it's true of some salad. It's not as if "salad" tells me what's in the food. You might as well say "pizza" or "soup" or "sandwich".0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
But you did say that Fritos "are not just ground corn."
So if adding two more ingredients to the ground corn makes it unnatural, I fail to see how adding shredded carrots, shredded cabbage and olive oil to lettuce would not also similarly affect the "naturalness" of salad.
It's not the number, it's the ingredients.0 -
IMO no because the definition of food as clean or unclean has more to do with the individual eater's hangups then the nature of the food itself.
I also think some people really just like debating disagreeing...
FIFY0 -
That too...Carlos_421 wrote: »
FIFY
0 -
I never said Need2's response is more helpful than what you stated in your post. Asking someone to clarify exactly what they are looking for (particularly in a recipe request thread) only makes sense. What about a thread where people state they're looking for clean eaters to friend? IMO, it becomes less helpful there because the person is clearly a self-identified clean eater looking for others who self-identify that way.
I used to say "what do you mean by 'clean eating' -- I don't use that term or care for it, but I mostly cook from whole foods and care a lot about nutrition and have an open diary."
Now I don't, because I've been buying lunch too much, logging infrequently anyway, and have a ridiculous number of friends (and feel guilty about not spending more time on my feed).
I don't assume that people who are seeking out "clean eating friends" are really so shallow as to care primarily about the label (although sometimes it seems as they are, as in the group some seem really focused on talking about how others on the forums and don't care about nutrition vs. the virtuous clean eaters). I also don't assume they really want people who are 100% clean eating (whatever that means), since most of them are making a bigger transition than I did when I lowered my calories (or so it seems by the questions they ask) and also most eat lots of things I wouldn't think would fall within the meaning of clean that I tend to assume.And what about the threads where someone is looking for help because they've "plateaued" and someone comes in suggesting "clean eating?" Invariably, someone else comes in saying something along the lines of "'clean eating' isn't necessary" or "what do you mean by 'clean'" and the thread becomes a hotbed of what is/is not clean eating and whether it's a "good" way to eat and the original post is all but forgotten.
I think these are situations where it comes up, yes, but mostly because of the person insisting that "clean eating" is necessary to weight loss or better for it, which is something I think should be debunked. As I ask in those threads, why is eating cottage cheese hurting my ability to lose weight? (I never get an answer.)
I think OP typically gets a pretty good answer in those threads anyway, though, but one reason for this forum is now the derailer ("you should eat clean!") can be directed over here.As bizarre as it is that the OP's often can't/won't define clean eating, I find it just as bizarre that so often those threads do turn into an argument of semantics regarding clean eating. (The blueberry thread was bizarre in so many ways...)
I disagree that the examples you are talking about become arguments of semantics or that it's wrong to address a false claim such as "you must eat clean to lose weight."
The long semantic discussions I've seen tend to be threads like this one, where the OP actually started it to discuss the concept of eating clean (often to assert that clean eating is better or that CICO means eating horribly).Will debating the definition of clean eating here (where we should have debate), lead to clearer discussions in other parts of the forum?
Probably not, but debates can be directed here where appropriate and it is (IMO) somewhat interesting.
The discussion is better here, much as I disagree with Need2, since the people who assert it means "not eating ANY processed foods" and seem unable to understand that they do, in fact, eat processed foods aren't driving the discussion and whether or not certain kinds of industrialized foods with particular additives are worth avoiding or not, I think that's a clearer definition in some ways than the "no processing" stuff. I'm biased because I do prefer eating mostly from whole foods -- that's my own ideal -- but it's important to me to be honest that this is merely a preference, NOT healthier or the only way to have a nutrient-rich diet, and also to eschew the term "clean" which I think adds an unpleasant moral or purity judgment. So in that last sense I acknowledge it is in some respects a semantic discussion, but would also submit that that doesn't make it unimportant. People having messed up ideas about food can lead to self-sabotaging behavior and shame, among other things. It's been very important for me to try and force myself to think logically about food and when I have knee jerk ideas about something being bad to question myself as to why I think that.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions