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?
Options
Replies
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »I'll never trust Himalayan salt. It purports to contain 85 elements - yet of the 94 naturally occurring elements, 2 have all decayed out of the Earth's crust, 2 more at least have only been observed in specialized labs, 6 are gases that would stay in a salt - well that leaves 84 elements. The bigger problem I have is even if the 85 number is true, several of those left in the 84 I mentioned are rather radioactive (uranium, thorium and other actinides) or poisonous (arsenic, mercury (which could, admittedly, come in no poisonous forms)).
Why am I paying extra to eat a pinkish salt that contains poison and radiation?
Would like @Need2Exerc1se to comment on this.
Oh, well I'm not familiar with Himalayan salt or how many elements are naturally occurring or why anyone other than me chooses to eat what they eat, so not sure what type of comment you are looking for from me.
Because you said that table salt was processed. Perhaps the processed (therefore less "clean"?) is better than the raw version?
Maybe so, in that case I do not know. Cleaner doesn't always mean better IMO. Raw milk, for example.
If "cleaner" doesn't mean better, what do you think the purpose of the label is?
And do you think most people who describe themselves as "trying to eat cleaner" would agree with you that cleaner doesn't mean better?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »[If "cleaner" doesn't mean better, what do you think the purpose of the label is?
Health Halo.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ClosetBayesian wrote: »I'll never trust Himalayan salt. It purports to contain 85 elements - yet of the 94 naturally occurring elements, 2 have all decayed out of the Earth's crust, 2 more at least have only been observed in specialized labs, 6 are gases that would stay in a salt - well that leaves 84 elements. The bigger problem I have is even if the 85 number is true, several of those left in the 84 I mentioned are rather radioactive (uranium, thorium and other actinides) or poisonous (arsenic, mercury (which could, admittedly, come in no poisonous forms)).
Why am I paying extra to eat a pinkish salt that contains poison and radiation?
Would like @Need2Exerc1se to comment on this.
Oh, well I'm not familiar with Himalayan salt or how many elements are naturally occurring or why anyone other than me chooses to eat what they eat, so not sure what type of comment you are looking for from me.
Because you said that table salt was processed. Perhaps the processed (therefore less "clean"?) is better than the raw version?
Maybe so, in that case I do not know. Cleaner doesn't always mean better IMO. Raw milk, for example.
If "cleaner" doesn't mean better, what do you think the purpose of the label is?
And do you think most people who describe themselves as "trying to eat cleaner" would agree with you that cleaner doesn't mean better?
I think the label is meant to generally mean better or at least increased odds of being better.
And no, I doubt most who describe themselves as trying to eat clean would agree, but I imagine many who define the label as I would.
I think there could be a whole other discussion of what exactly "better" means in relation to this topic.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
I'm very good at pronunciation and can typically pronounce anything I read.
So everything is clean eating for me?
Doesn't it make you feel so sad for all the illiterate people in the world, though? Resigned to a life of unclean eating because they can't pronounce the words. So sad.
Even worse...there's probably thousands who starve to death each and every year, for lack of reading skills.0 -
Nearly unpronounceable yummy foods:
Saskatoons (amelanchier alnifolia)
Bab Levesh (eating some now)
Injera
Biryani
Biángbiáng noodles0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
I'm very good at pronunciation and can typically pronounce anything I read.
So everything is clean eating for me?
Doesn't it make you feel so sad for all the illiterate people in the world, though? Resigned to a life of unclean eating because they can't pronounce the words. So sad.
Even worse...there's probably thousands who starve to death each and every year, for lack of reading skills.
And what about the children who haven't learned to read yet? WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN??!!1!???1 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »@Need2Exerc1se You said somewhere upthread that you don't call yourself a clean eater, correct? You just try to eat as clean as possible?
Well no, not really. I have no doubt I could easily eat cleaner than I do. I would say I eat "mostly clean".
We live on a farm, grow a lot of the fruits and vegetables we eat, we raise chickens and hunt. Probably about half of our food comes from our land, and about another 20% is clean purchased the food. The rest I either don't know or wouldn't consider clean.
Fair enough. I think it's been said more than once in this thread that no one eats 100% clean (whatever definition they're using). Okay, so based on my reading of this thread, this is your definition of clean (please do correct me):
The cleanness of a food depends on how close it is to its natural state. You would not describe a food as unclean but rather in degrees of clean/less clean/not clean. For example, a piece of meat butchered from an animal you hunted would be considered clean. That same meat being ground and mixed with spices and piped into a casing would be less clean.
If salt is less clean to you as well, does industrial human intervention then also play a role in how natural something is?
Yes, that's pretty much it, though I think it is the curing of sausage rather than the spices that makes it less clean.
To the last question it could. I would evaluate each food individually.
I think I get it. I wouldn't personally draw the lines where you do in terms of what is closer to being natural, but I think I can understand where you're coming from in your definition of clean.
So, if I understand, from your perspective masa harina (corn flour mixed with calcium hydroxide) is less clean than straight corn flour which is less clean than whole corn.
Where I'm confused is this.
You and I seem to share the assumption that to the usual "clean eater" on MFP "clean" is believed to relate to something positive re nutrition. You suggest that we answer as if the OP asked about "nutrient dense" foods. I think it's important to point out that "clean" (which people usually explain as "non processed") is NOT the same as nutrient dense and suggest that processed foods can help meet a goal of eating a diet that is more nutritious if that is what is actually wanted. (If someone really wants to eliminate all processed foods, whatever -- good to know that before suggesting recipes and answering about the chili, though.) ;-)
From what I gather from Need2, she is not claiming that clean maps on to nutritionally dense or even any nutritional benefit at all. (She did claim earlier in the thread that grinding = not clean, and I see no reason why grinding up beef would make it less nutritious, for example.) In fact, she objects to my dislike of the language "clean" and denies that it inherently makes a value judgment. According to her, "clean" is just a neutral term coined by hippies to mean more natural.
So my question is that if you don't think it is better or maps on to nutrient quality at all, why would you even bother making a distinction between foods based on how clean they are (especially if one ignores other aspects of naturalness, like whether they are in season or local, again, or the diet the animal is fed)? What is being said when one says "I'm a clean eater"?
I think the term was coined to mean better. Better nutrition, getting away from 'big brother', etc. And quite likely had some roots in DDT use.
I don't typically classify foods as clean unless asked, though I have been known to say I need to clean up my diet. I've never had anyone ask what I meant by that.
Yeah, I don't really like that usage either, but I do think it's clear and just means "improve my diet" to most people.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Indeed, what people mean when they say "processed foods" is "processed foods I don't approve of".
Yeah? Because I think Fritos are a processed food you assume I don't approve of Fritos? I guess again I'm the weirdo in the group because I think Fritos are not clean, are a processed food and would even call them junk food but I still enjoy eating them.
If I genuinely considered a food "not clean," I would avoid eating it. But yes, my issue is with those who say "cut out unclean foods" or "NO processed foods" or the like. Since you acknowledge that just being processed doesn't make a food bad (or something to be always avoided or impossible to include in a healthful diet) and that your meaning of "clean" is distinct from "processed," you strike me as quite different from the usual MFP "clean eater" and I probably wouldn't bother arguing about "clean foods" if the usual person using it shared your views. (I'd still not care for the term for the reasons I've explained, and I don't agree with your own definitions of "natural" vs. not, but it wouldn't bug me the way it does.)
I think one of my main issues is the assumption that any level of processing makes a food worse and that "processing" in general is bad. (Also, the idea that "junk food" can't be included in a healthful diet by anyone -- so the fact I like ice cream makes my diet unclean and unhealthful, no matter what else I eat.)0 -
megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
But I like French food and I'd hate for my incompetence with French (which is probably still better than the average American's) mean that I could not eat it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Indeed, what people mean when they say "processed foods" is "processed foods I don't approve of".
Yeah? Because I think Fritos are a processed food you assume I don't approve of Fritos? I guess again I'm the weirdo in the group because I think Fritos are not clean, are a processed food and would even call them junk food but I still enjoy eating them.
If I genuinely considered a food "not clean," I would avoid eating it. But yes, my issue is with those who say "cut out unclean foods" or "NO processed foods" or the like. Since you acknowledge that just being processed doesn't make a food bad (or something to be always avoided or impossible to include in a healthful diet) and that your meaning of "clean" is distinct from "processed," you strike me as quite different from the usual MFP "clean eater" and I probably wouldn't bother arguing about "clean foods" if the usual person using it shared your views. (I'd still not care for the term for the reasons I've explained, and I don't agree with your own definitions of "natural" vs. not, but it wouldn't bug me the way it does.)
I think one of my main issues is the assumption that any level of processing makes a food worse and that "processing" in general is bad. (Also, the idea that "junk food" can't be included in a healthful diet by anyone -- so the fact I like ice cream makes my diet unclean and unhealthful, no matter what else I eat.)
I believe more than you imagine might share my definition of the word. I think it is the usage of the word processing that gets many hung up. Trying to apply any level of processing when it's usually not what was meant. A good number of the arguments I see are about what constitutes a "processed food" rather than what constitutes a "clean food". My definition would include processing because the more a food is processed the further it is likely to be from it's natural state.
Take the 3 ingredient Frito for example. It's highly processed. The corn must be shucked, removed from the cob and ground. The oil must be removed through a process and likely via a chemical process because the odds that Frito Lay is using naturally pressed oil are pretty slim. The salt is also obtained via a chemical process. All this processing is what makes it junk food and keeps it from being clean.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Indeed, what people mean when they say "processed foods" is "processed foods I don't approve of".
Yeah? Because I think Fritos are a processed food you assume I don't approve of Fritos? I guess again I'm the weirdo in the group because I think Fritos are not clean, are a processed food and would even call them junk food but I still enjoy eating them.
If I genuinely considered a food "not clean," I would avoid eating it. But yes, my issue is with those who say "cut out unclean foods" or "NO processed foods" or the like. Since you acknowledge that just being processed doesn't make a food bad (or something to be always avoided or impossible to include in a healthful diet) and that your meaning of "clean" is distinct from "processed," you strike me as quite different from the usual MFP "clean eater" and I probably wouldn't bother arguing about "clean foods" if the usual person using it shared your views. (I'd still not care for the term for the reasons I've explained, and I don't agree with your own definitions of "natural" vs. not, but it wouldn't bug me the way it does.)
I think one of my main issues is the assumption that any level of processing makes a food worse and that "processing" in general is bad. (Also, the idea that "junk food" can't be included in a healthful diet by anyone -- so the fact I like ice cream makes my diet unclean and unhealthful, no matter what else I eat.)
I believe more than you imagine might share my definition of the word. I think it is the usage of the word processing that gets many hung up. Trying to apply any level of processing when it's usually not what was meant. A good number of the arguments I see are about what constitutes a "processed food" rather than what constitutes a "clean food". My definition would include processing because the more a food is processed the further it is likely to be from it's natural state.
Take the 3 ingredient Frito for example. It's highly processed. The corn must be shucked, removed from the cob and ground. The oil must be removed through a process and likely via a chemical process because the odds that Frito Lay is using naturally pressed oil are pretty slim. The salt is also obtained via a chemical process. All this processing is what makes it junk food and keeps it from being clean.
In the past when I've made statements like "shucking corn is processing," I think you've called me obtuse. But here it's on a list as part of what makes a Frito junk.
This is part of why I feel "processing" is such a meaningless way to determine whether a food is a nutritious choice. There is obviously all types of processing. Some processing impacts the food in significant ways. Other processing impacts it almost not at all (running a head of broccoli through a blending, shucking an ear of corn, chopping and freezing a berry).
So why do we continue to use "processing" like it's a meaningful term instead of looking at the food itself? Why are "clean" and "natural" significant terms if they don't communicate anything of value?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Indeed, what people mean when they say "processed foods" is "processed foods I don't approve of".
Yeah? Because I think Fritos are a processed food you assume I don't approve of Fritos? I guess again I'm the weirdo in the group because I think Fritos are not clean, are a processed food and would even call them junk food but I still enjoy eating them.
If I genuinely considered a food "not clean," I would avoid eating it. But yes, my issue is with those who say "cut out unclean foods" or "NO processed foods" or the like. Since you acknowledge that just being processed doesn't make a food bad (or something to be always avoided or impossible to include in a healthful diet) and that your meaning of "clean" is distinct from "processed," you strike me as quite different from the usual MFP "clean eater" and I probably wouldn't bother arguing about "clean foods" if the usual person using it shared your views. (I'd still not care for the term for the reasons I've explained, and I don't agree with your own definitions of "natural" vs. not, but it wouldn't bug me the way it does.)
I think one of my main issues is the assumption that any level of processing makes a food worse and that "processing" in general is bad. (Also, the idea that "junk food" can't be included in a healthful diet by anyone -- so the fact I like ice cream makes my diet unclean and unhealthful, no matter what else I eat.)
I believe more than you imagine might share my definition of the word. I think it is the usage of the word processing that gets many hung up. Trying to apply any level of processing when it's usually not what was meant. A good number of the arguments I see are about what constitutes a "processed food" rather than what constitutes a "clean food". My definition would include processing because the more a food is processed the further it is likely to be from it's natural state.
Take the 3 ingredient Frito for example. It's highly processed. The corn must be shucked, removed from the cob and ground. The oil must be removed through a process and likely via a chemical process because the odds that Frito Lay is using naturally pressed oil are pretty slim. The salt is also obtained via a chemical process. All this processing is what makes it junk food and keeps it from being clean.
In the past when I've made statements like "shucking corn is processing," I think you've called me obtuse. But here it's on a list as part of what makes a Frito junk.
This is part of why I feel "processing" is such a meaningless way to determine whether a food is a nutritious choice. There is obviously all types of processing. Some processing impacts the food in significant ways. Other processing impacts it almost not at all (running a head of broccoli through a blending, shucking an ear of corn, chopping and freezing a berry).
So why do we continue to use "processing" like it's a meaningful term instead of looking at the food itself? Why are "clean" and "natural" significant terms if they don't communicate anything of value?
Why wouldn't they have value? Many words don't signify something as being better or worse but I wouldn't equate to them having no value as descriptors.
I think eating clean foods is a good thing and is likely to make for a better diet. That doesn't mean I think the clean or natural version is better 100% of the time.0 -
megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
quinoa should be in that pic0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
quinoa should be in that pic
It is.0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
quinoa should be in that pic
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I haven't seen many people in that camp who define processed to include things like cottage cheese though, but maybe I just haven't been around MFP long enough. In a similar way to them meaning more nutrient-dense by "clean" they most often seem to mean "more calorie-dense" when they say "processed." For example, that guy who included the homemade rhubarb pie as junky processed stuff seemed to equate processed foods with calorie-dense foods.
But cottage cheese simply IS processed. I find it annoying that people use words to mean something bizarre (like "processed" = anything I think is unhealthy and therefore protein powder is not processed).
However, I agree we are going around in circles on this.
I agree with this.
But I also find it annoying when people try to say things such as picking a vegetable or shelling an almond = processed food. Yes, yes, those are technically "processes" but I don't believe for one second anyone really believes that's what anyone means by the term "processed foods".
Indeed, what people mean when they say "processed foods" is "processed foods I don't approve of".
Yeah? Because I think Fritos are a processed food you assume I don't approve of Fritos? I guess again I'm the weirdo in the group because I think Fritos are not clean, are a processed food and would even call them junk food but I still enjoy eating them.
If I genuinely considered a food "not clean," I would avoid eating it. But yes, my issue is with those who say "cut out unclean foods" or "NO processed foods" or the like. Since you acknowledge that just being processed doesn't make a food bad (or something to be always avoided or impossible to include in a healthful diet) and that your meaning of "clean" is distinct from "processed," you strike me as quite different from the usual MFP "clean eater" and I probably wouldn't bother arguing about "clean foods" if the usual person using it shared your views. (I'd still not care for the term for the reasons I've explained, and I don't agree with your own definitions of "natural" vs. not, but it wouldn't bug me the way it does.)
I think one of my main issues is the assumption that any level of processing makes a food worse and that "processing" in general is bad. (Also, the idea that "junk food" can't be included in a healthful diet by anyone -- so the fact I like ice cream makes my diet unclean and unhealthful, no matter what else I eat.)
I believe more than you imagine might share my definition of the word. I think it is the usage of the word processing that gets many hung up. Trying to apply any level of processing when it's usually not what was meant. A good number of the arguments I see are about what constitutes a "processed food" rather than what constitutes a "clean food". My definition would include processing because the more a food is processed the further it is likely to be from it's natural state.
Take the 3 ingredient Frito for example. It's highly processed. The corn must be shucked, removed from the cob and ground. The oil must be removed through a process and likely via a chemical process because the odds that Frito Lay is using naturally pressed oil are pretty slim. The salt is also obtained via a chemical process. All this processing is what makes it junk food and keeps it from being clean.
I disagree that processing is what makes it "junk food." My understanding of the slang term "junk food" is that it means low nutrients for the calories, and so what makes Fritos junk food is that they aren't particularly high in nutrients and have lots of calories, 56% of which are from corn oil.
I have this Vega protein and greens powder I decided to try since I was interested in checking out vegan protein powder options. Sadly, it's not tasty, and it's super processed and not "clean" (as I understand your use of the term), but I would not consider it junk food.
The pasta you post about sometimes with fiber added also strikes me as less "clean" AND more processed than standard pasta (homemade or purchased), but it's possible to argue that it's better for a weight loss plan and less "junk food" (I don't consider any pasta junk food, but I've seen others on MFP argue that it is), since it has fewer calories and more fiber (even compared with pasta made from whole grain flour).0 -
*sigh*. About salt. Refining does not necessarily involve a "chemical" purification process. Salt crystals are formed from a brine inside a steel tank with heating tubes in it. Heat. That's it.
Do you think that clear distilled water has been produced chemically? How about pure white salt crystals? Do you know what pure means?
http://www.siftocanada.com/en/about-us/salt-canada/siftos-goderich-mine/0 -
*sigh*. About salt. Refining does not necessarily involve a "chemical" purification process. Salt crystals are formed from a brine inside a steel tank with heating tubes in it. Heat. That's it.
Do you think that clear distilled water has been produced chemically? How about pure white salt crystals? Do you know what pure means?
http://www.siftocanada.com/en/about-us/salt-canada/siftos-goderich-mine/
Let's not forget "refined" sugar either. It's just cleaned. With water.0 -
diannethegeek wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »megang2188 wrote: »Plain and simple with clean eating, if you can't pronounce an ingredient in the food, then DON'T EAT IT.
quinoa should be in that pic
It is.
But it's in an unclean box so it doesn't count.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K 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
- 982 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions