Finally found something that works
Options
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..
Apparently in Aussie rules football defensive means the same as going on the offensive to those in the northern hemisphere...
He felt he had to defend himself, meaning he got defensive, right?
I don't generally think hurling insults about people's intelligence and level of education as being defensive but rather going on the offensive...
4 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..
Apparently in Aussie rules football defensive means the same as going on the offensive to those in the northern hemisphere...
He felt he had to defend himself, meaning he got defensive, right?
I don't generally think hurling insults about people's intelligence and level of education as being defensive but rather going on the offensive...
Lol ok, gotcha. Point taken
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..
Defensive as insulting people?0 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..
Defensive as insulting people?
No, like i said. .Christine_72 wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, he got on the defensive..
Apparently in Aussie rules football defensive means the same as going on the offensive to those in the northern hemisphere...
He felt he had to defend himself, meaning he got defensive, right?
0 -
After 30 days, it doesn't feel restrictive, it feels liberating. And it is very practical for a person who wants to lead a healthy lifestyle.
And what is more effective?
Anyone can stick to any diet for 30 days, that's pretty meaningless honestly. When you've gone a year without eating any grain or any sugar let me know. I won't hold my breath...
That's what I was going to say. I wish we could check in with the OP in ten years. I'd bet dollars to Pesos, he'll have cracked by then. And I'm not saying that to be a d!ck, but completely cutting out all sugars and grains is a pretty extreme measure and one that would be hard to keep up, in the long term, in my opinion.2 -
I don't get why folks go on the attack. This is working for this guy so more power to him and anyway the kinds and amounts of sugar and (processed) grains we eat in the western world are typically devoid of nutritional value. I see not a thing wrong with this diet.
Could I do it? Not 100% - but I do endeavor to limit sugar and grains. Sugar is addictive - been studied - the more you eat the more you want - particularly from processed sources.
When people talk about traditional diets and what happens in other cultures or other eras - they neglect to contextualize. Many of these people don't have a long lifespan or their lifestyle is so active - i.e. hunting and gathering - that their dietary requirements are totally different.
When you look at the "blue zones" where people (currently) live to 100 years or more, their diets are whole foods: fruits and veggies, healthy fats, fish, no processed foods, low or devoid of refined sugar, and small amounts of meat etc. Kind of paleo really.
I applaud this kind of eating - wish I had the willpower to do it!
To the bolded, did you accidentally leave out "grains"?
Some foundational foods in Blue Zones are:
Okinawa - rice
Costa Rica - Rice & beans
Sardinia - sourdough and barley
Loma Linda - oatmeal and whole wheat bread
I was referring to processed grains because when people talk about grains in the west - we are rarely talking about whole/unprocessed grains. "Whole wheat" products are usually processed to the hilt. But even things like rice or oats - they aren't nutrient dense foods - they're filler to my mind. Yes, there's fiber but you can get that in cruciferous veggies and fruits. His diet does include fruit and legumes I noticed - so I think the whole "no sugar no grain" tag line really means no refined or processed sugar and grains.
I guess I do think grains are non-essential. I eat them because I like them and I'm just not that disciplined but truthfully my nutrients come from more expedient sources than grains.1 -
I don't get why folks go on the attack. This is working for this guy so more power to him and anyway the kinds and amounts of sugar and (processed) grains we eat in the western world are typically devoid of nutritional value. I see not a thing wrong with this diet.
Could I do it? Not 100% - but I do endeavor to limit sugar and grains. Sugar is addictive - been studied - the more you eat the more you want - particularly from processed sources.
When people talk about traditional diets and what happens in other cultures or other eras - they neglect to contextualize. Many of these people don't have a long lifespan or their lifestyle is so active - i.e. hunting and gathering - that their dietary requirements are totally different.
When you look at the "blue zones" where people (currently) live to 100 years or more, their diets are whole foods: fruits and veggies, healthy fats, fish, no processed foods, low or devoid of refined sugar, and small amounts of meat etc. Kind of paleo really.
I applaud this kind of eating - wish I had the willpower to do it!
To the bolded, did you accidentally leave out "grains"?
Some foundational foods in Blue Zones are:
Okinawa - rice
Costa Rica - Rice & beans
Sardinia - sourdough and barley
Loma Linda - oatmeal and whole wheat bread
I was referring to processed grains because when people talk about grains in the west - we are rarely talking about whole/unprocessed grains. "Whole wheat" products are usually processed to the hilt. But even things like rice or oats - they aren't nutrient dense foods - they're filler to my mind. Yes, there's fiber but you can get that in cruciferous veggies and fruits. His diet does include fruit and legumes I noticed - so I think the whole "no sugar no grain" tag line really means no refined or processed sugar and grains.
I guess I do think grains are non-essential. I eat them because I like them and I'm just not that disciplined but truthfully my nutrients come from more expedient sources than grains.
Given, there is a lot we still don't understand about nutrition and how adaptable our bodies are to different diets, but given the proliferation of grains in blue zone diets, it's possible that -- for many people at least -- they play a role in a healthful and sustainable diet that goes beyond their straight macro/micronutrient profile. I notice that, for myself (and some others) grains support a feeling of satiety. I love vegetables and beans, but mixing some grains in often helps create a meal that feels like more than the sum of its parts. Hummus and vegetables are delicious. But if I take the same hummus and vegetables and put it on a slice of toast, it becomes something that -- for me -- is more like a meal, something that can sustain me for hours. Same with other grain/fat/vegetable combinations.
I'm not saying they're essential, but for many people they are truly foundational in the diet. Saying there are more "expedient" ways to get the nutrients they provide may be missing the point. They're so far-reaching in healthful diets, I'm questioning if that many cultures are really messing up or choosing a less expedient way to meet their nutritional needs (of course, groups of humans have been wrong before . . . ). I don't think choosing grains shows a lack of discipline1 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »I dont have a problem with his original post....the comments he made after shows he is uniformed and arrogant.
Yes, this. When he started claiming it was the One Healthy Way.1 -
OP, great that you have found what works for you, that is awesome.
For me, it would never work. Very early on (after 2 months on MFP) I read a thread that advised moderation in all foods. I was trying very low carb, no bread up until then. Ever since then I have been eating all foods in moderation, with very little overly processed food or going to restaurants. I have managed to lose over 1/2 of my current body weight and kept it off for over 2-1/2 years following this program, which works very well for me. I would never be able to sustain a low carb, low grain, no bread way of eating. Moderation in all foods works for me, and hopefully will be sustainable for my life.4 -
I don't get why folks go on the attack. This is working for this guy so more power to him and anyway the kinds and amounts of sugar and (processed) grains we eat in the western world are typically devoid of nutritional value. I see not a thing wrong with this diet.
Could I do it? Not 100% - but I do endeavor to limit sugar and grains. Sugar is addictive - been studied - the more you eat the more you want - particularly from processed sources.
When people talk about traditional diets and what happens in other cultures or other eras - they neglect to contextualize. Many of these people don't have a long lifespan or their lifestyle is so active - i.e. hunting and gathering - that their dietary requirements are totally different.
When you look at the "blue zones" where people (currently) live to 100 years or more, their diets are whole foods: fruits and veggies, healthy fats, fish, no processed foods, low or devoid of refined sugar, and small amounts of meat etc. Kind of paleo really.
I applaud this kind of eating - wish I had the willpower to do it!
To the bolded, did you accidentally leave out "grains"?
Some foundational foods in Blue Zones are:
Okinawa - rice
Costa Rica - Rice & beans
Sardinia - sourdough and barley
Loma Linda - oatmeal and whole wheat bread
I was referring to processed grains because when people talk about grains in the west - we are rarely talking about whole/unprocessed grains. "Whole wheat" products are usually processed to the hilt. But even things like rice or oats - they aren't nutrient dense foods - they're filler to my mind. Yes, there's fiber but you can get that in cruciferous veggies and fruits. His diet does include fruit and legumes I noticed - so I think the whole "no sugar no grain" tag line really means no refined or processed sugar and grains.
I guess I do think grains are non-essential. I eat them because I like them and I'm just not that disciplined but truthfully my nutrients come from more expedient sources than grains.
I understand what you're saying. I guess I have a different point of view - I think it will be a sad day when the only quality of the food in my diet is nutritional expediency. We are so fortunate to have the opportunity to really enjoy food, and my goal is to remain as healthy as possible while still thoroughly enjoying my diet. I don't want to waste willpower on cutting things out of my diet, when clearly it is natural and possible to be so healthy you are still kicking after age 100 while still eating the stuff.
And honestly, that really is the point of all the responses the OP is unhappy with - that you don't have to eat a specific way to lose weight or to be healthy, and that the way that works for one person would make another person miserable and unwell. Hopefully we'll all be active centenarians some day, wishing people would stop asking us for our secret to long life 1 -
After 4 years of yo-yo'ing I've found the key...NSNG - NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS
No you haven't lol. A restrictive diet is never "the key". Do you really plan on eliminating sugar and grains from your diet for the rest or your life? No cookies, no cake, no brownies, no candy, no pasta, no cereal, no bread...for the rest of your life? Does that really seem practical or realistic to you. If that's your plan, by all means good luck, but there are better, more enjoyable, and not to mention more effective ways to go about eating healthy.
It's very realistic. For people who feel substantially better on a grain-free diet, it's a no-brainer and not at all restrictive. Eating grain makes every joint in my body hurt. It makes my muscles sore. It disrupts my sleep. It disrupts my digestion. If I choose to eat grain, I'm quickly reminded of why I typically avoid it.
Why in the world are you discouraging someone from a WOE and WOL that they find helpful?!
Not at all restrictive? I don't think you understand what a restrictive diet is, because the diet that OP mentioned is a textbook example of a restrictive diet. I clearly said in my original post that if OP wants to go with his diet, that I wish him good luck, but there are better ways to go about it.
Please feel free to share your definition of restrictive, because clearly there are differing opinions.
It's not restrictive. I've been on restrictive diets, for health reasons and as personal choice. Grain-free and sugar-free is not restrictive, when one is choosing it.
1200-1400 calorie CICO is restrictive, in my opinion. Hence all the whining and complaining from people on the boards who are struggling with it. Yet, your advice to those people is to restrict further?
Rarely do I see a post from people complaining that LCHF, Paleo, Primal, other grain-free diets are too restrictive. Typically people are sharing that they love the diet and are happy that they have found a diet that works and they can follow.
People who do feel restricted by it usually don't follow it. I can understand that if *you* find it restrictive that *you* don't follow it. (*Your* opinion is not fact, however.) The OP clearly does not find it restrictive. I clearly do not find it restrictive. Others clearly do not find it restrictive. So, no, it's not restrictive.
True. But there are a lot of posts from people who follow those diets who come on here with thread titles like "Halp! I'm eating (insert WOE here) and I'm not loosing weight, why??"1 -
After 30 days, it doesn't feel restrictive, it feels liberating. And it is very practical for a person who wants to lead a healthy lifestyle.
And what is more effective?
What is effective is cutting calories. Dropping carbs is one way to get this done, but in the end it works because you are cutting calories. That is the only key.1 -
Also, vinnie tortorich has a doctorate from Tulane which is more than can be said about you people naysaying NSNG. He is one of the best fitness trainers out there. Go to his site, debate him...
I've heard him on a few different podcasts. He makes things overly complicated, which is why he gets to go on podcasts, but in the end all he's talking about is CICO. He can't just say that though, or we'd have no need to listen to him.0 -
I think Vinnie's "doctorate" is in BroScience.4
-
After 4 years of yo-yo'ing I've found the key...NSNG - NO SUGAR, NO GRAINS
No you haven't lol. A restrictive diet is never "the key". Do you really plan on eliminating sugar and grains from your diet for the rest or your life? No cookies, no cake, no brownies, no candy, no pasta, no cereal, no bread...for the rest of your life? Does that really seem practical or realistic to you. If that's your plan, by all means good luck, but there are better, more enjoyable, and not to mention more effective ways to go about eating healthy.
To add onto this, you do realize there is sugar in fruits, right? Sugar isn't an "enemy" but people over-due it. Just like somoene can actually drink too much water. The key is: Moderation.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I don't get why folks go on the attack. This is working for this guy so more power to him and anyway the kinds and amounts of sugar and (processed) grains we eat in the western world are typically devoid of nutritional value. I see not a thing wrong with this diet.
Could I do it? Not 100% - but I do endeavor to limit sugar and grains. Sugar is addictive - been studied - the more you eat the more you want - particularly from processed sources.
When people talk about traditional diets and what happens in other cultures or other eras - they neglect to contextualize. Many of these people don't have a long lifespan or their lifestyle is so active - i.e. hunting and gathering - that their dietary requirements are totally different.
When you look at the "blue zones" where people (currently) live to 100 years or more, their diets are whole foods: fruits and veggies, healthy fats, fish, no processed foods, low or devoid of refined sugar, and small amounts of meat etc. Kind of paleo really.
I applaud this kind of eating - wish I had the willpower to do it!
To the bolded, did you accidentally leave out "grains"?
Some foundational foods in Blue Zones are:
Okinawa - rice
Costa Rica - Rice & beans
Sardinia - sourdough and barley
Loma Linda - oatmeal and whole wheat bread
I was referring to processed grains because when people talk about grains in the west - we are rarely talking about whole/unprocessed grains. "Whole wheat" products are usually processed to the hilt. But even things like rice or oats - they aren't nutrient dense foods - they're filler to my mind. Yes, there's fiber but you can get that in cruciferous veggies and fruits. His diet does include fruit and legumes I noticed - so I think the whole "no sugar no grain" tag line really means no refined or processed sugar and grains.
I guess I do think grains are non-essential. I eat them because I like them and I'm just not that disciplined but truthfully my nutrients come from more expedient sources than grains.
Given, there is a lot we still don't understand about nutrition and how adaptable our bodies are to different diets, but given the proliferation of grains in blue zone diets, it's possible that -- for many people at least -- they play a role in a healthful and sustainable diet that goes beyond their straight macro/micronutrient profile. I notice that, for myself (and some others) grains support a feeling of satiety. I love vegetables and beans, but mixing some grains in often helps create a meal that feels like more than the sum of its parts. Hummus and vegetables are delicious. But if I take the same hummus and vegetables and put it on a slice of toast, it becomes something that -- for me -- is more like a meal, something that can sustain me for hours. Same with other grain/fat/vegetable combinations.
I'm not saying they're essential, but for many people they are truly foundational in the diet. Saying there are more "expedient" ways to get the nutrients they provide may be missing the point. They're so far-reaching in healthful diets, I'm questioning if that many cultures are really messing up or choosing a less expedient way to meet their nutritional needs (of course, groups of humans have been wrong before . . . ). I don't think choosing grains shows a lack of discipline
I agree that carbs make a meal feel like a meal. I love them as much - maybe more - than the next person. I've just assumed that processed grains were developed as a way to fill people up when meat and fresh produce were scarce or too expensive.
Carbs are kind of addictive for me. I can eat a great piece of fish or lamb and easily stop when my serving is finished, but give me a good piece of sourdough bread, potatoes, even rice, and I want to gorge until I burst! And I think I kind of ate that way when I was putting on those 20lbs I'm now trying to remove. Whole foods just don't have the appeal of processed grains and that makes me very suspicious
But culturally food is more than nutrition. It is about pleasure and being social and so removing something as ubiquitous as grains and sugar becomes awkward, even outrageous - hence some of the responses here. People are just aghast and offended by the notion of never having a slice of pizza or piece of pie. I think that's a little extreme - it's really not a big deal if he likes living that way.
Obviously people can live a very long time on all kinds of diets - my Italian grandmother rarely ate vegetables or fruit, opting instead for pasta, breads, cutlets, cookies, pudding, etc. and lived robustly (and at a healthy and consistent weight) until 95.
0 -
Carbs are kind of addictive for me. I can eat a great piece of fish or lamb and easily stop when my serving is finished, but give me a good piece of sourdough bread, potatoes, even rice, and I want to gorge until I burst! And I think I kind of ate that way when I was putting on those 20lbs I'm now trying to remove. Whole foods just don't have the appeal of processed grains and that makes me very suspicious
But this is really individual (and whole potatoes aren't "processed grains" and are less "processed" than any meat you buy, not that it matters). I like some starchy foods like this (especially potatoes, sweet potatoes, steel cut oats, and pasta, as well as really good bread, although most bread I can take or leave), but would never want to overeat on it -- it's just not that interesting to me, the base of the meal, not something that I want to eat hedonically. Meat, on the other hand, I can easily overeat if I don't limit myself by choosing a proper portion size for the amount I want. Fatty foods like cheese, same. And I don't think this is unusual at all -- everyone asserting that people aren't compelled to overeat meat (not saying you did this) must not look at common serving sizes in steak houses or even many fish restaurants.1 -
OP here Lol. I'm now on day 91. Down to 186.6, and 35lbs down total since starting.
I have to laugh looking back at the comments. I re read my original post and still am unable to see where I said other methods are incorrect for everyone. Hell, I even mentioned how I lost weight 30lbs the conventional way of just eating "balanced" and exercising; I just couldn't stick to it because of how subjective "healthy eating" can be to me and how slow the results were. I guess I'd see it different if I posted something that said I had double blind study that tested 1000 people and this is the key for everyone, and if you aren't doing this you are a fool. This was a personal story relating to ME, so I didn't believe I needed to add words like "for me" after "the key." Yes, it is the key for ME. The "balanced approach" didn't work for me. I'm a pretty average guy, a pretty typical "American." I will overeat, and eat way too fast. Cutting out grains and sugar (sugars that are added to foods, not to be confused with the sugars that come from low glycemic fruits) was a really easy diet for me to follow. Is it "restrictive?" of course it is a restrictive diet. Can you tell me a diet that isn't restrictive? And what method that doesn't have any restrictions works at all? CICO is restrictive too. Anything you consume shouldn't be "over done." The problem for a term like "balanced" diet for me, is the fact that it's subjective. "Geez I've been really good this week, a cookie isn't going to hurt me." And then BAM!, down goes a half a pack of Oreos. Self justifying cheat eating becomes easy for me. This is how my body and mind works traditionally, I'm sure some people can relate. NSNG created a simple set of rules for me and nothing about it is harmful to my health so I went for it. After the first 2 months I lost cravings for pasta, potatoes, and garbage food with sugar. And since none of these things are beneficial or essential to the body, my attitude for them now is: why eat them? I have no cravings for them and they don't appeal to me anymore.
This diet has changed my mindset, and I have no plans at looking back to eating these pointless things. In the first month of this I thought I would need cheat days to consume pizza and things like that I normally had to have and for the first 6 weeks that was hard. But now I don't care for them anymore. Every balanced approach I used before just left the door open to those things the body doesn't need. I now feel sated by eating healthy natural fats which is about 50-60% of my calories for the day. I'm never starving. And My carbs are usually less than 50 net/day mostly coming from fruits and veggies and other fiber (I add chia seeds and flax seeds which help a lot).
From what I've read, and heard now, over time this diet will lead to the body being "fat adapted." Supposedly this means that the body will use its fat stores as a primary energy source rather than carbohydrates. If someone can tell me how this isn't true, point me in the direction of the knowledge.
For the most part I have been in ketosis on this diet, but not by really trying. I plan to start making the green vegetables a higher portion of my diet now that I am getting closer to my goal weight which will bring me out of ketosis which I have no issues with.
The facts I know are with this lifestyle:
-I am losing inches (I have to go shopping for new pants) and weight
-I don't get mid day sleepy or tired which always used to happen to me when I had a more balanced macro diet
-cravings for garbage food are gone
-my brain seems to function better
-my energy levels in general and after a workout are much higher
-the bone spurs and bulged disk in my back do not bother me anymore (which I believe has to do with the fact that my body doesn't have the overall inflammation it once had)
-I sleep better
-I've never felt better
-I feel the need to exercise to burn off energy
I also went back over some of my comments I wrote and I will admit that my comment about others qualifications and rather me not caring about them was an as*hole attitude, and I apologize Wholeheartedly. I will also concede that I was under the wrong impression about Vinnie's education. I had thought I heard he had a doctorate on a podcast but it may have been a guest he had on. Again, I apologize to those I was an as* to. I understand that any attempts to say that this type of diet doesn't work are just people who care about others health and want them to succeed in the long run. I appreciate that people care. And again, I'm not saying I have the answer for everyone, but it certainly is seeming like the answer for me.
Vinnie has been hollywood's go to guy for nutrition and training behind the scenes (meaning he's training actors/actresses/producers and their families).He has been a nutrition and fitness trainer for well over 25 years.
He's been offered to do shows on fitness (like the biggest loser), but he wouldn't do them because in order to sell products for advertisers, he would have to say things on these shows he didn't agree with. I respect that a lot.
Dr. Rhonda Patrick is a person with a lot of knowledge on how diet effects the body and the DNA of the body. When you eat refined sugars there is a thing called ATP trapping that basically sends signals to your brain telling you it needs food, even though you may be full. A lot of good knowledge from her.
There is added sugar in virtually everything people eat. I challenge anyone to just stick to the guidelines the world health organization has established for added sugar consumption which is 25 grams a day. Even "healthy" protein bars usually contain 15 grams or more of sugar. I believe sugar is the ultimate culprit in the obesity epidemic. And I believe diet is the most effective way to keep the body's weight regulated. Exercise is great and necessary, but I believe it's pretty ineffective for losing real weight for me.
As with any persons anecdotal trials Don't take my word for it, do your own research.
CICO can and has worked for me to a point, but never like this.
Everyone Keep up all your hard work, stay positive, and good luck in your fitness and nutrition goals.
If you're interested in what I eat, here's a list:
Salmon and any other fish really, beef, chicken, lamb, bacon, sardines (in olive oil),
Broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, celery, romain, spinach, cucumber, zucchini, olives, avocados, peppers, garlic, pickles (with no added sugars), all types of berries in moderation, an occasional Apple, nuts but not legumes, flax seeds, chia seeds, eggs, heavy whipping cream, full fat cheeses (I go really easy on these for BM ease), butter, olive oil, coconut oil, and water. It's a smaller list, but it's easy to shop that way.
4 -
To The OP.. Just wondering, does your whole family follow the same diet as you? I wish I had the incentive to follow it but I enjoy the occasional Pizza, chocolate bar & chinese dish.0
-
I have a 1 year old and a 3 year old. They see me eating this way and they start to follow. But I eat usually separate from them, I prep my food before each week and have the whole week planned out. They still eat however they want. There is a recipe called fat head pizza crust. We make pizza on that. The whole pizza has less than 35 carbs. It's actually a better tasting pizza than one made with bread. It uses cheese for the crust, and is crazy filling. The wife won't eat anyother pizza anymore. As far as chocolate is concerned. I eat a small amount of chocolate almost everyday now. I eat a few squares of 85%+ cocoa chocolate or mix them up with some raspberries and heavy whipping cream in the blender for a treat. I could toss in an occasional Chinese food meal if I wanted I guess, but in moderation. 10lbs a month loss is pretty big. I'd be happy 4-6 loss per month, I just don't get the craving for carbs. But Everyone needs to put a little life into living sometimes. I'm doing ragbrai next week (ride across Iowa) and there's no way I'm going to be able to pass up thousands of Amish made pies and not have a slice.1
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
- 401 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
- 992 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions