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.
Hot topics! Sugar in fruit
Replies
-
I think your last sentence is especially important. IMO, just because someone may eat a lot of sugar and technically burn it all off doesn't mean it's ok to just eat or drink that way.mskessler89 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
As always, this comes back to dosage and context. I wasn't particularly sedentary as a kid - yeah, I watched a lot of TV, but I also played soccer and jumped on the trampoline and biked around my neighborhood and played with my dog. But I drank a LOT of soda. Like, 3-4 cans a day as an 8 year old. Then there was chocolate milk + cookies at school, Pop-Tarts for breakfast, graham crackers as snacks at home... I wasn't overweight, but I was a bit chunky. My dosage was too much for my activity and not properly balanced in a nutrient-dense diet. Activity is very important, but let's not downplay diet - kids who are consuming that much sugar are probably not being fed a particularly nutritious diet, and that's a problem.
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think your last sentence is especially important. IMO, just because someone may eat a lot of sugar and technically burn it all off doesn't mean it's ok to just eat or drink that way.mskessler89 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
As always, this comes back to dosage and context. I wasn't particularly sedentary as a kid - yeah, I watched a lot of TV, but I also played soccer and jumped on the trampoline and biked around my neighborhood and played with my dog. But I drank a LOT of soda. Like, 3-4 cans a day as an 8 year old. Then there was chocolate milk + cookies at school, Pop-Tarts for breakfast, graham crackers as snacks at home... I wasn't overweight, but I was a bit chunky. My dosage was too much for my activity and not properly balanced in a nutrient-dense diet. Activity is very important, but let's not downplay diet - kids who are consuming that much sugar are probably not being fed a particularly nutritious diet, and that's a problem.
not sure what your point is, as no one in this thread is advocating that everyone's sugar consumption should be identical...2 -
As I mentioned, that was in response to the statement that more than likely kids who are eating a lot of sugar are not eating a well balanced diet. I'm just agreeing to the point that even if a kid is very active, he or she should not be eating large amounts of sugar.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think your last sentence is especially important. IMO, just because someone may eat a lot of sugar and technically burn it all off doesn't mean it's ok to just eat or drink that way.mskessler89 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
As always, this comes back to dosage and context. I wasn't particularly sedentary as a kid - yeah, I watched a lot of TV, but I also played soccer and jumped on the trampoline and biked around my neighborhood and played with my dog. But I drank a LOT of soda. Like, 3-4 cans a day as an 8 year old. Then there was chocolate milk + cookies at school, Pop-Tarts for breakfast, graham crackers as snacks at home... I wasn't overweight, but I was a bit chunky. My dosage was too much for my activity and not properly balanced in a nutrient-dense diet. Activity is very important, but let's not downplay diet - kids who are consuming that much sugar are probably not being fed a particularly nutritious diet, and that's a problem.
not sure what your point is, as no one in this thread is advocating that everyone's sugar consumption should be identical...
0 -
But then what is a "large" amount? Can a kid that plays sports and is super active eat more sugar than a kid that plays video games all day?0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
As I mentioned, that was in response to the statement that more than likely kids who are eating a lot of sugar are not eating a well balanced diet. I'm just agreeing to the point that even if a kid is very active, he or she should not be eating large amounts of sugar.ForecasterJason wrote: »
I think your last sentence is especially important. IMO, just because someone may eat a lot of sugar and technically burn it all off doesn't mean it's ok to just eat or drink that way.mskessler89 wrote: »The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue. As I grew older my tastes changed and I drank less of it until now where I don't drink it anymore unless it's the weekend and there is some rum mixed in there.
My point is, and I say this all the time, too much focus is placed on diet and not enough on activity. Is it the added sugar (added calories) that is the problem, or is it a time where more kids are spending time indoors playing xbox and the like?
As always, this comes back to dosage and context. I wasn't particularly sedentary as a kid - yeah, I watched a lot of TV, but I also played soccer and jumped on the trampoline and biked around my neighborhood and played with my dog. But I drank a LOT of soda. Like, 3-4 cans a day as an 8 year old. Then there was chocolate milk + cookies at school, Pop-Tarts for breakfast, graham crackers as snacks at home... I wasn't overweight, but I was a bit chunky. My dosage was too much for my activity and not properly balanced in a nutrient-dense diet. Activity is very important, but let's not downplay diet - kids who are consuming that much sugar are probably not being fed a particularly nutritious diet, and that's a problem.
not sure what your point is, as no one in this thread is advocating that everyone's sugar consumption should be identical...
My point was not to downplay diet but to bring more attention to the increasingly sedentary lives of our children. Diet gets the lion's share of the attention and IMO, activity often times gets brushed off...0 -
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
So a "large" amount is like "a lot" then?0 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So a "large" amount is like "a lot" then?
Yes, but don't get too much...1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So a "large" amount is like "a lot" then?
Yes, but don't get too much...
or over-consume ....1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So a "large" amount is like "a lot" then?
Yes, but don't get too much...
or over-consume ....
Just the right amount? Got it.1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So a "large" amount is like "a lot" then?
Yes, but don't get too much...
or over-consume ....
Just the right amount? Got it.
just make sure that you are active...but not sedentary...but don't be too active because you might damage your heart...2 -
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
So you're debating J72FIT's health as a kid,even though he is now (I'm assuming) a healthy functioning adult?2 -
This thread is making my head hurt, analysis paralysis...1
-
Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
So you're debating J72FIT's health as a kid,even though he is now (I'm assuming) a healthy functioning adult?
3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
What overall health issues do you think that @J72FIT has that were brought on by his soda consumption as a child? Do you think these are undiagnosed and they have been lurking in his body all these years? Or are you saying he has health issues that he hasn't disclosed to us?
2 -
Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
So you're debating J72FIT's health as a kid,even though he is now (I'm assuming) a healthy functioning adult?
I'm not doubting his health, but just because it wasn't an issue for him doesn't mean that someone else can do the same thing and not have issues.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
What overall health issues do you think that @J72FIT has that were brought on by his soda consumption as a child? Do you think these are undiagnosed and they have been lurking in his body all these years? Or are you saying he has health issues that he hasn't disclosed to us?
0 -
@ForecasterJason I hope one day you move on from speculating and assuming.5
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
So you're debating J72FIT's health as a kid,even though he is now (I'm assuming) a healthy functioning adult?
I'm not doubting his health, but just because it wasn't an issue for him doesn't mean that someone else can do the same thing and not have issues.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
What overall health issues do you think that @J72FIT has that were brought on by his soda consumption as a child? Do you think these are undiagnosed and they have been lurking in his body all these years? Or are you saying he has health issues that he hasn't disclosed to us?ForecasterJason wrote: »Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
So you're debating J72FIT's health as a kid,even though he is now (I'm assuming) a healthy functioning adult?
I'm not doubting his health, but just because it wasn't an issue for him doesn't mean that someone else can do the same thing and not have issues.WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
What's debatable is this:ForecasterJason wrote: »
so basically back to where we started...highly active people can consume more sugar than those that are not ...
why is this even a debate point? It is like debating that the sun will rise and set ...
Never an issue? From a weight perspective, then yes I can understand that. But from an overall health perspective? I don't know what "a lot" really means here, but depending on the overall makeup of the diet I think that is very questionable. Giving kids an occasional soda here and there isn't a problem IMO. But that doesn't sound like that's what the situation was, especially if other sweets are/were involved.The interesting thing about soda to me is, as a kid I drank a lot of it. That said, we were so active as kids that it was never an issue.
What overall health issues do you think that @J72FIT has that were brought on by his soda consumption as a child? Do you think these are undiagnosed and they have been lurking in his body all these years? Or are you saying he has health issues that he hasn't disclosed to us?
I did the same as @J72FIT when I was young I had a lot of soda almost everyday and l have no issues either. I grew up near the beach in California. And was either in water or riding my bike everywhere.0 -
While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.1
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.4 -
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
1 -
sunnybeaches105 wrote: »sunnybeaches105 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
So a "large" amount is like "a lot" then?
Yes, but don't get too much...
or over-consume ....
Just the right amount? Got it.
just make sure that you are active...but not sedentary...but don't be too active because you might damage your heart...
Moderation in all things. Even moderation.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.4 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.6 -
So yes, people that have certain diseases have genes that make them more susceptible. But it's not like the genes on their own changed that much in one or two generations. In other words, something else must also be responsible for actually causing the disease to manifest itself in a given individual.ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
They weren't as prevalent 30-40 years ago because the medical community wasn't able to properly diagnose them, plus the people that do carry the genes for those diseases are having children that carry those genes. As a kid in the 1970s, peanut allergies were for special episodes of Donahue. In the 1990s, wheat allergies were special 1 hour long documentaries on TLC/Discovery.
0 -
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system, so if one is eating excessive amounts of sugar from fruit then that could become an issue.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
1 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »85% of the calories in an apple come from fructose. It's piss easy to eat 3-4 apples over a day to get to that amount of fructose, especially if you're "just eating fruit".
I pointed out multiple reasons why the fructose in a apple isn't likely to be absorbed quickly or even completely. There have been many studies showing that fruit consumption is safe as long is it is the whole fruit. In fact it is even bennifical. Additionally, I don't think most people would find eating 3 or 4 apples a day that easy unless the apples were really small. Apples also have a very large amount of fiber. 2 apples is more than a day's worth of fiber.
every "reason" you has posted has been shown to be myth, woo woo, and complete nonsense....I would suggest re-thinking everything that you think that you know about nutrition.
Really? I posted links to controlled studies that that support my points. The lack of natural knowledge here is astounding. No wonder the US is leading the world in obesity.
No you didn't. You posted links to fear mongering websites that cherry picked and misrepresented said studies. Not the same
I did no such thing. I clearly stated that browsing the web shows others talking about the same things and I posted a sample of those sites. The fact that it if fearful to you isn't my problem.
When it comes to cherry picking and misrepresenting studies, much have that is happening all over on every side of the issue. There is a great deal of intentional misrepresenting, a good part of it is from pro-sugar views. The idea that added sugar can be healthy up to 25% of ones calories is really absurd. It that what you are defending?0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I didn't say anything about solving all of life's problems. Autoimmune disorders and allergies can be indirectly related to sugar in fruit. A diet high in sugar can negatively impact the immune system.Alluminati wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Food choice, yes. But IMO inactivity is not at the root of a lot of the problems we have today. I'm talking about more than just weight here, problems like autoimmune diseases and allergies. Rates of those kind of conditions were a lot lower several decades ago.lemurcat12 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »While this is getting away from the OP, I would argue that from an overall health perspective, a lot of kids that grew up decades ago are in better shape than kids today. And I'm not saying that's all attributed to diet. I too know people who are older than me who didn't eat right growing up but aren't necessarily suffering from that today. I'm just saying, times have changed. The food supply isn't what it was then.
It's not the food supply, it's activity (or the lack thereof) and food choice.
That's your problem. You're always looking for the "root" of everything. There's is no one answer that you will find that will solve all of life's problems. What do autoimmune disorders and allergies have to do with sugar in fruit and children's health in the 1950s? Get a grip.
This discussion seems to have taken a turn in defending a high sugar consumption. I claimed that just because some have eaten a high sugar diet as a kid and not suffer from it, doesn't mean that it's necessarily harmless to do so. And now it seems as though a high sugar diet is being justified just because of anecdotal accounts.
You've missed the point. The arguments are not defending "high sugar consumption" but putting the warnings against added sugars into the proper context of overall calorie consumption and a nutrient rich diet.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions