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.
How the Sugar Industry Shaped Heart Disease Research
Crisseyda
Posts: 532 Member
in Debate Club
It's great to see info like this in the New York Times! I've heard Dr. Henry Lustig say, "sugar is the new tobacco." He wasn't off base. Sugar is far more detrimental to our health than the benign "empty calories" that industry would like you to believe it is.
http://time.com/4485710/sugar-industry-heart-disease-research/?xid=tcoshare
The JAMA article it references: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2548255
In 1954, the Sugar Research Foundation "identified a strategic opportunity for the sugar industry: increase sugar’s market share by getting Americans to eat a lower-fat diet." That worked out much better for Big Sugar than for the rest of us.
http://time.com/4485710/sugar-industry-heart-disease-research/?xid=tcoshare
The JAMA article it references: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2548255
In 1954, the Sugar Research Foundation "identified a strategic opportunity for the sugar industry: increase sugar’s market share by getting Americans to eat a lower-fat diet." That worked out much better for Big Sugar than for the rest of us.
0
Replies
-
What are we debating today?
Do lobbies try to influence people that influence others?
Or: Is sugar is an addictive drug (Part 42)?
Maybe: Why hasn't there been any sugar research since 1954?
How about: Did Big Sugar fail in its goal to get Americans to eat low-fat?11 -
There's a lot of ground between funding a study and paying for results. This is a hit piece with little but innuendo.8
-
Is the Sugar Research Foundation the new Monsanto for orthorexics?11
-
What are we debating today?
Do lobbies try to influence people that influence others?
Or: Is sugar is an addictive drug (Part 42)?
Maybe: Why hasn't there been any sugar research since 1954?
How about: Did Big Sugar fail in its goal to get Americans to eat low-fat?
- There's a difference between "lobbying" and "secretly paying off unethical researchers to write skewed papers"
- Is sugar addictive? It hits the same reward centers as drugs, and is very hard for most people to give up eating. Call it what you like.
- ?
- Eating low-fat wasn't Big Sugar's goal. Eating more sugar was. CICO is all most people know. If you add more sugar to the diet, you have to take something out. Protein is generally recognized as being good, so that left fat. And wow, fat is 9 calories per gram, sugar is only 4, fat must be more fattening. :-O And, you know, dietary cholesterol kinda looks like atherosclerotic plaque, so it must be going straight to the arteries. We'll just run a quick study to "prove" it...and if it doesn't come out like we want, we'll just hide or (deliberately) misinterpret it...
If you tell a lie big enough, and often enough, people will eventually come to believe it.6 -
What a waste of time reading this whole study if you can even call it that. In the limitations they basically say "All evidence presented here is circumstantial, so any conclusions drawn from it are nothing but speculation."4
-
castlerobber wrote: »What are we debating today?
Do lobbies try to influence people that influence others?
Or: Is sugar is an addictive drug (Part 42)?
Maybe: Why hasn't there been any sugar research since 1954?
How about: Did Big Sugar fail in its goal to get Americans to eat low-fat?
- There's a difference between "lobbying" and "secretly paying off unethical researchers to write skewed papers"
- Is sugar addictive? It hits the same reward centers as drugs, and is very hard for most people to give up eating. Call it what you like.
- ?
- Eating low-fat wasn't Big Sugar's goal. Eating more sugar was. CICO is all most people know. If you add more sugar to the diet, you have to take something out. Protein is generally recognized as being good, so that left fat. And wow, fat is 9 calories per gram, sugar is only 4, fat must be more fattening. :-O And, you know, dietary cholesterol kinda looks like atherosclerotic plaque, so it must be going straight to the arteries. We'll just run a quick study to "prove" it...and if it doesn't come out like we want, we'll just hide or (deliberately) misinterpret it...
If you tell a lie big enough, and often enough, people will eventually come to believe it.
-There's also a difference between "Hey, make a review of science, here's your pay because it's your job and jobs get paid" and "secretly paying off unethical researchers to write skewed papers"
-Just like seeing your girlfriend, petting puppies...
- Meaning there's been a shitton of research since the little bit that this thing talks about and guess what, the opinions are still divided
- This article says it was. Using the research that showed sat fats increase CHD risk and call for a reduction in fat, which would in turn increase total carb intake and as a side effect sugar consumption. Of course if you look at the actual numbers, low fat never really caught on outside of dieters and not even all of those.
So all in all, you're making quite the accusations that not even the article in question makes and says itself they're mostly speculating.5 -
I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)4
-
Who's Henry Lustig?3
-
Where is the evidence that the researchers were unethical? Where is the evidence that the payments were secrets or that any misconduct was involved? Where is the evidence that the money skewed the papers? It is not in the links provided. From the first link:castlerobber wrote: »What are we debating today?
Do lobbies try to influence people that influence others?
Or: Is sugar is an addictive drug (Part 42)?
Maybe: Why hasn't there been any sugar research since 1954?
How about: Did Big Sugar fail in its goal to get Americans to eat low-fat?
- There's a difference between "lobbying" and "secretly paying off unethical researchers to write skewed papers"
"In an editorial published alongside new study, Marion Nestle, a professor in the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at NYU, writes that the Harvard professors who conducted the review knew what the funders wanted and provided those findings. “Whether they did this deliberately, unconsciously, or because they genuinely believed saturated fat to be the greater threat is unknown,” Nestle writes."
From the second link:
"This historical account of industry efforts demonstrates the importance of having reviews written by people without conflicts of interest and the need for financial disclosure. Scientific reviews shape policy debates, subsequent investigations, and the funding priorities of federal agencies.52 The NEJM has required authors to disclose all conflicts of interest since 1984,53 and conflict of interest disclosure policies have been widely implemented since the sugar industry launched its CHD research program."
and ...
"The Roger Adams papers and other documents used in this research provide a narrow window into the activities of 1 sugar industry trade association; therefore, it is difficult to validate that the documents gathered are representative of the entirety of SRF internal materials related to Project 226 from the 1950s and 1960s or that the proper weight was given to each data source. There is no direct evidence that the sugar industry wrote or changed the NEJM review manuscript; the evidence that the industry shaped the review’s conclusions is circumstantial. We did not analyze the role of other organizations, nutrition leaders, or food industries that advocated that saturated fat and dietary cholesterol were the main dietary cause of CHD. We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died."
So the researchers did not violate any standards at the time, and there is no proof that their work was influenced by the sugar industry. Your accusations here seem to be pure speculation. If your narrative is that sugar leads to CHD, then where is the modern evidence of that? A lot of money from that era was going to CHD research, and a lot of initial leads did not pan out. From the second link: "Although the contribution of dietary sugars to CHD is still debated", as in, it has not been proven as of 2016.
I like to call drug addiction "drug addiction," and normal biological response to common everyday stimuli "normal biological response."castlerobber wrote: »- Is sugar addictive? It hits the same reward centers as drugs, and is very hard for most people to give up eating. Call it what you like.
Again, my question was: "Why hasn't there been any sugar research since 1954?"castlerobber wrote: »- ?
OP stated that "In 1954, the Sugar Research Foundation "identified a strategic opportunity for the sugar industry: increase sugar’s market share by getting Americans to eat a lower-fat diet."" I don't doubt that their interests were both promoting low-fat diet, and eating more sugar. Again, you are implying that the science from the era was intentionally misrepresented on a vast scale. Does this conspiracy theory involve all researchers since the 1950s up through today? In the end, bad science is replaced with good science. I'm still waiting on the evidence that shows that sugar leads to CHD.castlerobber wrote: »- Eating low-fat wasn't Big Sugar's goal. Eating more sugar was. CICO is all most people know. If you add more sugar to the diet, you have to take something out. Protein is generally recognized as being good, so that left fat. And wow, fat is 9 calories per gram, sugar is only 4, fat must be more fattening. :-O And, you know, dietary cholesterol kinda looks like atherosclerotic plaque, so it must be going straight to the arteries. We'll just run a quick study to "prove" it...and if it doesn't come out like we want, we'll just hide or (deliberately) misinterpret it...
If you tell a lie big enough, and often enough, people will eventually come to believe it.
3 -
I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?5 -
Not all sugar is bad, especially if it comes off of a tree0
-
johnnylakis wrote: »Not all sugar is bad, especially if it comes off of a tree
sugar is sugar, whether it comes from fruit, beets, cane, corn, etc. The only problem from sugar is uncontrolled and excessive ingestion of it.6 -
The urge to find the "silver bullet" for weight management / health and wellness is powerful. At this moment in time, it seems everyone's loading sugar into the gun. I wonder what it will be in 10, 20, 30 years. Something new, certainly. While the common sense advice is and always will be sensible: eat less and moderate certain things, move more, and don't obsess.4
-
Well, protein is the big thing now. And countries which have a higher percentage of their intake from protein weigh more and have higher rates of cancer. Of course, it's correlation only since those countries are typically more affluent and therefore have more access to food period and live long enough to develop cancer, but someone, somewhere, will turn this into it being the next big thing. Of course, Freelee exists, so maybe it's already out there.The urge to find the "silver bullet" for weight management / health and wellness is powerful. At this moment in time, it seems everyone's loading sugar into the gun. I wonder what it will be in 10, 20, 30 years. Something new, certainly. While the common sense advice is and always will be sensible: eat less and moderate certain things, move more, and don't obsess.2 -
How is this any different than any of the low carb studies funded by atkins?7
-
Zzzzzzzzzzz........2
-
I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..3
-
So how many calories do you burn posting "sugar is not poison?"0
-
I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.
cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?2 -
-
Layne Norton talked about this 2 days ago.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApKsdvGCGJw 2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
The WHO is one of the groups who determine what is balanced by science. It's a fairly wide range too. Not too much added sugar, not too much fat either though, because both reduce the amount of micros you can potentially get as they're mostly gotten from foods that are per calorie high in carbs. Hard to get too much protein but there's a range for those too.1 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Layne Norton talked about this 2 days ago.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApKsdvGCGJw
A balanced, non-boogey man discussion with a bunch of facts and studies cited? You expect me to pay attention and follow all of that?! Where's the one Amazon fruit that I have to eat to blast belly fat?! Or the article pointing out which evil conglomeration is the reason I'm overweight and why it isn't from my own choices so I can feel self affirmed?8 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.0 -
I love a good conspiracy theory. Oh, the big smoking gun was that they what? Paid someone to research the role of fat in cardiovascular disease, am I missing something here? Where is the meat? Where are the dead or missing scientist that "proved" that it was sugar rather than fat? I want a better drama than this boring stuff of someone paid for research on fat to promote low fat high carb diets.
Man, this is a lame conspiracy! *pouts*4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Right, but it's the exact opposite of my point. Which is expected since you do LCHF.
But, my point is so many people bemoan the low fat era and rant and rave about the damage done to the "name" of fat and I can agree. But then they go on to do the same thing to sugar and/or carbs.
My point being, in 20 years, we may be making the same moaning noises about low carb.
So why bother low anything and eat in balance?
And you're perfectly welcome to disagree, but that was how I was defining the term.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
I guess you could define "balanced" that way, but that's not the accepted use and that's not a knock because I have nothing against Keto as a viable diet choice for some. I just don't think we should be redefining words because it leads to a breakdown in communication.
I would say you can have an unbalanced but sufficiently nutritious diet.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions