Afraid of natural sugars
Replies
-
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
Excuse me, what?
3 -
rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, unless you're writing tabloid headlines of what happened.4 -
I love 1% milk and bananas but if I eat them I go way over my sugar goal for the day. Am I wrong to be avoiding them? Trying to lose 80 pounds so every little bit helps!
Sugar does not make you gain weight, a calorie surplus does.
Unless you have a medical reason to track sugar/carbs, then you might consider swapping it for fiber.2 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No, not avoid. Moderate. As with moderating all foods.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
You may be the only person on this thread that's making any sense.
In 2018 the USDA will require food companies to provide the amount of added sugar on the label. I wonder why?
Afraid not. There is nothing wrong with added sugar....all about moderation.2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »From the USDA 2015 guidelines. Argue with them, not me.
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
A large body of science shows that eating styles with less added sugars are associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease in adults, and some evidence indicates that these styles are also associated with reduced risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and some types of cancer in adults.
Why would I argue with that...that seems accurate to me. What I disagree with is your claim earlier that somehow added sugar is different than naturally present sugar. That is a claim that YOU made, not that the WHO made...not that the USDA made and its not true. Its just that if you eat a lot of sugar you are getting a lot of empty calories that don't provide the nutrition you need and don't provide the satiation necessary to stay full. That doesn't mean that added sugar is any different than sugar that is present in a bananna...they are both sugar. Its just that one comes with dietary fiber and potassium and one doesn't. The sugar that is present in a bananna is the same fructose that is present in that added sugar, because fructose is sourced from plants. Sucrose, table sugar, also sourced from plants and is just the disaccharide of glucose and fructose. Its the same sugar.
Yeah, I get it. Sugar is sugar.
Just like water is water (H20). But there is great pure and delicious tasting water, and crappy foggy lousy tasting water that's highly purified to make it drinkable. Which water would you prefer?
So nobody cares that sugar is sugar. What you should care about is the blueberry is the equivalent to the great tasting water and the donut is equivalent to the lousy tasting water.
Repeating the sugar is sugar mantra to people who are not educated in nutrition is a big mistake. It should never be even stated, even though it is true. Actually, break it down into glucose, sucrose and fructose.
Why do you feel comparing a sugar from a blueberry, to a donut which has a lot of fat, salt and sugar as a solid comparison? The sugar that is used in donuts is extracted chemically equivalent. The nutrition, as stated by every person on this forum in response to your consistent argument, of a blueberry and a donut are not comparable. The comparison of the two is ridiculous in itself and used by people to try and make an absurd point. Extreme comparisons are not a valid argument. In the end, a person can have a diet that incorporates both foods. Personally, I tend to eat more fruits daily but on occasion, I do have a muffin.
Switch donut to a can of Coke (no fat, no salt). Eat the number of blueberries that have the same amount of sugar as the Coke. Now tell me what is the point of saying the sugar in Coke is the same as the sugar in the blueberries. It is chemically correct. But one is garbage, and one is very healthy. So what's the point.
Well, the point is that you are saying one sugar is different or healthy than another, and your comparison doesn't make sense one iota. Unless you can provide me with peer reviewed studies that the sugar in blueberries is different than the sugar in a coke, then I will continue to see your posting as your opinions only. The bottom line is that you will lose weight no matter which sugar you eat as long as you stay in a calorie deficit.
I, personally, would choose blueberries over a soda any day because the blueberries are food and soda is a beverage.
3 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.
Here's a really good read. American Diabetic Association.
Please post that CDC statistics link.2 -
Raptor2763 wrote: »Natural sugars aren't any big deal - it's the added sugar, ESPECIALLY the REFINED sugar one need to avoid. That's where reading labels comes in really handy
No need to avoid anything if you're not diabetic. Limit, sure. Avoid? Unnecessary.
However, 1/3 of the American Population may well be pre-diabetic, as per CDC statistics. In that case it makes perfect sense to lessen carbohydrate load. If only to stop pre-diabetes and/or insulin resistance progressing to T2 Diabetes. Natural or refined sugar: no difference in how the body processes those.
Considering carbs don't cause diabetes, no, there is no reason to avoid carbs. The fact is T2 is largely linked to poor body weight/composition, inactivity and genetics. You decrease the chances of diabetes by being a healthy weight and exercise.
And, this.
Also, genetics plays a big role, as does being overweight.1 -
rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
0 -
-
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...3 -
stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
1 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
I guess Atkins, Dr. Lustig, Gary Taubes have never done the same thing.6 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
I guess Atkins, Dr. Lustig, Gary Taubes have never done the same thing.
Was Atkins and are Lustig and Taubes bought off by the meat, poultry and dairy industries? Provide proof and I will agree with you.0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
I guess Atkins, Dr. Lustig, Gary Taubes have never done the same thing.
Was Atkins and are Lustig and Taubes bought off by the meat, poultry and dairy industries? Provide proof and I will agree with you.
I find it hard to believe you don't actually believe Atkins, Lustig and Taubes aren't selling anything.
Seriously?4 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
Oh, you know, for silly reasons such as to see if there was actually anything factually wrong in it instead of saying it was all fake because the researchers got paid to do their job?
Also I meant this study http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2548255
The one you use as "proof"? That is talked about in those news articles? Ring a bell?
The same one that itself says it only has incomplete information and all conclusions drawn from it are pure conjecture? The one that says none of the things they found clearly suggest the researchers got influenced to show a certain outcome?5 -
stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
Oh, you know, for silly reasons such as to see if there was actually anything factually wrong in it instead of saying it was all fake because the researchers got paid to do their job?
Also I meant this study http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2548255
The one you use as "proof"? That is talked about in those news articles? Ring a bell?
The same one that itself says it only has incomplete information and all conclusions drawn from it are pure conjecture? The one that says none of the things they found clearly suggest the researchers got influenced to show a certain outcome?
You don't say.
"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."2 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
I guess Atkins, Dr. Lustig, Gary Taubes have never done the same thing.
Was Atkins and are Lustig and Taubes bought off by the meat, poultry and dairy industries? Provide proof and I will agree with you.
I find it hard to believe you don't actually believe Atkins, Lustig and Taubes aren't selling anything.
Seriously?
Here is a nice summary with the problems with sugar. And by the way, Atkins was, and Lustig and Taubes are correct.
And don't forget Dr. David Ludwig, Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. But I suppose he's just a fraud out to make a buck.
https://www.liverdoctor.com/its-sugar-not-fat-that-will-give-you-heart-disease/0 -
gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »gonetothedogs19 wrote: »But wait a minute, all the "experts" on MFP will tell you over and over again - sugar is sugar, doesn't matter where it comes from. Obviously, they know more than WHO. And also the USDA, which has just mandated the "added sugar" category on nutrition labels.
If you read the actual WHO report, the reasons they are recommending reduction in free sugars is:
1. To reduce tooth decay,
2. To reduce the overall calories consumed and thus reduce body weight.
If you are controlling your calories directly, #2 is of no benefit to you since you're eating the same amount anyway. As to #1, sugar reduction can give a benefit, but dental cavities are much more easily prevented by better oral hygiene. Brushing your teeth and flossing before plaque has a chance to form is the best way to prevent cavities.
We now know that the "sugar isn't unhealthy beyond tooth decay and it's empty calories only" was heavily influenced *cough* bought by the sugar industry.
No, no we don't.
Yes, yes we do. Google this: Sugar Industry Harvard, to learn what the sugar industry did years ago to protect their bottom line. This was all over the newspapers last month.
Yeah, maybe instead of reading a newspaper look at the actual study...
Why should I look at the actual study that said sugar is not unhealthy, if the study was paid for the sugar industry? The tobacco industry did the same thing. Do you read studies that said cigarettes don't cause cancer that were paid for by Philip Morris?
I guess Atkins, Dr. Lustig, Gary Taubes have never done the same thing.
Was Atkins and are Lustig and Taubes bought off by the meat, poultry and dairy industries? Provide proof and I will agree with you.
I find it hard to believe you don't actually believe Atkins, Lustig and Taubes aren't selling anything.
Seriously?
Here is a nice summary with the problems with sugar. And by the way, Atkins was, and Lustig and Taubes are correct.
And don't forget Dr. David Ludwig, Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. But I suppose he's just a fraud out to make a buck.
https://www.liverdoctor.com/its-sugar-not-fat-that-will-give-you-heart-disease/
The insulin hypothesis has already been debunked.
And David Lustig does sell a book to make money.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions