why does sugar make us fat
Replies
-
goldthistime wrote: »I got an email this morning from a company called MedCan here in Canada with a link to an interesting article they have written. Something for everyone here. For the "fearful of sugar" crowd there are some interesting statements and a link to a recent study in Cell, as well as some work by a young molecular biologist. As example:
"Growing research details how sugar affects the brain cells that influence our appetite. A study published in Cell on rodents, found that the brain not only consumes more sugar than any other organ in the body, but it actively seeks sugar from the bloodstream. We are starting to learn that excessive sugar intake can impact the brain on a molecular level, which can lead to negative outcomes such as excessive eating and eventually obesity."
and
"“This study confirms that our eating habits are psychological at the cellular level,” says Megan Scully, a registered dietitian at Medcan, who adds that most Canadians eat more than the recommended 6 to 9 teaspoons a day (one regular can of pop contains 10 teaspoons of sugar). High-sugar diets have been linked to impaired memory and learning, depressed mood and cognitive decline."
The "sugar is fine" crowd probably already noticed the word "rodent"and is ready to dismiss any findings based on the fact that the study was not done on humans.
See? Something for everyone.
The article: http://www.medcan.com/medcan-insights/expert-perspectives/new-findings-sugar-alters-brain/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=b2c
The study: http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(16)30974-6
This email is confusing, I'm not sure if they are selling something and being misleading on purpose or simply ignorant. The brain does seek out "sugar". That sugar is not the sugar you eat, it's the sugar your body makes for the brain to fuel itself. Even if you eat zero added sugar you will still be actively making glucose for the brain. How they jump from a basic biochemical function that happens regardless of the kinds of foods eaten to sugar causing obesity is mind boggling. That's like saying "our blood actively circulates fat, therefore, fat affects us on the molecular level and makes us fat"
(neither link works by the way)
Edit: copy pasted the study link and I still don't see how this is relevant (sorry, was looking at a different study). It talks about an abnormal state where glucose sensing is impaired. What does it have to do with consumed sugar?10 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »goldthistime wrote: »I got an email this morning from a company called MedCan here in Canada with a link to an interesting article they have written. Something for everyone here. For the "fearful of sugar" crowd there are some interesting statements and a link to a recent study in Cell, as well as some work by a young molecular biologist. As example:
"Growing research details how sugar affects the brain cells that influence our appetite. A study published in Cell on rodents, found that the brain not only consumes more sugar than any other organ in the body, but it actively seeks sugar from the bloodstream. We are starting to learn that excessive sugar intake can impact the brain on a molecular level, which can lead to negative outcomes such as excessive eating and eventually obesity."
and
"“This study confirms that our eating habits are psychological at the cellular level,” says Megan Scully, a registered dietitian at Medcan, who adds that most Canadians eat more than the recommended 6 to 9 teaspoons a day (one regular can of pop contains 10 teaspoons of sugar). High-sugar diets have been linked to impaired memory and learning, depressed mood and cognitive decline."
The "sugar is fine" crowd probably already noticed the word "rodent"and is ready to dismiss any findings based on the fact that the study was not done on humans.
See? Something for everyone.
The article: http://www.medcan.com/medcan-insights/expert-perspectives/new-findings-sugar-alters-brain/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=b2c
The study: http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674(16)30974-6
This email is confusing, I'm not sure if they are selling something and being misleading on purpose or simply ignorant. The brain does seek out "sugar". That sugar is not the sugar you eat, it's the sugar your body makes for the brain to fuel itself. Even if you eat zero added sugar you will still be actively making glucose for the brain. How they jump from a basic biochemical function that happens regardless of the kinds of foods eaten to sugar causing obesity is mind boggling. That's like saying "our blood actively circulates fat, therefore, fat affects us on the molecular level and makes us fat"
(neither link works by the way)
This stuff is like marketing material so dumbed down and sensationalized. Sorry about the links. I'm pecking on my phone.
Try this:
http://www.sciencealert.com/sugar-is-controlling-our-brains-more-than-we-even-realised-study-finds
0 -
Of course the brain seeks sugar from the bloodstream - the brain runs exclusively on glucose. Even on a keto diet, the fats will be converted to sugar for the brain because it needs glucose to function. That hardly translates into the brain being wired to create sugar cravings and obesity - if that were the case, every human in the world would be obese and have uncontrollable sugar cravings, because our brains all work the same. This is one case in which there are definitely no 'special snowflakes'.
To be clear, nobody is arguing that an excess of sugar is good for people and that it's perfectly okay to shovel down as much of it as you want without restraint. The point being made is that sugar, in moderation, is not the devil and does not cause diseases or obesity. There's nothing wrong with making a conscious choice to reduce the intake of added sugars in one's diet, but it's not a substance which needs to be feared and totally excluded either.9 -
Of course the brain seeks sugar from the bloodstream - the brain runs exclusively on glucose. Even on a keto diet, the fats will be converted to sugar for the brain because it needs glucose to function. That hardly translates into the brain being wired to create sugar cravings and obesity - if that were the case, every human in the world would be obese and have uncontrollable sugar cravings, because our brains all work the same. This is one case in which there are definitely no 'special snowflakes'.
To be clear, nobody is arguing that an excess of sugar is good for people and that it's perfectly okay to shovel down as much of it as you want without restraint. The point being made is that sugar, in moderation, is not the devil and does not cause diseases or obesity. There's nothing wrong with making a conscious choice to reduce the intake of added sugars in one's diet, but it's not a substance which needs to be feared and totally excluded either.
I agree that no one here advocates excessive sugar consumption. And the Medcan article agrees that moderate consumption is what we should all aim for (although we may have differing definitions of moderate). The article/study was, I thought, a possible answer to the question "How does EXCESSIVE sugar make us gain weight?".0 -
I'm still not sure how that article is supposed to shed light on anything since the action observed which affected appetite seemed to stem from missing insulin receptors on the glial cells that weren't allowing them to uptake glucose.
That has nothing at all to do with sugar consumption.2 -
Here's more from the MedCan article if that helps:
"How too much sugar turns off the ‘enough’ switch
Scientists previously believed that the brain absorbed sugar as a passive action. They’ve since discovered glial cells (specifically the astrocytes that form the blood-brain barrier), which comprise about 90% of the brain’s cells, actively seek and essentially slurp sugar.
“Hormones, such as leptin and insulin, control the sugar intake into the brain through receptors on the astrocytes. This switch acts like an alarm bell to let our brains know that we are full and should stop eating. Being overweight or obese is one of the leading risk factors for developing hormone resistance and an excessive sugar intake can contribute to this,” says Scully. “We are also learning that it is possible to become leptin resistant (not just insulin resistant) – meaning, the brain doesn’t receive the signal from the adipose tissue via the leptin hormone. That means, the hunger switch remains on, even when the body has received an adequate amount of fat or sugar, which can contribute to excessive eating.”
“So this study suggests that if the brain actively seeks sugar from our bloodstream, and the ‘enough’ signal is not being activated, we may eat more than we need.”0 -
The MedCan article also links to this article. Preliminary, proves nothing if you are looking for proof of some sort, but interesting.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/10/04/496560373/this-scientist-is-trying-to-unravel-what-sugar-does-to-the-brain0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I'm still not sure how that article is supposed to shed light on anything since the action observed which affected appetite seemed to stem from missing insulin receptors on the glial cells that weren't allowing them to uptake glucose.
That has nothing at all to do with sugar consumption.
I see your point btw. I don't have an answer.0 -
Another reason sugar causes fat is because people act like its a another food group...everything that is in the aisles of our grocery stores has more sugar than the most food in the perimeter of our grocery stores. They go into denial when they cannot have their mocha frappacino at Starbucks or when their cracker tastes bland. My tastebuds have been set back to "normal." My family, however, are in revolt to my new standards of seasoning in foods.0
-
mysteps2beauty wrote: »Another reason sugar causes fat is because people act like its a another food group...everything that is in the aisles of our grocery stores has more sugar than the most food in the perimeter of our grocery stores. They go into denial when they cannot have their mocha frappacino at Starbucks or when their cracker tastes bland. My tastebuds have been set back to "normal." My family, however, are in revolt to my new standards of seasoning in foods.
The "perimeters vs aisles" thing has been discussed ad nauseum on these boards, there is no standard for grocery store design so that seems like a silly generalization. Mine has produce (plenty of sugar in fruits!), bakery, deli, meat, cheese, OJ, cookie dough, yogurt, pharmacy, toiletries, and sale products (always includes plenty of packaged items). Not sure how that is inherently worse than the pasta, canned fruits/veggies, rice, ziplock bags, crackers, cereal, chips and frozen foods of the aisles...
Also, who is being denied a mocha frappucino? Why are they denied it, and why are they throwing fits?8 -
What does this even mean..?mysteps2beauty wrote: »Another reason sugar causes fat is because people act like its a another food group...
Not in all grocery stores...mysteps2beauty wrote: »everything that is in the aisles of our grocery stores has more sugar than the most food in the perimeter of our grocery stores.
Funny I don't see this...mysteps2beauty wrote: »They go into denial when they cannot have their mocha frappacino at Starbucks or when their cracker tastes bland.
"Normal" is a setting on a clothes dryer...mysteps2beauty wrote: »My tastebuds have been set back to "normal." My family, however, are in revolt to my new standards of seasoning in foods.
How does any of this prove sugar causes fat gain?
8 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »Another reason sugar causes fat is because people act like its a another food group...everything that is in the aisles of our grocery stores has more sugar than the most food in the perimeter of our grocery stores. They go into denial when they cannot have their mocha frappacino at Starbucks or when their cracker tastes bland. My tastebuds have been set back to "normal." My family, however, are in revolt to my new standards of seasoning in foods.
I've been maintaining a 50lb weight loss for several years now and have improved all my health markers. Through all of this my taste buds have not 'reset' and I still eat the same foods I ate when I was overweight. The difference is I learned how CICO works and figured out how many calories I needed to meet my goals. I still eat the same foods I like, I still grocery shop the same way, I still enjoy meals out at restaurants several times a week, and my family still enjoys the foods that they like (none of them are overweight either). By not making drastic changes, and instead focusing on what's actually sustainable for me to do long term, has made me one of the very few people out there who are successfully maintaining.1 -
mysteps2beauty wrote: »Another reason sugar causes fat is because people act like its a another food group...everything that is in the aisles of our grocery stores has more sugar than the most food in the perimeter of our grocery stores.
Among many no sugar items in the aisles are oatmeal, pasta, canned beans. Among high sugar items in the perimeter are fruit, dairy. Also (as WinoGelato notes) in my grocery store the bakery is on the perimeter, so also donuts. I never buy bakery items at the grocery store (fairly or not I assume they won't be that great), but they are there.They go into denial when they cannot have their mocha frappacino at Starbucks or when their cracker tastes bland.
Who is "they"? I have never, not ever liked sweetened coffee or enjoyed a mocha frappacino. Starbucks isn't my preferred coffee vendor, but when I go there I get black coffee or an Americano. I also don't much like crackers, but the ones I'd choose are not sweet at all (I like those wine cracker that are supposed to wipe your palate, and I don't mind a Saltine, and I guess I used to eat Goldfish -- crackers aren't something I'd spend calories on normally, though.
Oh, and this was all before I did a no added sugar thing, and I also enjoyed vegetables. You seem to have created an imaginary world where no one who eats added sugar in any quantity also likes less sweet foods, but this has never been my experience and it also sounds really weird to me. If you couldn't enjoy non sweet foods, you did something extreme to your palate, maybe, but most people have no issues at all with them (and plenty of Americans like bland food, IMO -- I actually think we'd be better off with more use of varied herbs and spices, but I'm kind of a foodie type, so I would).2 -
Im not sure if it's bad form to not read the whole thread, I read some but.. 13 pages ?!... so I apologize if someone said this better, but I believe that the reason people will find "sugar making them fat" is not the sugary item itself per se, but that when you eat something with sugar that isn't coupled with enough fiber to slow down it's absorption, it will make your blood sugar spike, which makes insulin release to bring it down, which ends up in a rebound where the level goes low and therefore youre hungry again, in a reasonably short space of time- so you eat again (and again) thereby eating too many calories. We have to have a form of sugar to survive, so if it goes too low, our bodies will get very hungry as a survival mechanism.
If you eat enough fiber with it, the sugar wont be absorbed as quickly, so the sugar level will gently rise, and gently fall over a longer period of time- so you won't have this sudden rush of "I've got to eat NOW" shortly that is what "makes you fat". Experts will talk about glycemic load and other such big words, but really it just means dont eat something that is (or quickly breaks down into, like white bread) high in simple sugars without some fiber to slow it down. Eat an apple(or other fruit), not apple(or whatever) juice, eat bread with whole grain with the jelly, and so forth.
2 -
You should go back and read the first 13 pages....8
-
It doesn't. Based on the MFP principle of Calories In and Calories Out, the lack of a Calorie Deficit is what makes you fat. Less food and more exercise is the solution. It isn't specifically sugar causing the trouble.2
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »ok so I've tried a lil experiment on myself a number of times.
I will eat the same cals = 2100
One week with high protein, low carbs...I will be about 1 lb lighter and not hungry at night
One week high carbs and sugar (chocolate for lunch yum)...I will be about 2 lbs heavier and very hungry at night.
Why would this be if I'm eating the same amount of calories?
One week isn't enough data to conclude anything at all. Beyond that, if you're lower carb you are going to hold onto less water and deplete glycogen...increase carbs and you're going to hold onto more water and replenish glycogen..those things have mass and thus weight...
If carbs hindered or caused weight gain, every vegetarian and vegan on the planet would be obese. You can also look at populations like Japan who have one of the lowest if not the lowest obesity rates...high carb diet.
I eat a substantially plant based diet which means I eat a lot of carbs...lots of beans and lentils and potatoes and sweet potatoes and rice and pasta, etc...I do just fine with satiety...
In your post, you're primarily looking at carbs as "junk"...who the frack has chocolate for lunch? That's not lunch, that's a snack treat. I don't know anyone who would be satiated just eating chocolate for lunch...there are numerous sources of highly nutritious carbohydrates...this crap gets really old...
Whatev
Whatev what? Yeah...you're going to be hungry if all you have is chocolate for lunch...your "experiment" is inherently flawed...like big time.
You took my comments out of context. I eat about every two hours the same amt of calories swapping sugar for protein. My comments are very valid.0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »ok so I've tried a lil experiment on myself a number of times.
I will eat the same cals = 2100
One week with high protein, low carbs...I will be about 1 lb lighter and not hungry at night
One week high carbs and sugar (chocolate for lunch yum)...I will be about 2 lbs heavier and very hungry at night.
Why would this be if I'm eating the same amount of calories?
One week isn't enough data to conclude anything at all. Beyond that, if you're lower carb you are going to hold onto less water and deplete glycogen...increase carbs and you're going to hold onto more water and replenish glycogen..those things have mass and thus weight...
If carbs hindered or caused weight gain, every vegetarian and vegan on the planet would be obese. You can also look at populations like Japan who have one of the lowest if not the lowest obesity rates...high carb diet.
I eat a substantially plant based diet which means I eat a lot of carbs...lots of beans and lentils and potatoes and sweet potatoes and rice and pasta, etc...I do just fine with satiety...
In your post, you're primarily looking at carbs as "junk"...who the frack has chocolate for lunch? That's not lunch, that's a snack treat. I don't know anyone who would be satiated just eating chocolate for lunch...there are numerous sources of highly nutritious carbohydrates...this crap gets really old...
Whatev
Whatev what? Yeah...you're going to be hungry if all you have is chocolate for lunch...your "experiment" is inherently flawed...like big time.
You took my comments out of context. I eat about every two hours the same amt of calories swapping sugar for protein. My comments are very valid.
Eating a snackfood as a meal then wondering why it's not filling is not valid.
Prescribing any importance to a 1 pound difference over one week when weight can fluctuate that much easily from one day to another due to water retention is not valid.10 -
So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.3
-
STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
Essentially, calories makes us fat.4 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
typical for MFP and the weight loss industry as a whole. Over complicate everything so that people think they need to buy books, supplements, etc, when in reality they just need to exercise more, monitor their intake, and make sure that they are getting proper nutrition. But it is hard to write a book that says eat less, exercise more, and get nutrition, because that would be a five page book and would not make money ..
it is only when you demonize things like sugar, that one can then make up complicated solutions to sell stuff...4 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
There is only one correct answer: People are overweight/obese because of consuming more calories than they burn. There are many factors which may lead to this including your suggestion of lack of discipline/commitment, but also because of other reasons: injury/illness/loss of motivation/lack of awareness of how many calories they need/change in life situation/just don't care/etc.
There are so many myths propagated by clickbait articles, social media, diet gurus trying to make a buck, blogs, etc; so I agree with you that it is easy for people to get confused. What it takes to lose weight is simple (CI<CO) but it isn't easy, and people want to have something to blame for their challenges in maintaining a healthy weight. Sugar is the scapegoat du jour. I agree with you that personal accountability is critical, not looking for a food/macro to demonize and blame for our situation.
4 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
I was fat because I didn't know how CICO worked. After I learned that I lost the extra weight and have been maintaining for a few years now. I still eat the same foods I did when I was overweight though-the difference is now I eat them in the correct amount of calories for my weight goals. I don't see myself as super disciplined though or anything, I'm just applying what I've learned and then move on with my day 2 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
typical for MFP and the weight loss industry as a whole. Over complicate everything so that people think they need to buy books, supplements, etc, when in reality they just need to exercise more, monitor their intake, and make sure that they are getting proper nutrition. But it is hard to write a book that says eat less, exercise more, and get nutrition, because that would be a five page book and would not make money ..
it is only when you demonize things like sugar, that one can then make up complicated solutions to sell stuff...
I totally agree!!!! I remember I actually didn't know how to lose weight. But now that I am educated, it's really simple to lose weight, it's "me" that make it hard because I have to undo some old programming and habits.0 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
typical for MFP and the weight loss industry as a whole. Over complicate everything so that people think they need to buy books, supplements, etc, when in reality they just need to exercise more, monitor their intake, and make sure that they are getting proper nutrition. But it is hard to write a book that says eat less, exercise more, and get nutrition, because that would be a five page book and would not make money ..
it is only when you demonize things like sugar, that one can then make up complicated solutions to sell stuff...
I totally agree!!!! I remember I actually didn't know how to lose weight. But now that I am educated, it's really simple to lose weight, it's "me" that make it hard because I have to undo some old programming and habits.
Love the PP, burpees are scary enough without the flaming jack-o-lantern!
0 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
Mindless eating, leads to caloric surplus, leads to weight gain...3 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
I was fat because I didn't know how CICO worked. After I learned that I lost the extra weight and have been maintaining for a few years now. I still eat the same foods I did when I was overweight though-the difference is now I eat them in the correct amount of calories for my weight goals. I don't see myself as super disciplined though or anything, I'm just applying what I've learned and then move on with my day
You are disciplined to the process and because of the commitment you saw results. That's what I am talking about. I didn't know how CICO worked either...but you were fat because you ate at a surplus.1 -
STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
Mindless eating, leads to caloric surplus, leads to weight gain...
Leads to the dark side.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
typical for MFP and the weight loss industry as a whole. Over complicate everything so that people think they need to buy books, supplements, etc, when in reality they just need to exercise more, monitor their intake, and make sure that they are getting proper nutrition. But it is hard to write a book that says eat less, exercise more, and get nutrition, because that would be a five page book and would not make money ..
it is only when you demonize things like sugar, that one can then make up complicated solutions to sell stuff...
I totally agree!!!! I remember I actually didn't know how to lose weight. But now that I am educated, it's really simple to lose weight, it's "me" that make it hard because I have to undo some old programming and habits.
Love the PP, burpees are scary enough without the flaming jack-o-lantern!
LOL....I agree.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »STLBADGIRL wrote: »So did you all come up with an answer? I see why some people are so lost and confused on losing weight with all the theories floating around.... This thread is all over the place. From fat, to carbs, to sweets,etc., being the culprit. The truth is, we are fat because of lack of discipline and commitment, among a few other things. We blame everything and everyone else...we need to take responsibility.
Mindless eating, leads to caloric surplus, leads to weight gain...
Leads to the dark side.
haha0
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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions