New JAMA Weight Loss Study
Options
Replies
-
Greg, you're not losing fat in a caloric surplus - if that's what someone is telling you they're not a good source of information. If you haven't yet, joining the low carber daily group is worthwhile - lots of good resources and keto friendly people.7
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »Greg, you're not losing fat in a caloric surplus - if that's what someone is telling you they're not a good source of information. If you haven't yet, joining the low carber daily group is worthwhile - lots of good resources and keto friendly people.
My source of information is me actually doing it. I don't need their help.
15 -
GregNoblin wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Greg, you're not losing fat in a caloric surplus - if that's what someone is telling you they're not a good source of information. If you haven't yet, joining the low carber daily group is worthwhile - lots of good resources and keto friendly people.
My source of information is me actually doing it. I don't need their help.
Do you track your intake?2 -
GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you lost weight, you didn't have a calorie surplus.
What happened to the calories if you did not burn them?
That's the trick. You don't have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. I'd recommend you checking out Jason Wittrock's 4000 calorie a day keto challenge for 21 days. He lost something like 2 pounds.
Fat storage occurs when insulin is released. Increasing the time between insulin being released increases the time fat is burned. Calories are not all the same. 1g protein is 4 calories, as it 1g of carbohydrate. A gram of fat is 9 calories. Interesting tidbit, you cannot burn body fat until you've burned through your glucose and glycogen levels. This is why people promote fasted cardio.
I was absolutely in a surplus. Like I said, a calorie is not a calorie. What if I ate 3000 cals but 500 was insoluble fiber? That's 750g of fiber, sure, but it's to make a point. The body doesn't always utilize or store every single calorie. If someone eats specific foods at specific times with a specific time in between eating, bam, you can lose weight in a surplus. Calories in calories out is such a base level, and often wrong, understanding.
And what is the "weight" loss made of? Someone going into ketosis can lose upwards of 10 pounds in a week, even in a massive surplus, all because of water loss. The body requires less water when glucose and glycogen are removed from the equation.
Another variable, how many calories, per day, does someone burn? It's something that has to be completely monitored and tracked every single day. And 30 minutes on a treadmill can see a calorie burn rate change drastically. It can also change drastically in it's body composition effects. Fasted cardio means there's no carbs to burn for fuel, so the body is forced to burn fat. Doing cardio after eating and you're simply burning what you consumed, and you'll never ever touch what's stored. So fasted cardio can burn stored fat, and when eating in a fashion that restricts fat storage hormone releases and promotes the use of fat for fuel, you have a winning combination.
Also, there's no magic daily caloric burn rate that's stable. I can listen to my body. The day after my leg day, I'm low energy unless I pile in 3000 calories. On an off day I can get away with 1500 and not be hungry. This goes back to my argument about "how many calories do you burn". I can go get a Dexa body comp a BodPod water immersion body comp test done and it will give me a baseline Basal Metabolic Rate. But when those tests are done I'm rested and not in rebuild / repair mode. So it might say my BMR is 2600 calories or whatever, but I can tell you thatthe day after my leg day I require far more than that, off days less.
So when someone says calories in calories out it's only sort of right because the BMR isn't a static number. But as keto, my personal experience has been tracking me losing 0.05% body fat percentage per day, I've been eating about 16oz beef / pork / chicken, 4oz cheese, 1 avocado, and 4 whole eggs with 5 tablespoons of butter and 1 tablespoon coconut oil and 4-6 tablespoons of heavy whipping cream every day. Sometimes I also have 4-6oz broccoli or 1.5 cups Kale. I pretty much eat the same thing every day... ALL AT ONCE around noon.
I did the math for you, it's between 2500 and 2900 cals a day. And based on my tracking and 18 months of logs, I can tell you if I split that 2500-2900 between two meals, one in the morning and one at night, I gain weight. All at once, I lose weight.
I see.
It is pure keto omad magic.
You're correct.
You really should add fecal analysis into the loop in order to figure out your actual absorption rate.
Sounds like your own home version of the aspire bariatric device...
News flash: if you pooped it intact you didn't actually absorb the calories.
Therefore your CI was NOT what you thought it was even if the food you ate, had it been absorbed, would have had the calories you estimated.
You changed your own personal CI by setting up preconditions such that you were unable to absorb all the calories you ate.
You also seem to be unable to comprehend the concept of water weight as it relates to Fat Loss.
And you furthermore seem to be unable to grasp the concept of water weight when it comes to manipulating it through the manipulation of glycogen stores which is all that you do when you flip between keto and eating 100 grams of additional carbs that make you gain several pounds.
You're obviously not the only person who doesn't understand water weight and its manipulation.
You can continue to rely on magic or, as someone suggested up thread, you can gain some knowledge and support by discussing your misconceptions with people who eat in ways similar to yours... except that they understand why they're doing so.15 -
14 -
GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »I stopped counting calories a while ago. I'm also ketogenic. I stopped tracking everything in MFP as well. There was simply no need. The study is accurate based on personal experience.
The study did not say that low carb worked best, if that's what you think, or that either low carb or low fat (which also worked in the study) worked independent of calories.
Nor did people in the study (low carbers included) lose all that much weight given the time period.
I do not believe you gain weight on 1800 calories if not IFing, but lose on 3000-4000 if you IF. In particular, unless you are tiny and sedentary, I don't think you could possibly gain on 1800 in that you are a guy.
I have 18 months of notes, measurements, food and exercise logs. If I eat 100g carbohydrate, and that's all I eat that day, I will gain about 6-8 pounds of water weight. I lost more weight faster by eating more than by cutting calories.
Sorry, I assumed you were not talking about water weight, because who cares about a fluctuation of water weight. Yes, someone on low carb will have less water weight, all else equal, than someone not, and changing between one and the other causes a swing.
Nothing to do with IF, of course.You are correct about the study, and yes, starvation works. So does replacing a 300 calorie bagel with 300 calories of kale. Yes, I understand that's 10 cups of kale. And yes, eating real whole foods means you'll generally consume less.
No one recommended starvation.
No one can eat 300 daily cal of kale on a regular basis, I'd guess, and if you did it might well be less since we may overcount the calories in kale. But in any case this has nothing to do with the study, which DID NOT test or find that someone cutting out equal calories of bagels (or butter!) for the same calories of kale would lose weight.I'm not saying cutting calories doesn't work, I'm saying someone won't necessarily gain or stall by eating a surplus.
The study did not find that, and I'm convinced you don't actually understand what "a surplus" means in this context.
But it is obviously possible to gain weight eating keto OR low fat, or IF (what you were actually talking about) or any other diet, if the calories are above your energy needs.6 -
Tiny_Dancer_in_Pink wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »Greg, you're not losing fat in a caloric surplus - if that's what someone is telling you they're not a good source of information. If you haven't yet, joining the low carber daily group is worthwhile - lots of good resources and keto friendly people.
My source of information is me actually doing it. I don't need their help.
Do you track your intake?
Used to. Then I found it didn't matter. Stopped tracking in November.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »I stopped counting calories a while ago. I'm also ketogenic. I stopped tracking everything in MFP as well. There was simply no need. The study is accurate based on personal experience.
The study did not say that low carb worked best, if that's what you think, or that either low carb or low fat (which also worked in the study) worked independent of calories.
Nor did people in the study (low carbers included) lose all that much weight given the time period.
I do not believe you gain weight on 1800 calories if not IFing, but lose on 3000-4000 if you IF. In particular, unless you are tiny and sedentary, I don't think you could possibly gain on 1800 in that you are a guy.
I have 18 months of notes, measurements, food and exercise logs. If I eat 100g carbohydrate, and that's all I eat that day, I will gain about 6-8 pounds of water weight. I lost more weight faster by eating more than by cutting calories.
Sorry, I assumed you were not talking about water weight, because who cares about a fluctuation of water weight. Yes, someone on low carb will have less water weight, all else equal, than someone not, and changing between one and the other causes a swing.
Nothing to do with IF, of course.You are correct about the study, and yes, starvation works. So does replacing a 300 calorie bagel with 300 calories of kale. Yes, I understand that's 10 cups of kale. And yes, eating real whole foods means you'll generally consume less.
No one recommended starvation.
No one can eat 300 daily cal of kale on a regular basis, I'd guess, and if you did it might well be less since we may overcount the calories in kale. But in any case this has nothing to do with the study, which DID NOT test or find that someone cutting out equal calories of bagels (or butter!) for the same calories of kale would lose weight.I'm not saying cutting calories doesn't work, I'm saying someone won't necessarily gain or stall by eating a surplus.
The study did not find that, and I'm convinced you don't actually understand what "a surplus" means in this context.
But it is obviously possible to gain weight eating keto OR low fat, or IF (what you were actually talking about) or any other diet, if the calories are above your energy needs.
A "surplus" means my BMR is about 2200 and I consume 2500-2900 per day and LOSE FAT.12 -
What I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt is if I eat X number of calories over 4 meals I will stall or gain weight and if I eat the same number of calories in one sitting I will actually lose weight and body fat percentage.
There's zero amount of your science and no matter how much you disagree, it's what happens to me after days, weeks, and months of charting every single thing, with a pen, a food scale, and a notebook. What I can tell you is I have my BMR tracked once per week on the same piece of equipment and it's always around 2500. I can tell you that I eat more than that and my weight has gone from 236 to 211 and have lost 11% bodyfat and almost all of that occurred after going to eating once per day and changing nothing else.11 -
GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you lost weight, you didn't have a calorie surplus.
What happened to the calories if you did not burn them?
That's the trick. You don't have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. I'd recommend you checking out Jason Wittrock's 4000 calorie a day keto challenge for 21 days. He lost something like 2 pounds.
You did not answer what happened to the calories.
However, I recall people following the Wittrock experiment, and there were some issues: (1) (the biggest) he probably underestmated his calorie needs, in that he probably was around 4000 cal/day at maintenance, and (2) water weight swings, and (3) not great counting.Fat storage occurs when insulin is released.
Most fat storage is of fat you consume and does not require the release of insulin. It costs calories to turn carbs into fat, so even eating lots of carbs you usually do not (at least if you are not totally sedentary), but just burn more carbs, less fat overall. That does not mean you can't gain eating mostly carbs (OBVIOUSLY you can, same with eating mostly fat), but that the fat is what is actually stored as fat, the carbs just mean you have a greater surplus of fat to store.
None of this actually matters, not unless you are IR, when it may mean you don't get adequate energy from carbs and tend to eat more/be more sedentary when eating more carbs.Increasing the time between insulin being released increases the time fat is burned.
Again, not really, and to the extent it does, it doesn't matter. We all burn the fat needed to fuel our deficit (if we have a deficit) and cannot burn more fat than we actually, you know, burn. Thus, if you happen to eat one huge meal you will have a longer period of dealing with it (to the extent it briefly interferes with fat burning) than if you eat fewer smaller meals. Either way you have plenty of time to burn fat (much of which occurs when sleeping) and won't burn fat on your body if you don't have a deficit.
I mean, think about it logically: if someone burns 2000 calories in a day and eats one giant meal of 2500 calories, it doesn't matter how long they are able to burn fat, they still won't burn more than they ate. You don't burn body fat (not net body fat) when you are eating in a surplus. Your glycogen stores will be full, you will have reserves.Calories are not all the same. 1g protein is 4 calories, as it 1g of carbohydrate. A gram of fat is 9 calories.
Gosh, do you really think we don't know this? Maybe learn the forum a bit before presuming to educate us. This is like telling me that Paris is in France.Interesting tidbit, you cannot burn body fat until you've burned through your glucose and glycogen levels. This is why people promote fasted cardio.
That may be why people do that (uneducated people or people trying to confuse), but it's not true.Like I said, a calorie is not a calorie. What if I ate 3000 cals but 500 was insoluble fiber? That's 750g of fiber, sure, but it's to make a point.
In theory, the calorie counts should subtract calories that are not digested. I do think that some degree of overcounting may exist with some foods (higher fiber, nuts, lean meat), but doesn't really matter, since it's not enough to suggest that someone eating many meals could gain on 1800 and yet lose on 3000 eating once a day, which is what you claimed.
Also, one reason I could never do OMAD personally is that for me it would be exceptionally hard to eat adequate protein and vegetables (I usually eat 12+ servings of veg and fruit).
That the TDEE varies per day has nothing to do with whether you can lose in a surplus. You don't have to know your TDEE for it to, you know, be your real TDEE.5 -
GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »I stopped counting calories a while ago. I'm also ketogenic. I stopped tracking everything in MFP as well. There was simply no need. The study is accurate based on personal experience.
The study did not say that low carb worked best, if that's what you think, or that either low carb or low fat (which also worked in the study) worked independent of calories.
Nor did people in the study (low carbers included) lose all that much weight given the time period.
I do not believe you gain weight on 1800 calories if not IFing, but lose on 3000-4000 if you IF. In particular, unless you are tiny and sedentary, I don't think you could possibly gain on 1800 in that you are a guy.
I have 18 months of notes, measurements, food and exercise logs. If I eat 100g carbohydrate, and that's all I eat that day, I will gain about 6-8 pounds of water weight. I lost more weight faster by eating more than by cutting calories.
Sorry, I assumed you were not talking about water weight, because who cares about a fluctuation of water weight. Yes, someone on low carb will have less water weight, all else equal, than someone not, and changing between one and the other causes a swing.
Nothing to do with IF, of course.You are correct about the study, and yes, starvation works. So does replacing a 300 calorie bagel with 300 calories of kale. Yes, I understand that's 10 cups of kale. And yes, eating real whole foods means you'll generally consume less.
No one recommended starvation.
No one can eat 300 daily cal of kale on a regular basis, I'd guess, and if you did it might well be less since we may overcount the calories in kale. But in any case this has nothing to do with the study, which DID NOT test or find that someone cutting out equal calories of bagels (or butter!) for the same calories of kale would lose weight.I'm not saying cutting calories doesn't work, I'm saying someone won't necessarily gain or stall by eating a surplus.
The study did not find that, and I'm convinced you don't actually understand what "a surplus" means in this context.
But it is obviously possible to gain weight eating keto OR low fat, or IF (what you were actually talking about) or any other diet, if the calories are above your energy needs.
A "surplus" means my BMR is about 2200 and I consume 2500-2900 per day and LOSE FAT.
My BMR is probably (although neither your nor I know for sure) 1166 (according to MFP), and I lose eating way more than that.
This doesn't make me special or mean I eat in a magical way. It means I am not in a coma.6 -
GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »I stopped counting calories a while ago. I'm also ketogenic. I stopped tracking everything in MFP as well. There was simply no need. The study is accurate based on personal experience.
The study did not say that low carb worked best, if that's what you think, or that either low carb or low fat (which also worked in the study) worked independent of calories.
Nor did people in the study (low carbers included) lose all that much weight given the time period.
I do not believe you gain weight on 1800 calories if not IFing, but lose on 3000-4000 if you IF. In particular, unless you are tiny and sedentary, I don't think you could possibly gain on 1800 in that you are a guy.
I have 18 months of notes, measurements, food and exercise logs. If I eat 100g carbohydrate, and that's all I eat that day, I will gain about 6-8 pounds of water weight. I lost more weight faster by eating more than by cutting calories.
Sorry, I assumed you were not talking about water weight, because who cares about a fluctuation of water weight. Yes, someone on low carb will have less water weight, all else equal, than someone not, and changing between one and the other causes a swing.
Nothing to do with IF, of course.You are correct about the study, and yes, starvation works. So does replacing a 300 calorie bagel with 300 calories of kale. Yes, I understand that's 10 cups of kale. And yes, eating real whole foods means you'll generally consume less.
No one recommended starvation.
No one can eat 300 daily cal of kale on a regular basis, I'd guess, and if you did it might well be less since we may overcount the calories in kale. But in any case this has nothing to do with the study, which DID NOT test or find that someone cutting out equal calories of bagels (or butter!) for the same calories of kale would lose weight.I'm not saying cutting calories doesn't work, I'm saying someone won't necessarily gain or stall by eating a surplus.
The study did not find that, and I'm convinced you don't actually understand what "a surplus" means in this context.
But it is obviously possible to gain weight eating keto OR low fat, or IF (what you were actually talking about) or any other diet, if the calories are above your energy needs.
A "surplus" means my BMR is about 2200 and I consume 2500-2900 per day and LOSE FAT.
Well this clears some things up... yes of course you can eat above your BMR and lose weight, most people do, since your BMR is the amount of calories you need to support your bodily functions but no physical activity at all. The calories you would need in a coma. A calorie deficit for weight loss comes from your TDEE - the amount of calories you burn in total including BMR, daily activity like walking and working... and your purposeful exercise. Your TDEE would be markedly higher than your BMR and this is why people are challenging your claims that you ate in a surplus and were losing weight. Because you aren’t.8 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »GregNoblin wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »If you lost weight, you didn't have a calorie surplus.
What happened to the calories if you did not burn them?
That's the trick. You don't have to be in a caloric deficit to lose weight. I'd recommend you checking out Jason Wittrock's 4000 calorie a day keto challenge for 21 days. He lost something like 2 pounds.
You did not answer what happened to the calories.
However, I recall people following the Wittrock experiment, and there were some issues: (1) (the biggest) he probably underestmated his calorie needs, in that he probably was around 4000 cal/day at maintenance, and (2) water weight swings, and (3) not great counting.Fat storage occurs when insulin is released.
Most fat storage is of fat you consume and does not require the release of insulin. It costs calories to turn carbs into fat, so even eating lots of carbs you usually do not (at least if you are not totally sedentary), but just burn more carbs, less fat overall. That does not mean you can't gain eating mostly carbs (OBVIOUSLY you can, same with eating mostly fat), but that the fat is what is actually stored as fat, the carbs just mean you have a greater surplus of fat to store.
None of this actually matters, not unless you are IR, when it may mean you don't get adequate energy from carbs and tend to eat more/be more sedentary when eating more carbs.Increasing the time between insulin being released increases the time fat is burned.
Again, not really, and to the extent it does, it doesn't matter. We all burn the fat needed to fuel our deficit (if we have a deficit) and cannot burn more fat than we actually, you know, burn. Thus, if you happen to eat one huge meal you will have a longer period of dealing with it (to the extent it briefly interferes with fat burning) than if you eat fewer smaller meals. Either way you have plenty of time to burn fat (much of which occurs when sleeping) and won't burn fat on your body if you don't have a deficit.
I mean, think about it logically: if someone burns 2000 calories in a day and eats one giant meal of 2500 calories, it doesn't matter how long they are able to burn fat, they still won't burn more than they ate. You don't burn body fat (not net body fat) when you are eating in a surplus. Your glycogen stores will be full, you will have reserves.Calories are not all the same. 1g protein is 4 calories, as it 1g of carbohydrate. A gram of fat is 9 calories.
Gosh, do you really think we don't know this? Maybe learn the forum a bit before presuming to educate us. This is like telling me that Paris is in France.Interesting tidbit, you cannot burn body fat until you've burned through your glucose and glycogen levels. This is why people promote fasted cardio.
That may be why people do that (uneducated people or people trying to confuse), but it's not true.Like I said, a calorie is not a calorie. What if I ate 3000 cals but 500 was insoluble fiber? That's 750g of fiber, sure, but it's to make a point.
In theory, the calorie counts should subtract calories that are not digested. I do think that some degree of overcounting may exist with some foods (higher fiber, nuts, lean meat), but doesn't really matter, since it's not enough to suggest that someone eating many meals could gain on 1800 and yet lose on 3000 eating once a day, which is what you claimed.
Also, one reason I could never do OMAD personally is that for me it would be exceptionally hard to eat adequate protein and vegetables (I usually eat 12+ servings of veg and fruit).
That the TDEE varies per day has nothing to do with whether you can lose in a surplus. You don't have to know your TDEE for it to, you know, be your real TDEE.
Ok. You're the expert. I'll just keep doing what I'm succeeding at. Other than avocados I eat 0 servings of fruit.... Oh, and about 5000mg sodium.10 -
GregNoblin wrote: »Ok. You're the expert. I'll just keep doing what I'm succeeding at.
I didn't say you couldn't succeed at it, or even that it is not right for you. If you like it, and are losing, then great, I have nothing against OMAD or keto. What I don't get is this reaction where if someone says (correctly) that OMAD is not magically trumping calories and letting you lose in a surplus (or not believing that you'd gain at 1800 -- likely a huge deficit -- if you ate 3 meals a day) that that person is anti-OMAD or anti-keto or whatever.
I think it's a perfectly fine way to achieve a deficit for those who enjoy it. (Just as the study indicates both low fat and low carb can be.)Other than avocados I eat 0 servings of fruit.... Oh, and about 5000mg sodium.
Um, cool? I knew you were keto so I'm hardly shocked. Not sure why you are telling me this. If it's in response to my comment about how I couldn't (that's me personally, I dislike feeling super stuffed) get adequate vegetables or protein on OMAD, I guess I don't get how it's responsive.3 -
GregNoblin wrote: »A "surplus" means my BMR is about 2200 and I consume 2500-2900 per day and LOSE FAT.
Oh my *kitten* I didn't even spot that... err.
OK.
If your BMR is 2200 your TDEE is AT THE VERY LEAST 2750. And to be that low you would have to avoid engaging in more than 40 minutes of non lying in bed activity...
Your deficit counts from your TDEE, not your BMR...
8 -
So we got someone who claims he loses weight eating double the calories that he would normally gain at just from eating in a special way, who claims he's gained muscle at almost double the speed that would be expected when GAINING weight, and if my math isn't off his claims of how much bodyfat he lost would mean he started at something like 95% bodyfat.9
-
stevencloser wrote: »So we got someone who claims he loses weight eating double the calories that he would normally gain at just from eating in a special way, who claims he's gained muscle at almost double the speed that would be expected when GAINING weight, and if my math isn't off his claims of how much bodyfat he lost would mean he started at something like 95% bodyfat.
And yet there is mountains of scientific evidence proving no metabolic advantage to a ketogenic diet and meal timing being irrelevant to energy balance. But none of that matters because....
5 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
Low carbohydrates doesn't equal keto. You can successfully lose weight on a low carbohydrate plan without ever going into keto assuming one is in a deficit (the same thing that creates weight loss when one is doing keto).
Nothing in the construction of the study leads one to believe that those running it wanted or expected the low carbohydrate group to be on keto.
Sure, as long as you eat less than your body uses everything works somehow, but you don't make a study around that. As said before: There is no reason to cut on carbohydrates if you don't want to go keto.
If you want a diet with low carbs, you cut the sugar, check your basal metabolic rate and eat enough that you have a low deficit - that isn't necessarily low on carbs depending on how much vegetables and nuts you eat.
A scientific study shouldn't use a completely undefined term like "low carb diet" without even checking how many carbs every person has.
If your range from low goes from 20g of carbs per day to 45% of your daily carbohydrates intake, that's all, but not "low" carb.
Reasons to cut carbohydrates without going keto: an individual finds it makes it easier for them to stay in a calorie deficit, an individual has health conditions that are easier to manage when carbohydrates are lower, an individual finds they prefer to eat more fat and/or protein.3 -
diannethegeek wrote: »This comic is getting quite a workout this week:
This is a fantastic cartoon - and right on the mark.
Those getting bent out of shape by the article should note this paragraph:...Dr. Gardner said it is not that calories don’t matter. After all, both groups ultimately ended up consuming fewer calories on average by the end of the study, even though they were not conscious of it. The point is that they did this by focusing on nutritious whole foods that satisfied their hunger...1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions