Fasting For 12 Hours Per Day
mtoyia
Posts: 9 Member
Thoughts? Anyone Doing This Already?
“Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
Dieters hoping to shed the pounds should watch the clock as much as their calories after scientists discovered that limiting the hours we eat stops weight gain.
Confining meals to a 12 hour window, such as 8am to 8pm, and fasting for the remaining day, appears to make a huge difference to whether fat is stored, or burned up by the body.
Researchers at The Salk Institute in the US, said it adds more evidence to studies which show that eating late at night causes weight gain.
They suggest restricting eating hours could help fight high cholesterol, diabetes and obesity.
"These days, most of the advice is, 'You have to change nutrition, you have to eat a healthy diet,'" said associate professor Satchidananda Panda
"But many people don't have access to healthy diets. So the question is, without access to a healthy diet, can they still practice time-restricted feeding and reap some benefit?
The researchers studied 400 mice, ranging from normal to obese who were placed on various types of diets and lengths of time restrictions.
They showed that mice which were fed a high-fat diet, but allowed access to food for only 12 hours per day, were healthier and slimmer than mice given access to the same food for the whole day, even though the two groups consumed the same number of calories.
The results were the same even if the diets were high fat, high sugar, or high fruit sugars.
The study also suggests that the odd blip is unlikely to make a difference. A late night weekend takeaway, for example, is unlikely to harm the body's metabolism. However regularly eating at night would have a big impact.
"The fact that it worked no matter what the diet, and the fact that it worked over the weekend and weekdays, was a very nice surprise," says the study's first author Amandine Chaix, a postdoctoral researcher in Prof Panda's lab.
Mice who had become obese by eating whenever they liked during the day, lost five per cent of their bodyweight, when put on restricted within just a few days. At the end 38 week study, they were 25 per cent lighter than the group who had continued to eat freely.
Although mice on a healthy diet did not lose more weight, they gained muscle mass, the study which was published in the journal Cell Metabolism showed.
"It's an interesting observation that although the mice on a normal diet did not lose weight, they changed their body composition," added Prof Panda.
"That brings up the question--what happens? Are these mice maintaining their muscle mass which might have been lost with free feeding, or are they gaining muscle mass?"
A second study found that sticking to a Mediterranean diet can protect the DNA from ageing.
Researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in the US found that a diet high in olive oil, fresh fruit and vegetables and nuts, was associated with longer telomeres.
Telomeres are the protective caps which sit at the end of chromosomes and prevent damage to the DNA, much like the plastic caps on the end of shoelaces.
Previous studies have shown that short telomeres are associated with disease and advanced ageing.
"To our knowledge this is the largest population-based study specifically addressing the association between Mediterranean diet adherence and telomere length in healthy, middle-aged women," explained Immaculata De Vivo, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the Channing Division of Network Medicine at BWH and Harvard School of Public Health and senior author of this study.
"Our results further support the benefits of adherence to this diet to promote health and longevity."
Dr Mike Knapton, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation, said: “This large study adds to the body of evidence that longer telomeres are found in those who eat a Mediterranean diet.
“Longer telomeres may partially explain the link between diet and risk of cardiovascular disease.
“Previous findings from the same study had shown that those with unhealthy lifestyles had shorter telomeres.
“These results reinforce our advice that eating a balanced and healthy diet can reduce your risk of developing heart disease.”
The study was published in the British Medical Journal.”
“Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
Dieters hoping to shed the pounds should watch the clock as much as their calories after scientists discovered that limiting the hours we eat stops weight gain.
Confining meals to a 12 hour window, such as 8am to 8pm, and fasting for the remaining day, appears to make a huge difference to whether fat is stored, or burned up by the body.
Researchers at The Salk Institute in the US, said it adds more evidence to studies which show that eating late at night causes weight gain.
They suggest restricting eating hours could help fight high cholesterol, diabetes and obesity.
"These days, most of the advice is, 'You have to change nutrition, you have to eat a healthy diet,'" said associate professor Satchidananda Panda
"But many people don't have access to healthy diets. So the question is, without access to a healthy diet, can they still practice time-restricted feeding and reap some benefit?
The researchers studied 400 mice, ranging from normal to obese who were placed on various types of diets and lengths of time restrictions.
They showed that mice which were fed a high-fat diet, but allowed access to food for only 12 hours per day, were healthier and slimmer than mice given access to the same food for the whole day, even though the two groups consumed the same number of calories.
The results were the same even if the diets were high fat, high sugar, or high fruit sugars.
The study also suggests that the odd blip is unlikely to make a difference. A late night weekend takeaway, for example, is unlikely to harm the body's metabolism. However regularly eating at night would have a big impact.
"The fact that it worked no matter what the diet, and the fact that it worked over the weekend and weekdays, was a very nice surprise," says the study's first author Amandine Chaix, a postdoctoral researcher in Prof Panda's lab.
Mice who had become obese by eating whenever they liked during the day, lost five per cent of their bodyweight, when put on restricted within just a few days. At the end 38 week study, they were 25 per cent lighter than the group who had continued to eat freely.
Although mice on a healthy diet did not lose more weight, they gained muscle mass, the study which was published in the journal Cell Metabolism showed.
"It's an interesting observation that although the mice on a normal diet did not lose weight, they changed their body composition," added Prof Panda.
"That brings up the question--what happens? Are these mice maintaining their muscle mass which might have been lost with free feeding, or are they gaining muscle mass?"
A second study found that sticking to a Mediterranean diet can protect the DNA from ageing.
Researchers at Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in the US found that a diet high in olive oil, fresh fruit and vegetables and nuts, was associated with longer telomeres.
Telomeres are the protective caps which sit at the end of chromosomes and prevent damage to the DNA, much like the plastic caps on the end of shoelaces.
Previous studies have shown that short telomeres are associated with disease and advanced ageing.
"To our knowledge this is the largest population-based study specifically addressing the association between Mediterranean diet adherence and telomere length in healthy, middle-aged women," explained Immaculata De Vivo, PhD, MPH, an associate professor in the Channing Division of Network Medicine at BWH and Harvard School of Public Health and senior author of this study.
"Our results further support the benefits of adherence to this diet to promote health and longevity."
Dr Mike Knapton, Associate Medical Director at the British Heart Foundation, said: “This large study adds to the body of evidence that longer telomeres are found in those who eat a Mediterranean diet.
“Longer telomeres may partially explain the link between diet and risk of cardiovascular disease.
“Previous findings from the same study had shown that those with unhealthy lifestyles had shorter telomeres.
“These results reinforce our advice that eating a balanced and healthy diet can reduce your risk of developing heart disease.”
The study was published in the British Medical Journal.”
29
Replies
-
3
-
Thank You!3
-
I know what everyone else is going to tell you, but I'll tell you my experience. I have never eaten before 9am and never after 9pm. From 2005 to 2016, I gained 70#. So for me, fasting for 12 hours alone has never helped me.25
-
I know what everyone else is going to tell you, but I'll tell you my experience. I have never eaten before 9am and never after 9pm. From 2005 to 2016, I gained 70#. So for me, fasting for 12 hours alone has never helped me.
I think it might be good in other aspects, but not weight-loss... for me.2 -
I'd honestly say most people have a daily 12-hour fast due to sleeping.
There are a few types of intermittent fasting, but I really wouldn't call 12:12 one of them. Popular ones are:
- 16:8 (8-hour feeding window, 16 hours of fasting)
- 23:1 (also known as One Meal a Day or the Warrior Diet, 1 hour feeding window)
- ADF (Alternate Day fasting, 1 day fasting, 1 day eating, repeat)
- 5:2 (2 days of fasting on 500 or fewer calories, maintenance on the remaining 5 days)
Studies seem conflicting on the effects of IF on weight loss.
Give this a read for a good overview: https://examine.com/nutrition/the-low-down-on-intermittent-fasting/27 -
I know what everyone else is going to tell you, but I'll tell you my experience. I have never eaten before 9am and never after 9pm. From 2005 to 2016, I gained 70#. So for me, fasting for 12 hours alone has never helped me.
I think it might be good in other aspects, but not weight-loss... for me.
Hi Lee —- What has worked for you?
0 -
The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.9 -
I'd honestly say most people have a daily 12-hour fast due to sleeping.
There are a few types of intermittent fasting, but I really wouldn't call 12:12 one of them. Popular ones are:
- 16:8 (8-hour feeding window, 16 hours of fasting)
- 23:1 (also known as One Meal a Day or the Warrior Diet, 1 hour feeding window)
- ADF (Alternate Day fasting, 1 day fasting, 1 day eating, repeat)
- 5:2 (2 days of fasting on 500 or fewer calories, maintenance on the remaining 5 days)
Studies seem conflicting on the effects of IF on weight loss.
Give this a read for a good overview: https://examine.com/nutrition/the-low-down-on-intermittent-fasting/
Very interesting! Thanks Toxi.
1 -
I'd honestly say most people have a daily 12-hour fast due to sleeping.
There are a few types of intermittent fasting, but I really wouldn't call 12:12 one of them. Popular ones are:
- 16:8 (8-hour feeding window, 16 hours of fasting)
- 23:1 (also known as One Meal a Day or the Warrior Diet, 1 hour feeding window)
- ADF (Alternate Day fasting, 1 day fasting, 1 day eating, repeat)
- 5:2 (2 days of fasting on 500 or fewer calories, maintenance on the remaining 5 days)
Studies seem conflicting on the effects of IF on weight loss.
Give this a read for a good overview: https://examine.com/nutrition/the-low-down-on-intermittent-fasting/
Very interesting! Thanks Toxi.
No problem! I have been skipping breakfast for years so I can enjoy a larger lunch and dinner. I just drink tea in the morning and don't start feeling hungry until noon.
It's a nice option for me. 5 -
tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Just like us ... none of this works without exercise!9 -
tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Just like us ... none of this works without exercise!
it totally works without exercise27 -
Please don't cross-post. Post a question once and wait for the responses. That said, I'll say it again...
The first line is the problem.Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
At the very least, it's missing context that can lead to misinterpretation. At the worst, it's flat out wrong.
To manage your weight, your calorie intake needs to be appropraite - too much and you'll gain, too little and you'll lose. Whether or not you need to count calories varies with the person... but ultimately it's about intake, not about timing.
To be clear...
Timing can be a tool to help manage overall intake, but overall intake is the determining factor, not the timing.[/quote]
12 -
You can squeeze a lot of food into that 12 hr window, especially considering that you’re asleep most of that “fasting” window. The hours 8 am to 8 pm are the hours I have eaten for years and here I am 50+ lbs overweight. I wouldn’t consider that true fasting.7
-
Please don't cross-post. Post a question once and wait for the responses. That said, I'll say it again...
The first line is the problem.Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
At the very least, it's missing context that can lead to misinterpretation. At the worst, it's flat out wrong.
To manage your weight, your calorie intake needs to be appropraite - too much and you'll gain, too little and you'll lose. Whether or not you need to count calories varies with the person... but ultimately it's about intake, not about timing.
To be clear...
Timing can be a tool to help manage overall intake, but overall intake is the determining factor, not the timing.
[/quote]
My first time posting here Mr. Community Monitor. Thanks for the notifying me of the rule.20 -
MoveitlikeManda wrote: »tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Just like us ... none of this works without exercise!
it totally works without exercise
Besides just intaking less calories...how so?1 -
MoveitlikeManda wrote: »tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Just like us ... none of this works without exercise!
it totally works without exercise
Besides just intaking less calories...how so?
That's all there is to it! Bedridden people can certainly lose weight by consuming a calorie deficit.9 -
MoveitlikeManda wrote: »tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Just like us ... none of this works without exercise!
it totally works without exercise
Besides just intaking less calories...how so?
Basic CICO
Calories consumed > Calories burned = weight gain.
Calories consumed < Calories burned = weight loss.
eta: this is a stickied link at the beginning of the forums.
http://fit101.org/the-step-by-step-guide-to-losing-weight-with-myfitnesspal/
3 -
12 hours0
-
12 hours is not a fast!!9
-
MoveitlikeManda wrote: »tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Just like us ... none of this works without exercise!
it totally works without exercise
Besides just intaking less calories...how so?
weight loss is about how much you eat, you dont have to do any exercise at to lose weight
if I was lay in my bed all day doing nothing more than nipping to the toile when I need a wee I would still lose weight by calorie counting and eating at a deficit.
IF is not a diet, its a way of eating that suits some people, it can help by having a shorter eating window but it means NOTHINGS if you are just scoffing in that time, you still need the right amount of calories3 -
This is another one of those post hoc ergo procter hoc things isn't it. Just because someone loses weight while eating at a certain hours-per-day ratio, doesn't mean they lost weight *because* they 'fasted'.
Now, certainly, having a certain 'window' of eating each day may help some regulate their calorie intake, but that doesn't mean it's the fasting itself causing the weight loss, it's the regulation of the caloric intake. And these kinds of 'fasting' regimens certainly do not work for all of us. For me: I have breakfast early, usually exercise in the morning, have lunch about 6 hours after breakfast, am active during the afternoon, and consume most of my calories at night because I'm hella hungry by then. My eating window can be all of the 16 hours I'm up.8 -
Don't most people fast for 12 hours or so? I eat dinner around 8:30 in the evening...I don't eat breakfast until around 8:30/9 in the morning. Doesn't really seem like a "fast" to me...I'm still eating breakfast, lunch, snacks, dinner, etc and could most certainly and have most certainly gained, lost, and maintained weight eating this way.
I used to do 16:8, but I didn't know that was an actual thing...just never ate until the lunch hour...actually ate that way most of my adult life and got fat doing it as well.
IF is an eating protocol...it doesn't default to a weight loss deficit.4 -
Thoughts? Anyone Doing This Already?
“Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
I stopped reading at that point. It's not possible to lose weight without restricting calories. Period. Unless of course you have some sort of medical condition causing the weight loss.
Anyone doing IF will tell you the same thing, eat more calories than you burn and you're going to gain weight. IF is a way of eating not a way of losing weight. However, used in conjunction with calorie restriction it is supposed to aid in fat loss. I'm in my 2nd month of doing it at maintenance level of calories and have seen no loss or gain. Whether or not it's helped overall fat loss is impossible to tell at this point. Takes more time than that. Just like any fad diet, if you eat more than you burn, you gain. If you eat less than you burn, you lose. It's that simple.
3 -
No matter what you do to lose weight you have to be keeping your calories at a deficit whether that is from restricting calories, burning enough to keep your calories at a deficit or a combination of both (no, you don't HAVE to exercise to lose weight). I do IF, but I wouldn't consider 12:12 fasting since most people are asleep for those 7-8 hours out of the 12. I think 16:8 is pretty common. Personally, I do 18:6 most of the time because I enjoy having bigger meals, but I could certainly over eat and gain weight in a 6 hour feeding window because all it takes is consuming more calories than I need to maintain. I still count calories every day.5
-
Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/12 -
catherineg3 wrote: »Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/
Yeah, well I did 16:8 for much of my life...didn't know it was a thing, but I never ate anything until lunch around 12:30 or 1 PM, snacks, and dinner around 8:30 PM....gained about 40-50 Lbs doing that because I was over consuming calories...ie not restricting my calorie intake.
IF is a feeding protocol...it doesn't default to a calorie deficit to lose weight. People lose weight, gain weight, and maintain weight doing IF.7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Don't most people fast for 12 hours or so?
Seriously! I mean, I actually don't, I eat at 6, noon, and around 9 most days, but I have and it didn't matter. It's far easier for me to eat lots of food eating between 12 and, say, 9 (a nine hour window) than just eating three meals spaced so I can eat breakfast and dinner at home.
Calling a break of 12 hours without eating a fast seems super weird to me.
When I was younger and didn't like having breakfast I'd normally eat only between around noon or 1 and dinner (which was often earlier than it is now, since I'd often get dinner at work).4 -
-
Intermittent fasting is a means to help with satiety and adherence. For some people it works well; for others it sucks. It's very trendy and all the fad right now, but there's no magic beyond the satiety/adherence aspects. Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss - stick to your calorie goal and eat in a pattern that works best for you in terms of overall satisfaction and workout performance. Everything else is majoring in the minors.
You lose weight via a caloric deficit, not when or how often you eat.2 -
I've been experimenting with 16:8 fasting (eat for an 8 hour window) since New Years. For me it's been more of a discipline thing. I'm bad with making promises I don't keep so sticking with a "I can only eat between 4pm–12am" is a challenge that I'm trying to uphold, to better myself for other life challenges not even related to weight loss. Kind of a daily Lent. I'm under no illusion that I'll lose more weight this way (and honestly, I naturally tend to bulk-eat in the evening anyway so this isn't too far out of my league ) but it's really helped in training my mind that I can actually set rules for myself and follow them. Important thing is, I'm eating the calories allotted to me that day. When you eat them makes no difference.
So, from my anecdotal evidence, fasting hasn't done diddly in how I'm losing weight, how my energy is, etc. I'm using it as a mental disciplinary device, and honestly it's helping me in that regard. And really, I think that's really how it should be used. Heck, the many religions that have fasting days aren't doing it because God is their Weight Watchers coach.
~VL4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions